toxdoc42

I draw as well as paint, sculpt and, of course shoot photos. I recently got into a discussion of drawing technique. The artist I spoke with believes in drawing from inside out, from skeleton out, while I have been taught to draw gesture first then fill in the blanks. To share out techniques, we both made a drawing from an index photo. Her response was that there was something strange because the model's height was only 6 head lengths, not the standard 8. I then researched the topic and found it very interesting, the ancients like the 8 number, DaVinvi used it in his Vitruvian man, but why the difference in our index image? There is an interesting article published in JAMA on the subject using scans of real humans, cadets though, and the head is about 14% of the height. So here are the index image, the anatomic image with grid and the JAMA article is 2342 JAMA June 9, 2020 Volume 323, Number 22 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3501)

I would be interested in discussion and other measurements of index images. We used the same model, albeit at different ages.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Let me start by saying I feel the original post is made in bad taste and excuse to post a nude figure in the general section as there is nude section made specifically for this kind of posts. This personal point of view is made stronger by the point that, being an artist as you say you are, a sketch can fully realize the thoughts better if not a person in underwear.

That aside, I believe there are as many ways to draw as there are people on the earth. Skeleton to outside can be just as good as drawing the gestures first and vice versa.

A good artist knows that proportions are just guides and not infallible. Age, deformities, dwarfism, etc can all change the proportions of a figure.

The 8 count is an idealist proportion, the general human proportion is closer to 7.5.

Again will repeat, I feel the OP is made in bad taste. But that's just my own thoughts, me speaking out loud.
The below figures can show the thought as well.

(body not my drawing, grabbed from the net)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Dang Frank, I wish I could 'unsee' that...

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Wallen and Puritanical religion strikes again: "Let me start by saying I feel the original post is made in bad taste and excuse to post a nude figure in the general section as there is nude section made specifically for this kind of posts. " Yep, JAMA, Journal of American Medical Association, is well known as a porn magazine, but not as much as National Geographic, where as a youth, I first saw breasts of a nude woman and on page 2 shrgged my shoulders... really "poor taste" ?? Well, I suppose, but the administrators could have moved it. No wonder the British exiled the Puritans!! Question, was it especially disturbing to Wallen and Architect1776 because it was a male?

So, perhaps the post belongs in the Attic section, Conservatives vs Liberals... Childish vs Adult... hum !

When in grad school as a Chemist, I was invited because of my art knowledge, to attend a [nude] figure drawing class. As a young man, I quickly saw the women models as a structure not as a sex object. I confess that "figure drawing" charcoal sketches were more interesting than India-ink/Bowpen mechanical drawing classes I took in my freshman year of college. About as useful as Latin.. yuck.

I taught a class in Polymer-Clay sculpting. Proportions, in the sculpting of the upper body/with the head, the proportions of the face are designed as tho by a golden-rule-aware engineer with the rule of 1/3.

Lenses and distance distort proportions.
https://photographylife.com/does-focal-length-distort-subjects

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Sex of the model irrelevant.
It was just stupid and the grid ones really stupid and difficult to understand what their purpose was.
In fact the whole post seemed odd, especially for a photography discussion. We generally don't change the model's dimensions but record as is as far as I know.
Have all the naked bodies you want of any sex, I don't care, but make the post relevant to photography and coherent. Which this is not.
And finally you have no idea of other's sensibilities, particularly mine.

toxdoc42

So sorry, it was intended to be posted in the nude section.

The grid lines were included to allow easier measurements.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

If it subject was about human proportions, distortions, etc. then why couldn't the OP have used a manakin, a model in a body suit or swimsuit. Wallen's examples were far more comprehendible than the example of the individual with numerous grid lines posted by the OP...

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

Personally, I don’t see anything to apologize for. You posted a thoughtful question with data, facts and evidence for your question. I do not think you deserve a diatribe for this. This is an adult site, I think and there was nothing pornographic about your post. I can understand why some did not like the post, they do not have to look at it if they knew in advance. Maybe a warning in the opening sentence warning people of nudity would have eliminated criticism by providing a choice to view or not, however, it probably would have increased the number of viewers.

Whether it belongs in a different section, different site is debatable, however, I think this site is for both technical and artistic endeavors and unless there is an obvious breach of reasonableness with sensationalistic posts with mal-intent, I would like all to feel comfortable bringing to the group serious questions for commentary and discussion. That’s how we learn.

Did you post this to any other drawing sites and if so, what was their response? Constructive?

toxdoc42

I screwed up posting here, my apologies. If you read DaVinci, he stated that the geometric center of a man's body is at the "root of the penis." How would anyone see that in a clothed model?

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

I will agree that the grid is not useful, the lines are way too heavy...

Architect 1776's statement... "And finally you have no idea of other's sensibilities**, particularly mine." I find it interesting, and perhaps revealing of closeted feelings. I am aware of Other's "sensibilities" or better stated sensitivities. Living for many years, well-read, and well-educated in psychology I am aware. But there are many ... too many forms of phobias... and 40% of our voters are cult followers having a phobia attracting them to identify with the conservative cult.***
** Sensibility: ability to appreciate and respond to complex emotional or aesthetic influences; sensitivity.
*** https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

"Plato's belief that there are two distinct types of mind: a mind for thinking and reasoning and a mind for emotions and passions. What's surprising is how easily we switch between these different mental capacities. All it takes is a peek of skin before a thinker morphs into a feeler." "Gymnophobia is the Fear of Nudity and is often connected with childhood experiences, perhaps around bath time or other such events such as getting changed in the school changing rooms."
https://www.wolverhamptonhypnotherapy.co.uk/phobias/gymnophobia.html

Ever wonder why in the "nude" section of UHH that it is women who without shame display proudly their bodies and there are no males on display?

I agree that the post is not well done or could be better explained, but to say it is "in bad taste" would condemn David by Michelangelo. If ToxDoc42 had used David would the reaction have been the same? The proportions of various parts of the anatomy are interesting. I have often joked that the arm close to the body, and the forearm bent with the index finger extended is just so for picking the nose... an open nose is a survival necessity.

Those who have "particular sensitivities" or are excited or guilty of feelings can check out nude David. David is a nude religious sculpture ~! "David was originally commissioned as one of a series of statues of prophets to be positioned along the roofline of the east end of Florence Cathedral (Duomo di Firenze)":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Michelangelo%29

"At this point, I will discontinue my input because the subject belongs in the Attic not in the general photo section."

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Puritan ha ha, I was born and grew up a Christian turned an agnostic but I'd readilly take that as a complement

Kidding aside, nah, it does not matter to me the figure be male female or anything in between the alphabet if one wants to be politically correct

I've stated my reasons which you have not understood, so maybe I need to state them again:
The reason why I said the post as made in bad taste or questionable intent.
1. There is a place for nude in UHH, and its not the main topic section.
2. There are other ways to present the issue which would not resort to posting a nude figure.

Thats it. No more no less.
But The OP already stated that it was a mistake on his part. He owned up.
Well we all make mistakes and I forgive him for that and take back what i also said as for me,
it would not matter anyways if it was posted where it should be.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

"Closeted"? You coming out?
Looks like it your defense of the post.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth