>touted by art instructors as the greatest, most thorough, and most accurate anatomy book ever written>nobody on /ic/ uses itwhy?
because 40% of the "artists" here are just 19 year old porn addicts, 30% don't believe that anything is worth learning besides anime pixiv tutorial infographics, 10% art legitimately schizophrenic or autistic, 10% are attention whore shitposters, 5% already know about resources like this, and the other 5% already know their shit and just come here to flex as revenge for the years of mental damage caused by the other 95%
>10% art legitimately schizophrenic or autisticReporting. I suggest exercising nude (or in your undies) in a room full of mirrors (or two). Why you think you would ever need anything but your body and some mirrors to master anatomy, I do not know.
>>7158699>touted by art instructors as the greatest, most thorough, and most accurate anatomy book ever writtenwhich instructors?
>>7158711no, you're the 10% of attention whore shitposters I guarantee it. The schizos are like pixelschizo who just mindlessly spam nonsense, the attention whores are Cris and Fred who know they arent but pretend to be because their life revolves around getting attention from the internet.
>>7158707You mean 4chan is a cesspool with next to no redeeming qualities, whose primary function is drama engagement and time wasting like every other media platform, just wrapped up in a false veneer of political incorrectness to draw in the gullible?Incredible. My eyes open.
>>7158717oh ok
>>7158718noooo child, don't you understand? only the most HARDCORE artists come to 4chan, literally everywhere else is useless and completely ignorant as to how to draw a cube because they don't say NIGGER and masturbate to gay chinese cartoons of girls with penises
>>7158699There are plenty of great art books out there, why whinge because the one you like is touted less?
>>7158711>room full of mirrorsThat's how you end up haunting your house with demons.
>>7158699dont care didn't ask plus Anatomy For Sculptors won
Yes, Artistic Anatomy, yesss. Anatomy for sculptors yesss.Pay no mind to the Atlas of Human Anatomy for the Artist, no no, don't even look into it. You have the best books, surely.
>>7158699hehe tooted
>>715869990% of deep anatomy knowledge is useless in practice thats why
>>7158699doesn't draw>>7158776draw
>>7158776in the introduction, Richer writes that he only talks about the muscles that matters for the artist.maybe art standards are just lower today?
>>7158793>muh pinky finger muscleliterally no one cares
>>7158727> we're the real elite
>>7158699the book cover is shit: bunch of tiny letters nobody will read on lame red color. compare it to the classics:>cool spooky skeletons>modern tryhard CGI renders>BBC anatomy>weebs take on anatomy>anatomy for coomers>overblown anatomy for gaysAll in all, that red book is doing everything it can to be as unappealing as possible
>>7159088Holy based books
>>7159088I wonder what Richer would've thought about publishers putting a lewd, coomer cover on his female anatomy book. Back then, they didn't even let women and men into the same life drawing classes, for propriety's sake
>>7158707everyone here is autistic even you even me. stop denying your truth
>>7159184>Back then, they didn't even let women and men into the same life drawing classes, for propriety's sakeTangential, but there are good reasons to keep males and females separated:women mature way faster than men, and hence at the same age will respond differently to the same kind of teaching.Furthermore, young men tend to be aggressive, and may respond better if the teacher is a buffed chad who can slap them right in their face when they play dumb too much. But they'll break the mind of a fragile white chick.That's why in the past you had 20ish or even 25ish men marrying 15ish girls: they were basically at the same level of maturity, the men usually had a stable source of income, the girl was ready to get a child, and probably still strong psychologically to go through pregnancy.Now you've got 40 years old women with no kids, 40 years old men playing with toys, both of them playing with their respective crotches, and being miserable all day.Ah, le sweet taste of progress ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>7159455I wonder how many life drawing classes devolved into orgies before they realized they had to separate the genders
>>7159458>I wonder how many life drawing classes devolved into orgies before they realized they had to separate the gendersThat's a funny thing to say I guess, but unfortunately, of no historical relevance
>>7159236True
>>7158717Am i schizo yet?>>7158707This.
I do, though. You don’t know me.
>>7158699>toutedmeans>marketedand we bought it! Can you say "you're welcome Watson-Guptill books"?Art instructors don't critique their own sources.There's a history of America's art schools and art literature and a lot to say about what I'll call the 'for artists" bubble.This is a poorly written book, that's why so many people on /ic/ have the sense to ignore it in spite of>>7158707being all those things.It begins with "science has nothing to teach the artist concerning...a surface."This is someone born in a time that knows very little about what science has to teach. He knows even less about learning. I'm not blaming him, and I think it's important to acknowledge naiveté or "ignorance" or "incomplete knowledge" when you see it.There are no mentions of "surgical anatomy" which actually deals a lot with "lines" and "surfaces" because scalpels and pencils both have "points". Does no one remember Loomis describing drawing as a surgical operation in his figure drawing book?There are no dedicated sections for: fascia, the lymphatic system, organs, biomechanics.There's no anthropometry or cephalometry sections but there is "morphology" and "the skull."Hale's book is good for:>a) lots of new words to add to your anatomical lexicon and>b) the occasional glimpse of a measuring system>c) exposure, introspectionAny book will do these things for you.His lines have a beginning and an end and are "constructional" and systematic in nature. Very similar to Loomis, Bridgman, Reilly, Da Vinci, Albertiand all the other favorite corpses that art instruction depends on just to tell you how to take measurements while you work.The plates are "medical illustrations" and are instructive, as is every other >illustrated anatomy atlasHale focuses on "surface anatomy." You can google it or scour the text for its dated equivalent terminologies.Hale is a better lecturer. If you want Hale's value as a teacher, watch his lectures, perhaps at 2x speed.
back in college (not art-specific) i worked through pretty much the whole book for my life drawing class in rl, the process then had no online associations. was completely local and only my prof ever saw my homework, but i had fun. >forgot the lions’ share though, since i haven’t deep dived on human anatomy in ages.it was a cool book
>>7160507>organswhy would you need the lymphatic system and organs to do figure drawing?
>>7160507Do you have any idea how retarded you sound?
>>7160507>This is a poorly written book, that's why so many people on /ic/ have the sense to ignore it in spite ofYou had me have a look at it again. The (original, not the one edited by Hale) book is just a long series of plates, starting from major bones, going to major muscles groups, and showing how things bump on the surface, in that order.What else would you want from an artistic-anatomy book intended for fine-artists (published in 1890)?The Russians recently edited a pocket reference anatomy book, for when you're in the classroom, in front of a model. It basically contains the same information, presented differently, and augmented with various pictures of sculptures and paintings.Of course, if you want simplified anatomy, for comic and manga, now that's a different beast. That's not what Richer was aiming at though.
>>7160507If you want people to use the book, give it an audiobook form. If you use it yourself, read it out loud. Then maybe the verbal descriptions will stick even a tiny bit.>>7160527>why...need...You don't. That's also why I wrote my post: you don't need anatomy for figure drawing, period.Anatomy is a mnemonic device that helps with figure drawing.This book is bad because offers very little in the way of encoding the information. You have to have a system for that before you start reading if you wanna fuck yourself with the text which MOST of the book happens to be.>lymphaticsHale wants to rant about synovial fluid. Fine. He better fucking rant about the SLS and the connection between physiological changes and "expression."The opening could've also been called "embryology." Hale has a "first principles" approach to anatomy. He has a lot to say about morphology, why would you not start from the very beginning? He probably didn't know about Ernst Haeckel or Lennart Nilsson.>organs>character looks like she has no organsThat was a fun comment I read to begin that inquiry. I also took at face value because I think we choose words that describe our experience.It was reasonable to leave that information out of an illustrated surface anatomy atlas written for 1971. I hope it doesn't sound like I'm talking about what people need to learn for figure drawing.A problem with these book recommendations is the "you need to."It's disappointing how this is reinforced by the "youtube art instructor" with the "every artist must read" lists.This book "was" accurate and thorough by yesterday's standards and now it is inaccurate and incomplete by today's standards. The information becomes "common" afterward.The book is "accurate" because Hale is a precise thinker and uses a lot of data to make his points. The data also has a clear selection for "surface anatomy" because that's the only thing that Hale thinks is important regarding artistic anatomy.
>>7160716>you don't need anatomy for figure drawing, period.Strictly speaking, yes. Practically speaking, it depends on the circumstances, and what you try to achieve.> with the text which MOST of the book happens to be.There seems to be two online versions of the book: one of them is just plates one after the other. But there's indeed a more verbose one, but it still contains about 100 consecutive pages of plates (out of c. 250).>A problem with these book recommendations is the "you need to."Agreed. But saying anatomy isn't needed is as problematic: explaining *why* and *when* is crucial. Some elements are presented in the opening of the book.> This book "was" accurate and thorough by yesterday's standards and now it is inaccurate and incomplete by today's standards.I'm pretty sure that for most intent and purposes, it's complete enough. If your needs start to get beefy, you want multiple books. Like inner-working of the facial expression, Zaris made a dedicated book on the topic. And he has a second one just on the volumes of the face and neck.> The book is "accurate" because Hale is a precise thinker and uses a lot of data to make his pointsHale merely translated the book. It was written by Richer, which was a doctor specialized in anatomy, teaching to both medicine students and artists at top French schools at his time.The guy has solid credentials.
>>7158699I will now buy this. Thanks anon.
>>7160593Particularly when he talks about embryology, I don't see a reason not to include something like pic related. I would want more pictures at the front and for any text not related to the pictures to be omitted.Also: more diagrams showing step-wise construction. I understand that the plates at the end "already do that" and I also think it's a disservice to everyone that still wants to see how you drew the owl.It's probably personal preference; I would condense everything Hale has to say about Math vs. Science and "the layman" and "the beginner" into separate chapters. It's annoying bumping into at random: throw it all together in an "opinions" section."Less is more," please exhibit more pictures and photographs>what else would you wantNew books. Stop recommending the old books. Rewrite it for the students asking for books. That's literally what Hale did: he pulled from all that old literature and wrote a new book. Pocket books sound great.>same information>augmented with pictures>designed for being in the classroom>>7160589Do you have any idea how it sounds when that's the limit of your criticism??What's "retarded" about what I have to say, anon?
>>7160773It's not problematic anon.Anatomy is a word to describe a field of study.No one needs that word or a conscious awareness that "this is anatomy" to draw the figure.If this were true, there'd be no drawings of any living creature prior to a formal establishment of "anatomy."Anatomy as artists learn it is a mnemonic device(as is most of science). Ecorche drawing is your "light on a sphere" exercise when learning to shade, but for learning to figure drawing.There's your "why and when.">you want multiple booksAnon, books appear to be very important to you.They're important to me too. That's what makes me scrutinize them: I don't want to keep a book in my library if it's full of outdated language and concepts that don't match the more complete picture that's developed since Richer's time.>merely translatedI don't think you can "merely" translate anything but I accept that I was wrong. The text reads to me like a translation mixed with personal commentary and it was presumptuous for me to say "Hale" when I meant "Richer." Now they can both be equally worth scrutinizingThe guy does have credentials. Do you forego all scrutiny just because people have credentials? It's fascinating because I think as a doctor practicing today, I think Richer would agree the information is "incomplete." "Bad." "Not good enough." "Could be better."Crappy. Not worth reading over "just google it" and it would deserve a "rewrite.">nobody on /ic/ uses itFor very good reasons.
>>7160892by any chance, are you Steve Huston?
>>7160892Oh yes, in the last century, humans have become a completely different species, rendering old anatomy books completely useless.
>>7161001I know you think that's clever, anon.You've conflated "poorly written" and "nobody on /ic/ uses it" and assumed somewhere I must have said "useless" and that "this anon is stupid" or some other impotent reduction of what I actually shared. I was quoting and responding to OP, maybe you didn't read his post. Maybe you're OP and you don't listen to yourself when you write.Some things have completely changed, anon, particularly the study of anatomy, access to education, and accessibility of information. The "job market" and "what is an artist?" species has been challenged and made to change a lot in the past 100 years. Did you completely ignore everything Loomis had to say about advertising? Everything from animators? Have you ever tuned in to the literature on learning?You only wrote your first comment because you didn't like it when I said>people on /ic/ have the sense to ignore a crappy bookYou also hated it when I said:>you don't need anatomy for figure drawing, period.You don't see the value of learning for yourself what "anatomy" is actually good for.You don't appear to understand the price of "appealing to authority." You wrote all this to say "agreed, but I don't like what you're saying."That's probably what makes you ignore half of what I write while your mind attacks some imaginary "problematic" "argument" that I haven't constructed. Nowhere do I suggest anatomy is "existentially obsolete" and I make it clear that figure drawing "benefits" from the present traditions of artistic anatomy. Did you read Burne Hogarth? His passage on Vesalius is where most of what I've said is lifted from.One of the things that you get for every iteration of "French school" is that the instruction is designed to meet the needs of the student. You also see a lot of art schools closewhen that connection is lost.Some of the books we recommend are becoming more art history than art.That's okay: recommend it for history class, not anatomy.
>>7160835>Particularly when he talks about embryology, I don't see a reason not to include something like pic related.It's an artistic anatomy book. It's fine to give additional bits of knowledge to satisfy the reader's curiosity, but the goal isn't to be exhaustive on *medical* anatomy.If that's what you want to study, pick medical books instead.>Also: more diagrams showing step-wise constructionI think your appreciation of *artistic* anatomy isn't rooted in practice. The main goal of those books is to provide you with a map allowing you to read and better observe superficial anatomy, not to teach you how to draw people, not to teach you how the human body works.Richer's is alright in this regard.>>7160892> Anatomy as artists learn it is a mnemonic device(as is most of science).No, or at least, not just that. Richer for example explains how anatomical knowledge can guide your eyes and help you see better, because some of those superficial bumps are subtle, and easily missed by a beginner's untrained eyes. That's a day 1 observational drawing issue, literally.There are other benefits.>It's not problematic anon.The problem is, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about: you don't understand the benefits of studying artistic anatomy, you then wrongfully assume there are none, despite seeing people more experienced that you (all past fine-art academies) telling you there are.>The guy does have credentials. Do you forego all scrutiny just because people have credentials?That's a strawman: there's an obvious middle-ground. If field experts tell you something, show some humility, and try to understand if you're not missing something, instead of assuming you know better than people with decades of experience, built over multiple generations. *Then* bite them if relevant.>I think Richer would agree the information is "incomplete."Probably, but out of perfectionism, not pragmatism.
>>7161146>You don't see the value of learning for yourself what "anatomy" is actually good for.>You don't appear to understand the price of "appealing to authority."I wasn't >>7161001.Again, I think *you* lack practical understanding of the benefits of studying *artistic* anatomy. I despise appeal to authority as much as blind arrogance towards authority.Anyway, last message for me ITT, my point should be clear enough for any well-intended reader.
>>7159455ugh, you're the reason we choose the bear
>>7161844If you prefer a bear to raise your kids over a rational man with cultural roots, fine by me: I wouldn't want a woman with that attitude near my kids either.You probably completely misunderstood my point. I encourage you to think about it. That can only be useful, and might even help you make better life decisions.
>>7161265I do know what I'm talking about anon.You're writing to devalue what I have to say "point by point" and you have few talking points yourselfso you look for counters to mine, put words in my mouth, and pretend as if you're making a case for something.I'm devaluing what you're saying because:a) it's not a hard game to playb) you don't know what you're talking aboutc) I can say that because your words are being formed in reaction to mine and I know what I mean when I speak and I know reactions are incapable of "understanding."You think I'm arrogant anon.You think I don't know what I'm talking about.You think this conversation is about being right or wrong.You think, think, think,like you're Jimmy Neutronwithout the brain blast.You overvalue explicit information, anon. I think that's part of the reason you feel the need to fight word battles on a webpage.I regret that you don't acknowledge the broader connections between fine art academiesto every other school that exists todayand you don't have enough respect for authors to criticize themand you probably don't even know the value of "judgement" wrt those "learning benefits" you're interested in.Lots of people probably find you agreeable. You rarely have arguments with others and give them the benefit of the doubt.You probably do not have doubts about your own lack of doubt during an agreement.You're probably the kind of artist that offers some of the least valuable feedback on a picture because you can't decide between "being blunt" or "being nice" you don't know how to just "point" when you speak.You like to say "no" and "yes" a lot.Your points are very clear anon. All those well-intended readers you think about,you thinking about how you sound.Congratulations.
>>7162145Lots of words to NOT address the core of the issue. Who do you think will be convinced by those pitiful ad-hominem attacks.You seem to be extremely confused, and subjected to a high amount of projection. I'm sorry, this is simply too ridiculous for me to even go further.Take a good look at yourself. The sooner the better.
>>7162445They're not ad-hominems, anon. They're my personal insults directed toward you.It's called "bitter medicine," and I'm sorry it doesn't taste good going down.Taking a step back to see the limitations of artistic literature is not easyand I'm not blaming you for being outraged or confused by what I've said.I'm sorry for condescending to you and telling you I know better than you.I'm probably older and have more industry experience than most of the people that make time for this board. I forget sometimes that some people aren't ready for what I have to teach.Again: the literature prior to 2000 is awful and borderline obsolete compared to its successors. These resources will spend less time barraging you with information that's been commonplace since the time of these books' respective authors.Many good videos have gone "viral" for their immaculate ability to more-or-less sum up the only real substance within the textbook counterparts.These videos are far from perfect. They still make the mistake of not building on what's been written despite the humble request of every author in their final chapters and failing to capture other messages from people like Loomis and Bridgman beyond "how to draw."
>>7163158I judge video art instruction over the past 10 years for not having the needs of normal people that want to draw in their hearts.The landscape is becoming treadmill of standard fare "fine art" teaching based on the work of real innovators who have also made the mistake of clinging to tradition with very little "renaissance" in the core of art's academy. It's the same old same old, with just a tiny bit of new.There is an important fault on instructors whose career is being built on the earnings of people who are not being taught skills to realize their dreams and are falling behind more privileged people like myself.If you want mastery of a subject, examine it from all angles.You learn this in any drawing class, and so far you've only been looking at things as an artist anon.That's why you can't talk about art without saying art or some other trendy word.>who do you think will be convincedI don't need to convince anyone anon. My points speak for themselves without me trying to convince others.It's called "take it or leave it."I do have doubts about myself and things I'm ignorant about.What I've shared is not something I have reason to doubt.It's sad to me that you think anything gets done in the world by humbling yourself before people whose knowledge and opinions you value more than your own.>Projection means:"Using my own understanding and attitude towards something and applying it to you."This is called "normal" and I'd appreciate it if you'd get more perspective on what projection "is" and looks like because I can't do that for you. You probably inappropriately judge others the same way you judge me.>core issueI have finished addressing your intolerance toward a difference in viewpoint.Other people can't make you see things their way, you have to work on that yourself, anon.>>7160908I am not but after re-reading my messages I can sort of see the resemblance.What about what I wrote reminded you of him?
>>7158717nigga who in the fuck is fred
