# How much anatomy is really necessary? (Rant Warning)



## Kopatropa (Feb 15, 2018)

Anatomy, one of the many banes of my existence in art. People make such a huge deal about it to the point where even the slightest mistake makes a drawing look absolutely horrendous.

Meanwhile, some actually bring up goddamn skeletal and muscle structures as if art required a ton of science. Unless your an uber-pro or something, I seriously think that's way too much, especially for beginners and the inexperienced.

Paired with anatomy advice is the much overused "Know the rules before you break them." Why should art have rules? That's like saying when a child draws, it's not art. Maybe this applies to professionals, but a hobbyist shouldn't be restricted to drawing a certain way.

And before someone says "It also applies to people who want to improve", not everyone sees improving as a goal.

I dunno if I'm making any sense with this.


----------



## Ginza (Feb 15, 2018)

mehh, I see both sides of this argument. When you have no artistic talent, but many ideas, you may want someone who is talented to do it. You may just have a very specific idea in mind, and want to see it come to life. I get it tbh. However, I personally like seeing an artist's interpretation. If you don't want to be specific, make that clear. It's never expected of anyone. I hate rules in art but they are there to improve. If you don't wish to improve, don't. It's all your choice, every aspect. Just let people know what you are willing to do/not do, and you're golden


----------



## joshine (Feb 15, 2018)

Kopatropa said:


> And before someone says "It also applies to people who want to improve", not everyone sees improving as a goal.



Just curious: why would you not want to improve?


----------



## Kopatropa (Feb 15, 2018)

joshine said:


> Just curious: why would you not want to improve?


I just remember someone saying it before, but I think it might be because some people draw for fun, so they don't really care for improvement.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 15, 2018)

Oh, darn, I thought we would be talking about _anatomy_... *waggles eyebrows*



Kopatropa said:


> Anatomy, one of the many banes of my existence in art. People make such a huge deal about it to the point where even the slightest mistake makes a drawing look absolutely horrendous.
> 
> Meanwhile, some actually bring up goddamn skeletal and muscle structures as if art required a ton of science. Unless your an uber-pro or something, I seriously think that's way too much, especially for beginners and the inexperienced.
> 
> ...



I probably disagree, I think art can be a science and science can be an art. For one of my commissions, I actually did send skeletons and references charts of different things and also got like 6 different sketches and about 12 different modifications... I'm a very picky customer.


----------



## Nartina (Feb 16, 2018)

Even if you draw for fun, why wouldn't you want to improve? That just makes no sense. There are artists out there who stagnate because they don't research anatomy. 

Anatomy is the foundation of all that we do as artists. The people that study it, the people that practice it, improve leaps and bounds farther than the people who just fly by the seat of their pants. Anatomy just makes things look more cohesive, and just in general more appealing to the eye. Of course, if you don't want to improve because you're doing this "just for fun," you can fly by the seat of your pants, but it's sorta pointless. I believe that you should strive to be better than the day before. If you're not trying to improve in something, then why do it? And how many of those that don't don't improve because they don't want to because it's all, "just for fun," eventually end up bitching and moaning because they are getting nowhere? I dunno, seems kinda pointless to me. But then, I'm an artist that wants to eventually do this for a living, so I guess I'm a little more biased in my opinions of this subject.


----------



## MissNook (Feb 16, 2018)

Well as said just above by BahgDaddy, art can be science (just look at Léonard De Vinci approach of it) but it doesn't have to be science.
If you don't wish to improve or if you wanna make your own path, for example more expressionist or abstract, you may not even need any. So you just have to tell the people who give you that advice that you don't need it (well in a nicer way if you don't want them to reply mean things XD)

And if you don't wanna to study anatomy specifically, you can find other ways around: tutorials on specific parts of the body without being anatomy, morphology (which is closed to anatomy but simplified to put forward what you need of anatomy for actual drawing), figure drawings,  projects in which you'll have to use anatomy but with the fun of being a project and so on.

I usually talk about construction lines with beginners and references more than anatomy. Anatomy is in my view something you should look at after a while practicing (not always of course since everyone has its own path). I'm curious , for you, what should be put forward by the criticism for beginners and even after?


----------



## Massan Otter (Feb 16, 2018)

I'd been thinking about this, as I draw just for my own enjoyment.  Recently I posted my first couple of sketches of Massan on my FA page, and immediately got comments about how I hadn't studied otter skeletal structure.  Maybe I'll look at that somewhere down the line, but right now I'm just trying to flesh out the character and I'm not too concerned about anatomical accuracy.  I've done enough scientific, calculated stuff in my career and other hobbies that right now I find it therapeutic to disengage that side of my brain for a while!  
But then I'm not trying to advance myself as a serious artist, and can't imagine ever taking commissions or anything like that.


----------



## KynRen (Feb 16, 2018)

I think I get where you're coming from with this, but I think that anatomy really is important for your art- and improving your art, if that is your goal.
People should be nicer about this though, because not everyone can or wants to get every little detail in that lizard or this cheetah right and are okay with just drawing theiir stuff the way they see them and like them. If the author likes it and if it makes him happy, then why bash such little imperfections?

I've been drawing canines ever since I was like.. 10 years old? And it took me a lot of time to improve, to realize that maybe this bone shouldn't be sticking here and that spine maybe shouldn't be this curved, and the paws- that's an eternal struggle. It takes even more time to actually look into some studies and follow them, to learn how it's all built and draw it all wihtout any reference pictures.

If you, however, don't care about anatomy at all and just draw the way you think it's right- with legs sideways, weird shapes and idk what else, how can you call the result what you want it to be?
I see a otter right above on Massan Otter's pfp, so let's use that as an example- you can clearly see that it's an otter, it has the right proportions and even though it doesn' look unbelievably realistic, it's nice, simple, an otter yeah. it's the authors style.
If the otter had cat's ears and long legs, would that be an otter though?
Not looking into stuff you draw properly is just laziness, and if a more experienced artist gives you an advice to look more into the actual anatomy, then I think no one should feel offened (I'm not saying you were your post is reasonable, just trying to say what I think about it, and that some artists take this as an insult and then rant about how anatomy isn't imortant at all)


----------



## Massan Otter (Feb 16, 2018)

KynRen said:


> If you, however, don't care about anatomy at all and just draw the way you think it's right- with legs sideways, weird shapes and idk what else, how can you call the result what you want it to be?
> I see a otter right above on Massan Otter's pfp, so let's use that as an example- you can clearly see that it's an otter, it has the right proportions and even though it doesn' look unbelievably realistic, it's nice, simple, an otter yeah. it's the authors style.
> If the otter had cat's ears and long legs, would that be an otter though?
> Not looking into stuff you draw properly is just laziness, and if a more experienced artist gives you an advice to look more into the actual anatomy, then I think no one should feel offened (I'm not saying you were your post is reasonable, just trying to say what I think about it, and that some artists take this as an insult and then rant about how anatomy isn't imortant at all)



So far I've been looking at photos of the species and trying to get the general appearance somewhere in the ballpark, rather than working from first principles and considering muscle and bone structures.  I may look further into anatomy given time, but right now I'm just trying to get ideas down and establish some things about the character.  What I wanted to avoid was to hold off from putting out any representation of the character until I'd spent months working on technique - what I'm doing at the moment is certainly imperfect, but it does at least communicate something.


----------



## PlusThirtyOne (Feb 16, 2018)

The problem i see all the time is that "critiquers" are really giving "critique". They're telling you what THEY want to see, not necessarily what the artist hopes to achieve. _True_ critique takes into consideration the artists' goals! Getting critique on a unique or cartoon or otherwise anatomically incorrect style is damn near impossible unless the ones giving critique understand where the artist is going. Unfortunately if your only communication is what you've _drawn_, there's no way for a critiquer to know exactly what you WANT for your art to look like. The other half of not-so-helpful "anatomy" critique is just...selfish. Critics sometimes want the end product to appeal to _their_ tastes, not necessarily what the artist was intending or hoping to render. -At least that's been MY experience. "Anatomy" is also a misnomer and also a catch-all word for "shape". Anatomical correctness need not apply to every illustration or every style. Bug Bunny wouldn't be unique if it weren't for his exaggerated features but -if he wasn't such an established character in everyone's mind- i imagine if Avery where to poll the interwebs for free critique we would have gotten a very different character. Luckily for us, Bugs was a collaborated effort, sketched out by like-minded cartoonists.

With that said, on the other side of the coin, i think a lot of artists (including myself) take offense to some critique because of the same miscommunication above. What i think of "anatomy" and my ideal character are going to very different from yours. The amount of detail i want to draw might be up to your ideal amount. Limb sizes, facial expression, stretching, squashing, even line weight are all a part of what makes a style unique but if those vary too much between drawings, it tends to show as sloppiness or a lack of grasp on character model. Characters should be "on model" regardless of angle, pose, etc. but that isn't always possible in every style. Have you ever seen Stewie Griffin in profile? That's just one example i can think of but some styles are extremely limiting. When some critiquers say "anatomy", they mean "consistent character model". Learning the fundamentals of drawing 3D shapes and rendering are key to drawing believable characters.

Learning and practicing the fundamentals is important regardless of what you're trying to draw! Bettering your 3D shape drawing skills and shading and understanding 3D space may not be all that important if you limit your art to the same samey poses and angles but grasping the fundies will allow you to put those characters into all sorts of other places, even illustrate their place on a background. Yes, ART iS HARD WORK, especially at the beginning!!! -But most artists willing to critique your work for free WANT TO SEE YOU SUCCEED!! "Learn anatomy" isn't always the same as a passive "Gid gud!" but a critic's critique is only as good as the language they choose to give it in.


----------



## Kopatropa (Feb 16, 2018)

PlusThirtyOne said:


> Yes, ART iS HARD WORK, especially at the beginning!!! -But most artists willing to critique your work for free WANT TO SEE YOU SUCCEED!! "Learn anatomy" isn't always the same as a passive "Gid gud!" but a critic's critique is only as good as the language they choose to give it in.


Okay, but how often does a critiquer come out and say they want to see you succeed? Not a lot, and that's why I can't take criticism. Art IS hard, and it's even harder without blatant support. At least, that's how I see it.


----------



## PlusThirtyOne (Feb 16, 2018)

Kopatropa said:


> Art IS hard, and it's even harder without blatant support. At least, that's how I see it.


Agreed. -But you can't expect GOOD critique all the time. At least knowing how to identify bad critique can lessen the blow of whatever offense you take. if you can tell that the critic doesn't care and the critique is bad then it shouldn't have much value. At the same time, if somebody is willing to dispense GOOD critique for free -assuming you can identify it- the chances are high that they see some potential in your work. Furthermore, "practice fundamentals" is good advice 100% of the time, especially from good artists. if they can tell that your model is sloppy, then you need to practice your fundies. Remember, "anatomy" is a (bad) word for "fundamentals". Fundamentals is necessary for ANY art, just like sports!
Do you think that Michael Jordan got so good by just showing up to games and taking half court shots and dunking? NO! He practiced the game -the whooooole game!- multiple times a week. Dribble drills, shooting hoops, even running and staying in shape.

Look, if drawing the same character in the same pose, with the same clothes and the same details in the same colors and same shade, in the same place with the same expression makes you happy, then keep on keepin' on! But if you want to expand your art and render your thoughts on paper _as accurately as you see it in your mind_, then LEARN YOUR GODDAMN FUNDAMENTALS!! ...and yes..."anatomy". if you learn to take the GOOD critique to heart and apply it, you'll be way happier. The trick is to identify the GOOD critique and cast off the BAD critique. _Of course, you should still read it_, but don't take it so seriously.

*PS- if you want GOOD, helpful, softball critique, i will GLADLY give it!*


----------



## TheArchiver (Feb 16, 2018)

This mindset is a surefire way to ensure you never succeed in artistic endeavors .

If you are trying to draw any humanoid figures worth the paper its drawn on, the anatomical basics are integral. If you cannot understand the basic foundation of the body (how muscle groups/bones contract and move when in motion, spacial awareness of the limbs, how they foreshorten in perspective convincingly, how light hits the various contours and planes of the muscles to create seamless form, and so on) you are certain to have weaker, inconsistent, and jarring compositions.

Even with some of the wackiest cartoons there are fundamentals at play which allow the style to be appealing and consistent. Style being the operative word. "Breaking the rules" is the definition of artistic stylization. And it only comes via years of honing fundamentals. It creates a visual library as you build concrete muscle memory that carries over to much of what you will draw in the future.

By all means, shirk anatomy studies if you wish to be an obscure pariah on furry sites. But if you want to succeed, do what artists have been doing for thousands of years and study the basics.

And if you dont want to improve then why even draw as a hobby?


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 16, 2018)

Kopatropa said:


> Meanwhile, some actually bring up goddamn skeletal and muscle structures as if art required a ton of science.



If you're working with personified things then yes, it is a science. Following the Vitruvian ratios will allow you to make most any scaled human or human-like thing not look uncanny and out of place


----------



## TheArchiver (Feb 16, 2018)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> If you're working with personified things then yes, it is a science. Following the Vitruvian ratios will allow you to make most any scaled human or human-like thing not look uncanny and out of place



It is 100% a science, yes. This belief that you don't need to visually understand *the world you live in *to be able to create anything is actually nothing short of astonishing. It would be like trying to create a video game, but not understanding the engine to make it. You just put in random code and a mish mash of shoddy assets because "I don't need to understand the basics". And you get a game that doesn't work then wonder why. This isn't art. It's life. And the self fulfillment "art shouldn't have rules" is just a toxic, rose tinted deflection of reality.
I've seen so many folks claim to be artists, but complain that they don't need to learn anatomy, composition, color theory, values, whatever. Every excuse in the book from "I don't need it', to "I don't want to draw filthy hoomans", now to an unabashed "I don't want to improve".
All of them would get nowhere financially or socially in the art field and are wasting their time if they truly believe any of this.

I don't mean to gouge out OP's throat, but it's a frustrating thing I see from young artists that I shouldn't. I don't want him to fall into this egregious pitfall when he could be getting such an early start to being a quality content creator.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 17, 2018)

As long as it looks good, who cares?
There's nothing wrong with stylized anatomy. Nothing at all.
I don't give a shit if my art isn't photo-perfect. And most real bodies are ugly anyway, so why bother if going the unrealistic way looks nicer?

Anyone who tries to push you into drawing a way you don't want isn't worth listening to, and doing things your way doesn't make you inferior.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 17, 2018)

"For fun", I will note, does not automatically preclude using references, attempting to adhere to applicable anatomy, or improvement. Drawing this I spent a chunk of time reworking the paws, some of them even after the initial inking, because I wasn't happy with their appearance compared to the real thing.



Kopatropa said:


> Paired with anatomy advice is the much overused "Know the rules before you break them." Why should art have rules? That's like saying when a child draws, it's not art. Maybe this applies to professionals, but a hobbyist shouldn't be restricted to drawing a certain way.


It's metaphorical, not literal, though it's been used enough that at this point I guess it's more idiomatic. If you want to draw visually appealing art, there are some things you should and shouldn't do. If you want to draw representative art, some basic understanding of the underlying structure of the thing you're representing, even if it's stylized, will help you do that and get a result that looks good. When you decide to disregard some aspect of these principles, doing it deliberately for a reason will almost always yield a better, more appealing result than being ignorant of the rule in the first place.



Kopatropa said:


> Meanwhile, some actually bring up goddamn skeletal and muscle structures as if art required a ton of science. Unless your an uber-pro or something, I seriously think that's way too much, especially for beginners and the inexperienced.


Depends a lot on what specific skeletal/muscle structures are referred to, and in what context. One of the people I follow in Tumblrpon does a fair bit of ranting about equine bone structure. She does this in part because people continue to draw basic anatomical features inaccurately, and the simplest way of explaining the joints in a horse's leg to someone really is to talk about the bones. In other cases, this or that bulge or other feature someone drew onto their drawing is something that corresponds to muscle structure but doesn't actually follow how the muscle in question operates - bringing up muscle structure then is entirely appropriate.



PlusThirtyOne said:


> "Anatomy" is also a misnomer and also a catch-all word for "shape". Anatomical correctness need not apply to every illustration or every style. Bug Bunny wouldn't be unique if it weren't for his exaggerated features but -if he wasn't such an established character in everyone's mind- i imagine if Avery where to poll the interwebs for free critique we would have gotten a very different character. Luckily for us, Bugs was a collaborated effort, sketched out by like-minded cartoonists.


I feel this is divorcing anatomy and stylization a little too much. Bugs retains the features that in at least western culture are "symbols" identifying a rabbit, and beyond that has some slightly rubbery human anatomy. We find his movements believeable because they follow what we already know and see every day of human anatomy; he has two knees, two elbows, two shoulders, and so on. Were the animators to suddenly make his knees bend the wrong way or draw his arms as having an extra joint, we'd react. When he and his buddies do break basic rules of anatomy (doing things like turning their head backwards) this is done deliberately and for a specific desired effect. This is typically the kind of context I see anatomy evoked in, and to me that seems entirely appropriate.


----------



## PlusThirtyOne (Feb 17, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I feel this is divorcing anatomy and stylization a little too much.


Agreed.

i was referring more to Bugs' creation as a collaborative effort between like-minded _cartoonists_. if Bugs were designed by a comity of the same vague critics the OP often faces (or bad critics in general), we'd probably have a pretty different character. "His feet are two big.", "His ears are too long.", "Real rabbits don't walk on two legs!", "Learn to draw paws instead giving him gloves!", "His eyeballs wouldn't physically fit in his head!", are just a few of the things that come to mind a bad critiquer might say. They might sound silly NOW because we all know Bugs as an iconic cartoon character in an established style, in an age where cartoons are the norm. if an artist today brought their prototype Happy Rabbit fursona to a community such as ours, surrounded by hyper-realistic, crotch-stuffed, muscle-bound, cross-dressing, Photoshopped, animu, Zootopian, trap-laden furry art, who knows what type of direction they'd get. (keeping in mind, in this parallel universe scenario there is no Looney Tunes) i wager the artist would get a lot of the critique above.
And no, in those older cartoons, there wasn't a lot of anatomical correctness in regards to limb joints and the like. They're cartoons, after all. Cartoons give a lot of creative freedom to the artist and -admittedly- a license to take certain shortcuts; for instance cartoons' white gloves or Hanna-Barberas' penchant for collars and neckties. Admittedly, i don't think i delved as deep as i would've liked in my comparison but it makes a good parallel to the topic an hand; my critique was critiqued by a fellow critic who may or may not have understood the direction i was going with said critique. The difference here being, i understand the miscommunication and am willing to admit fault and clarify. Critique sometimes involves a little back'n'forth sometimes. Also, on a side note, Bugs' knees _don't_ bend the proper way! LOL


----------



## TheArchiver (Feb 17, 2018)

A sensible post.^


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 17, 2018)

PlusThirtyOne said:


> And no, in those older cartoons, there wasn't a lot of anatomical correctness in regards to limb joints and the like. They're cartoons, after all. Cartoons give a lot of creative freedom to the artist and -admittedly- a license to take certain shortcuts; for instance cartoons' white gloves or Hanna-Barberas' penchant for collars and neckties.


I will admit I'm better versed in comics than in animation, but to the best of my knowledge the base principles are very similar. Cartooning isn't about anatomical _correctness_ per se, but does generally depend on solid _underpinnings_ in real (often human) anatomy. The goal is to make the character plausible, and the most reliable way to do that is to have a good idea of what it is you're stylizing the hell out of. When you do something directly violating the underpinnings, it's done deliberately and for a reason. This is all coming from my sequential arts background, but yeah. We'd literally be going from life drawing to that damn pile of Belgian cartoonists that created Spirou etc. 



PlusThirtyOne said:


> Also, on a side note, Bugs' knees _don't_ bend the proper way! LOL


My wording may have been ambiguous; by "the wrong way" I meant, well... backwards compared to human legs. 

In general I feel anatomy is important as an underpinning, which can be constructed with but not entirely replaced by shapes. As I don't know exactly what critique OP has received on what pieces, but most of the time when I see "work on your anatomy" in critique it hasn't been in pursuit of photorealism (unless that was what the piece was attempting) but within the scope of the stylization the artist is doing. Like, as an exaggerated and slightly stupid example (it's almost 4 am here), a critique for this piece might mention the anatomy of the hedgehog and how his legs seem to be attached to his quills rather than his body towards his back end. Obviously fixing that wouldn't make it into a masterpiece, but looking at the overall quality and style the other animals have their legs attached in mostly the right places, so it's a reasonable thing to point out.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Feb 17, 2018)

There are preconceived ideas we have on how something should look, which below that floor begins to look wrong to us. When it comes to the minor details and inconsistencies you don't notice at even a second glance, it's really not a big deal, especially if you art hinges around using style to play with what we perceive as typical anatomy. To someone who aspires to as closely recreate reality in their art as possible, or someone who greatly prefers that art, of course they're bothered because that's what they've trained themselves to look for.  Meanwhile, some other people are more concerned about just making the character palatable in the world they created them for.


----------



## defunct (Feb 17, 2018)

Personally I think anatomy is quite important. I like when everything looks like it could conceivably work, characters included.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Feb 18, 2018)

Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly. A foundation of being able to draw with consistent proportions goes a long way towards developing an art style that doesn't automatically fall into the uncanny valley, no matter how cartoonishly exaggerated it has to be in order to work.

It still comes with the usual caveat though:


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 18, 2018)

ohhh great it's the referencing thread 2.0 -_-

listen... @Kopatropa you will get a lot of people saying you have to draw one way or you have to learn X or Y before you're a "good artist" and let me tell you, it's bullshit,
first of all art is about SELF EXPRESSION, and art is a very personal thing. If it stops being personal, and you're just following mundane tutorials all the time and referencing and are too afraid to come up with anything yourself, then what is the point? 

art is also supposed to be fun. and take this from someone who personally made doing art boring in the hopes of "getting better" - its not worth it and it doesnt work. All you will do is make art a chore, then you won't want to do it. And in my experience your progress is stunted when you're not enjoying yourself. if it's not fun it will show in your work. that's what happened to me.

It's also not true that you can't be a professional if you don't follow the came carbon copy techniques and drawing methods.
first of all, "professional" literally just means "I do it for money." so if you sell commissions you by definition are a professional.

Second of all there are no perfect artists. There are no artists that know everything about art or have art that is objectively better than anyone else's.
art is all subjective. and the furry fandom is actually a huge proof of this.
How many people are fans of popular furry artists like Silverfox5213, Rudragon, McTranceFox, Wolfy-Nail and others?
To my knowledge all of these people are "professionals," they all sell commissions, and they get a LOT of business. however their art is far from perfect and personally i find most furry artists to be flawed.
A lot of "popular" furry artists have very unrealistic anatomy, and not purposefully stylized, i mean bad "I've never seen a real woman before so i can only draw blow up dolls" anatomy.

But that doesnt matter, because people like them. and as long as you like your art it doesnt matter what anyone else says.

Also you cant rely on tutorials, referencing, and tracing forever. You need to learn how to draw things yourself or else you're just a human photocopier.
if you can draw good anatomy while staring at a photo it won't mean anything if you can only draw stick figures when someone takes that photo away.

So my advice is this: do what you love and ignore other people. And no matter what anyone tells you, your art wont be bad or worse than other's because you don't do things the way people want.

i have always been self taught. people give me shit for this and say i'm a bad or arrogant artist because i dont do things the traditional way and i dont reference. But my way has worked for me, and I am actually pleased with my art most of the time now. Just because I figured it out myself doesnt mean I'm invalid.

to answer your question, no, anatomy flaws aren't actually that big of a problem as everyone makes it out to be. *Bad anatomy is only an issue when it's really obvious, like beach ball round breasts on a woman or spine-breaking poses. *And like I said, most furry art has unrealistic anatomy anyway. nobody will notice unless the flaw is glaringly obvious and unsightly, but small anatomy flaws usually go undetected.


----------



## Katook (Feb 18, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Oh, darn, I thought we would be talking about _anatomy_... *waggles eyebrows*
> 
> 
> 
> I probably disagree, I think art can be a science and science can be an art. For one of my commissions, I actually did send skeletons and references charts of different things and also got like 6 different sketches and about 12 different modifications... I'm a very picky customer.



As an autistic individual who wants to go into animal science-type of career and does freelance illustrating, I'm obsessed with anatomy and learning humans and animals inside out, the individual muscles and bones, is what I love to do. I combine science and art, and I have become very successful and satisfied with where I'm at right now, even though I'm still always improving and have a lot to learn. You sound like the type of customer I LIVE for  

On topic,
I don't think you can be any type of substantial or successful artist without knowing the basic building blocks of your subjects. For me, that involves learning the anatomical structures of humans and animals, and then the other necessary foundations such as perspective, composition, tones and values, form, etc. And there comes a point when you draw for any substantial amount of time while refusing to learn the fundamentals when you become frustrated with yourself and either lose interest in art all together and move on with your life, or start studying and wondering why you didn't do it sooner.
It's not hard. It's not scary. It's just practice and work, and determination. But maybe my opinion doesn't' count because I'm technically professional since I make money, but I for sure don't make a living off of art, and never plan to. It's a major interest of mine but I think I will always be a freelance illustrator and only collaborate vs go into a career with art directors and those types of restrictions.


----------



## Rumby (Feb 18, 2018)

I agree so much.

There's lots of amazing abstract art that have rather incorrect anatomy, like picasso. I don't think picasso needs to fix anatomy lol


----------



## TheArchiver (Feb 18, 2018)

Rumby said:


> I agree so much.
> 
> There's lots of amazing abstract art that have rather incorrect anatomy, like picasso. I don't think picasso needs to fix anatomy lol



Ah Picasso! Excellent choice. Yes, you're correct...






The Old Fisherman 1895





Science and Charity - 1897





Sea Idyll - 1908

Pablo Picasso didn't need to fix his anatomy. *Because he studied it. *Like an artist that actually cares about creating a quality product and making a legacy with impact. He understood _his_ fundamentals which enabled him to create abstract lucid compositions based on symbolism such as his classic anti war piece Guernica. But you probably honestly think his abstract work is ALL Pablo Picasso was capable of and don't have the slightest clue as to what even makes them memorable works. He was not some hipster Dadaist that just threw colors on a canvas for the sake of it. You disrespectfully name dropped him to appeal to authority, but logical fallacies aren't going to justify your position, dear.

So question. Has anyone here encouraging OP's objectively self destructive art mindset actually taken an art class? Opened an art book that doesn't include "Manga" in the title? How long have any of you actually been drawing?


----------



## Rumby (Feb 18, 2018)

TheArchiver said:


> Ah Picasso! Excellent choice. Yes, you're correct...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Apparently you missed the point when i said abstract art examples you gave are not abstract works xp





picasso abstract - Google Search

So if you want to talk about improving abstract art anatomy, then please do but hey i just wanted to point out that not all art needs anatomy improvement


----------



## Kopatropa (Feb 18, 2018)

TheArchiver said:


> So question. Has anyone here encouraging OP's objectively self destructive art mindset actually taken an art class? Opened an art book that doesn't include "Manga" in the title? How long have any of you actually been drawing?


I myself am (mostly) self-taught and have been drawing seriously since 2013. I never went to an art school nor have I picked up any art book. And really, I only complain about anatomy and art difficulty in general because I treat art like an everyday thing to the point where I go over my stress limit and complain. That's why this thread exists. I've already decided not to draw on weekends to remedy this.


----------



## Katook (Feb 18, 2018)

Rumby said:


> Apparently you missed the point when i said abstract art examples you gave are not abstract works xp
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You totally missed their point. Picasso's abstract works are good because of his foundations and understanding of human anatomy. Art is the classic example of 'learn the rules before you break them'. Manga artists have weird anatomy sometimes, but you can see an extreme difference between someone who's been drawing for two years only from manga vs someone who has studied real human anatomy and life drawing, even if they're drawing the same manga scene/character. There's a certain hollow flatness to art that has little to no fundamentals behind it. So no, that picasso art doesn't need to be fixed because he knows what he's doing.

@OP, you're shooting yourself in the foot there with avoiding art books. Art school is unnecessary to the general population of artists, and I myself am self taught primarily, aside from a couple years in charcoal and pastel classes early on. Since then I restarted from the basics and learnt from the ground up, and taught myself human anatomy from scratch. Complaining without the desire to change anything is cathartic sometimes, but if you're finding yourself constantly angry over what you can or cannot draw, then you need to expand upon your understanding of drawing and your subject matter. If you don't want to deal with anatomy, don't draw organic creatures. Or do. But when the anatomy is off and you can't figure out how to draw something because you have little understanding of it, you know what to do. Open up a book or a youtube tutorial.


----------



## Kopatropa (Feb 18, 2018)

Katook said:


> @OP, you're shooting yourself in the foot there with avoiding art books. Art school is unnecessary to the general population of artists, and I myself am self taught primarily, aside from a couple years in charcoal and pastel classes early on. Since then I restarted from the basics and learnt from the ground up, and taught myself human anatomy from scratch. Complaining without the desire to change anything is cathartic sometimes, but if you're finding yourself constantly angry over what you can or cannot draw, then you need to expand upon your understanding of drawing and your subject matter. If you don't want to deal with anatomy, don't draw organic creatures. Or do. But when the anatomy is off and you can't figure out how to draw something because you have little understanding of it, you know what to do. Open up a book or a youtube tutorial.


This isn't even about anatomy anymore. This is more about me complaining that art is too hard, but I only say this because my mood is far south right now. If I were in a good mood, I wouldn't mind and this thread wouldn't exist.


----------



## MissNook (Feb 19, 2018)

I understand the wish to draw without improving, the "draw for fun" mindset and I don't think it's a bad thing. You can't ask someone to think about improvement all the time or even to think about improvement at all. When you feel good while drawing, why would there be a need to go further?
You can both draw art and want to improve and draw art and don't want to improve.

What can be difficult is to draw art for fun and think about how you wish you could draw better art but do nothing about it. That's what I would call a frustrating mindset because the person will undergo frustration without giving himself/herself the means to go beyond this frustration. But that's something someone should be able to choose without being judge in my opinion.


----------



## TheArchiver (Feb 19, 2018)

Katook said:


> You totally missed their point. Picasso's abstract works are good because of his foundations and understanding of human anatomy. Art is the classic example of 'learn the rules before you break them'. Manga artists have weird anatomy sometimes, but you can see an extreme difference between someone who's been drawing for two years only from manga vs someone who has studied real human anatomy and life drawing, even if they're drawing the same manga scene/character. There's a certain hollow flatness to art that has little to no fundamentals behind it. So no, that picasso art doesn't need to be fixed because he knows what he's doing.



Someone understands. I'm not the only one thinking today. I didn't even bother responding to whatever further nonsense was spouted. Thank you.



Kopatropa said:


> I myself am (mostly) self-taught and have been drawing seriously since 2013. I never went to an art school nor have I picked up any art book. And really, I only complain about anatomy and art difficulty in general because I treat art like an everyday thing to the point where I go over my stress limit and complain. That's why this thread exists. I've already decided not to draw on weekends to remedy this.



It is stressful, undeniably. I sympathize with you. But make no mistake, the more you put in, the more you will gain and the results are often stunning. Do manage your stress how you see fit. Though I want you to consider this: As you study, as you expand your mental visual library, you will alleviate the tedium induced stress that comes with devotion to any craft. This is directly due to an improved ability to draw _more _things in different interesting ways and *correctly. *If you take the time to do a few reference sketches in between your normal work, two hours each day, you will soar to unfathomable heights in a year's time and you won't be as stressed about drawing. Things won't seem so hard.

But it takes time. It takes real practice. The type of time tested practice people in this thread would foolishly, ignorantly, and reprehensibly have you believe is not conducive to being an artist. 

No, you don't need to draw 100% photo realism. Many of the linear thinking individuals here are falsely insinuating people like me are trying to force that upon you, but it is not at all about that.
It has nothing to do with melding you into a copy of Rembrandt or Frank Frazetta. It's all about _developing_ your own style in the healthiest and quickest way. But the crucibles in which a competent style is developed is in teaching your eye and hand how the things around you work. When you understand them, you can do whatever you want.


----------



## Katook (Feb 19, 2018)

^^ That's some of the most valuable advice you can get right there


----------



## TheArchiver (Feb 19, 2018)

Katook said:


> ^^ That's some of the most valuable advice you can get right there



I am not perfect, but I know when I am objectively right and others, with lesser experience, are demonstrably wrong. This would be one of those cases where anyone challenging my posts (or yours) has no validity in their trite opinions. 
For each person I've ever seen regurgitate "ART IZ EXPRESHUN" or "ITS UR STYLE" and "U DON'T NEED REFERENS" without fail, their galleries (if any) were filled with clumsy, amateur works. Works that reflect the fact, and let me put emphasis on the word *fact*, that they don't know what they're talking about in their limited, novice understanding of art. And it's an infuriating case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. While I could swiftly dismantle and shame further arguments, these are my closing statements on the subject. I've stated all the bulletproof advice that needs to be said among a select few others in this thread with some sense. OP can listen to reason or continue down a surefire path of stress filled mediocrity. Anyone else can refer to what's been said already if they'd like any counter"arguments" preemptively smitten.

This mangled parody of a debate is over.


----------



## FOX-POP (Feb 22, 2018)

Sooo  It's something I often talk about with other artists:

Anatomy is mandatory, to draw living beings (humans, animals...even plants have their own "anatomy"!). That's true.
It's not about style or something, but mostly to understand how the body works, how the muscles are. What's also true, is that you don't need to be 100% accurate on it because the accuracy level depends on your style too. Talking about anthros, we have both Blacksad (very accurate human anatomy, some animal trait) and Looney Tunes (cartoony anatomy). So it's important to know how the body moves and how fat and muscles give a certain shape, the differences between a male body and a female body and those kind of stuff, but then... you adapt those rules how you want! And here comes the style! 

Talking about myself, I decided to set my style over a "70% human | 30% animal" ratio, with a slightly "anime-like" style (not too cartoony, but not realistic). I draw hands with all 5 fingers (4 would have been too cartoony, for hands) and feet with 4 or 5 toes (I'm still undecided)... then I just put a hint of muscles, just where needed, and a certain way to redraw animal heads.

You will always need references to find your own style because...getting inspired by other artists is part of this game!  So... the best advice I feel to give you is to study that amount of anatomy that makes you feel sure of what you're drawing, do enough gesture drawing to be sure of how dynamic are your poses and check all the artists you like, feel free to ask them advices (the most of the artists are flattered in front of those questions! ;D) and... have fun!


----------



## Kopatropa (Mar 17, 2018)

TheArchiver said:


> I am not perfect, but I know when I am objectively right and others, with lesser experience, are demonstrably wrong. This would be one of those cases where anyone challenging my posts (or yours) has no validity in their trite opinions.
> For each person I've ever seen regurgitate "ART IZ EXPRESHUN" or "ITS UR STYLE" and "U DON'T NEED REFERENS" without fail, their galleries (if any) were filled with clumsy, amateur works. Works that reflect the fact, and let me put emphasis on the word *fact*, that they don't know what they're talking about in their limited, novice understanding of art. And it's an infuriating case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. While I could swiftly dismantle and shame further arguments, these are my closing statements on the subject. I've stated all the bulletproof advice that needs to be said among a select few others in this thread with some sense. OP can listen to reason or continue down a surefire path of stress filled mediocrity. Anyone else can refer to what's been said already if they'd like any counter"arguments" preemptively smitten.
> 
> This mangled parody of a debate is over.


Sorry, but this all sounds very cynical, what with you sounding like (to me) that people in this thread have no idea what they're talking about. And seriously? _Shamimg_? Are you trying to make people feel bad?


----------



## CindyPig (Mar 17, 2018)

I always used the Hogarth illustrations for hands and feet, nude figure drawing in class, but I can just let fly when I'm doing cartoons. Nothing wrong with anal , i'm just not that obsessed with being anal. Currently worshipping the paintings of Gorky , Matta, and Goya's prints. There is plenty of art to absorb, be influenced by , and reject. I'm well aware of my own limitations , but i persevere. America hates art, the country loves money and manufacturing , and will always co-opt the technical wizards, and the novelty flukes with equal cynicism. Again , I persevere, and I'm claiming this bathroom wall.


----------



## TheArchiver (Mar 17, 2018)

Kopatropa said:


> Are you trying to make people feel bad?



For stupid posts made in ignorance that would potentially mislead people? *Yes*.
And your assumption is correct. Without a doubt am I certain a number of folks here absolutely do not know a modicum of what they were talking about in the absolute slightest.

Not everyone said something in need of being soundly shut down, of course not. I pointed out previously that was the case. But it was more than enough that it warranted scathing ridicule of their poor insights. I cannot tolerate when people spout egregious inaccuracies with the confidence I saw in some posters here as if they were even slightly attuned to what they were talking about. Especially when it's just naive self fulfilling prophecies. It it even more bothersome when it pertains to a field I have studied and worked professionally in for the last 9 years. So, you are correct again. It does make me cynical seeing nonsense like what took place in this thread.

I apologize to you, personally, if I had upset you with anything I may have directed your way because I was quite happy to see your follow-up thread where you wished to learn more and be critiqued. It's very bold to ask for such a thing and all I want is for novice artists to seek wholesome improvement.


----------



## Procompy (Mar 17, 2018)

Art _is_ supposed to be for fun. If you don't enjoy making art, it shouldn't be your career or hobby. Of course not every commissioned piece or specific practice is fun, but if it's ALL joyless work to you you're doing something wrong. 
That being said, being a more skilled artist makes doing art more fun. I remember starting to draw because I wanted to illustrate characters I created for RP, and being very frustrated that they looked awful. So i got down to business reading and rereading art books, tracing/eyeballing characters i liked, all that beginner stuff to train your eyes and muscle memory. Seeing that I was improving would make me happy, and I don't know any artists that don't get the same joy from creating something and having it look _right _to them. The only way to reach that is to actually study form and composition. 

And before anyone is like "BUT BUT Picasso's art doesn't need anatomy and it's loved the world over" Pablo Picasso is _fantastic_ at human anatomy. He spent decades working on his technical skill. He learned the craft well enough to know just how to break it in his cubism pieces so that anyone with art training can _tell_ it's not made by an amateur. And yeah, people make a lot of stylistic choices in furry art, where paws may be grossly exaggerated or the head is 3 times bigger or the body is made to look more alien, but in pieces where this actually works it still follows specific anatomy rules that have been manipulated to fit the piece. Head to hand ratio, arm to torso ratio, and so forth may be things you can bend from the truth a lot, but you still need a fundamental idea of the basics before you know how to push it.


----------



## fralea (Mar 17, 2018)

FOX-POP said:


> What's also true, is that you don't need to be 100% accurate on it because the accuracy level depends on your style too. Talking about anthros, we have both Blacksad (very accurate human anatomy, some animal trait) and Looney Tunes (cartoony anatomy).  .....
> 
> You will always need references to find your own style because...getting inspired by other artists is part of this game!  So... the best advice I feel to give you is to study that amount of anatomy that makes you feel sure of what you're drawing



I just want to point out that people who draw in cartoony style study realistic anatomy too. I'm not going against anything you are saying, but its again like the picasso thing. You shouldn't just be studying other cartoons if you want to draw cartoons, but real life as well.

Chuck Jones, for example, worked on Looney Toons. Here are some drawings by him:



Spoiler

























These sketches show he's studying both human and animal anatomy. Maybe I'm being too pedantic but its not so much lack of accuracy as systematically choosing what things you want to keep and discard to express your idea. Just because Bug's head isn't entirely accurate to a rabbit, doesn't mean that Chuck Jones never learned to draw an accurate rabbit.


----------



## Kopatropa (Mar 17, 2018)

As said, practice isn't always fun. How do I stick to it without going through severe burnout?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 18, 2018)

Kopatropa said:


> As said, practice isn't always fun. How do I stick to it without going through severe burnout?


1. Find a way to make it fun, or alternate with fun things. Remember that everything you draw is practice, so there's no shame in alternating between e.g. anatomy studies and drawing stuff for fun off the top of your head.

2. Take some time to appreciate the benefits you get out of it.


----------



## TheArchiver (Mar 18, 2018)

Kopatropa said:


> As said, practice isn't always fun. How do I stick to it without going through severe burnout?



It can seem like busy work, yes. 
When I want to study, I try to be honest about what I am struggling with, make a mental list, and choose what would be interesting to me. The further you advance your skills, the more these open up to you and become more realistic goals. 

Unfortunately, if you're serious to the point where you're drawing like it's a career (what any artist is really supposed to be doing, but understandably would not), burnout and feelings of tedium will be unavoidable at times. The human attention span is a cruel woman.
On the bright side, practice can be just as much a creative endeavor as art itself. There are countless ways to do grind your skills.

And yes, any drawing that is not a trace is practice. So don't be wary about stopping the "homework" type of practice to have fun.


----------



## Caraid (Mar 18, 2018)

Kopatropa said:


> As said, practice isn't always fun. How do I stick to it without going through severe burnout?



Study "on the job". Instead of doing studies for the sake of studying, create the art that you want to create, but use it as a learning opportunity every step of the way. For example - you want to draw a wolf. Collect dozens of references of wolves. Collect artwork of people who inspire you. Collect pictures of wolf skulls and skeletons. Then draw your wolf - but intently study your reference material as you do so. Use it to guide and inform your drawing. Observe. Make notes.

There are ways to make practice fun and there are many different ways to learn. But learn you must if you want to get anywhere with art. Mind you - not wanting to get anywhere is fine too. But then do actually accept that you're not getting anywhere, and don't lament the fact that your work isn't getting much recognition or praise.


----------



## Kopatropa (Mar 21, 2018)

Katook said:


> It's not hard. It's not scary. It's just practice and work


No. It's hard. It's scary. Failure is a severe demotivator for me.


----------



## Katook (Mar 21, 2018)

Kopatropa said:


> No. It's hard. It's scary. Failure is a severe demotivator for me.



You have to learn to let yourself make mistakes then learn from them ^^


----------



## fralea (Mar 21, 2018)

Every time you fail you learn a lot. If you never fail you'll never learn because it means you arent pushing yourself.

You dont have to post every sketch btw. If you screw one up badly noone has to know but yourself


----------



## Procompy (Mar 26, 2018)

fralea said:


> Every time you fail you learn a lot. If you never fail you'll never learn because it means you arent pushing yourself.
> 
> You dont have to post every sketch btw. If you screw one up badly noone has to know but yourself



Yeah I actually keep a "show" sketchbook and an "experimental" sketchbook just for this. I _know_ what practice is going to come out horribly at first and I can keep it private.


----------



## redhusky (Mar 30, 2018)

You have to know what it is you are drawing for you to be able to draw it at all. Every artist is always painfully struggling with anatomy just think of it as a good pain.


----------

