FA+
Shop
213
Views
Views
1
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 800 x 1100
File Size 202.3 kB
Report this content
More from shadechristiwolven
So there's this really awesome classical-style plaster sculpture just hanging out in one of the art studios I work at. He's a flayed-skin kinda guy, so I get to see all his muscle-groups. Today on break I decided to sketch him over and over and over to see if I could get some of the muscles to stick in my brain.
Then I came home and drew this from memory. The torso is okay. The legs are okay. The arms are meh. I really wish I had a poseable flayed-skin guy to just pose any way I wish. I obviously took creative liberties but wouldn't it be glorious if there were anatomy classes for furries?
Lolololol
Anyways, sketch
Photoshop 7 800X1100 pixels @ 300 dpi
Roughly 45 minutes
Then I came home and drew this from memory. The torso is okay. The legs are okay. The arms are meh. I really wish I had a poseable flayed-skin guy to just pose any way I wish. I obviously took creative liberties but wouldn't it be glorious if there were anatomy classes for furries?
Lolololol
Anyways, sketch
Photoshop 7 800X1100 pixels @ 300 dpi
Roughly 45 minutes
Category Artwork (Digital) / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 800 x 1100px
File Size 202.3 kB
I'm very surprised I haven't been replaced by one yet, but I imagine that there's something similar to the general idea out there. I know the sculpture I modeled this off of was just a simple ceramic/plaster model - no way of moving him. While I imagine that having a "visible man" to pose would be advantageous for memorizing muscle-group placement I'm sure that there are also a lot of traditionalist professors out there who would prefer to have a live human because "it's the way we've always done it."
I have considered drawing on the basic, most important muscle-groups on my skin to help out anatomy classes but I never got the go-ahead from the teachers. At the least I think that students would appreciate markers for important land-marks like the hip-joint, shoulder-joint, etc. In a similar vein, I've also considered having my spinal column tattooed on - not only for modeling but also for the visual aesthetic.
In the long run, I'm glad that poseable, visible men aren't on the market because then I would be out of a job ;)
I have considered drawing on the basic, most important muscle-groups on my skin to help out anatomy classes but I never got the go-ahead from the teachers. At the least I think that students would appreciate markers for important land-marks like the hip-joint, shoulder-joint, etc. In a similar vein, I've also considered having my spinal column tattooed on - not only for modeling but also for the visual aesthetic.
In the long run, I'm glad that poseable, visible men aren't on the market because then I would be out of a job ;)
I don't think that you would be out of a job. I think that the Poser models would be used to supplement live models by showing the underlying muscles, and also by individuals who couldn't afford a live model. I don't think that Poser models, no matter how expertly the anatomy and proportions were done, would even slightly threaten to replace live models until human size high resolution 3-D displays were less expensive than the live models. You will probably have gray hair by the time that that happens.
Y'know what, I can't believe I had totally forgotten this website here. Ain't nothin' cheaper than free! Sadly you can't pose the model any which way you choose, but they've done a fairly good job of providing a wide-range of preset poses (and angles) for artists to choose from.
On that note, I've tried recommending this website to some of my personal teachers and to some of the teachers I work for but they've never expressed any interest.
On that note, I've tried recommending this website to some of my personal teachers and to some of the teachers I work for but they've never expressed any interest.
Our conversation picked my interested, so I did a little research. On James Gurney's weblog I found an article on artist's lay figures - which were highly articulated, anatomically accurate, poseable dolls that artists used to study drapery and clothes on a figure. You can read his articles on it starting here: http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2.....re-part-1.html
From his post I can deduce that lay figures were never considered a replacement for a live model when studying the actual form of a human - this makes sense because even the most highly detailed of dolls will never have the "push-and-pull" of real muscles and flesh. Lay figures were used as "stand-ins" for real models after the artist had painted the face, neck, and hands from the real thing - he would then dress up the lay figure and pose it, and he was free to take as long as he needed working on the clothes. (Any artist who has tried to paint a long pose with a clothed model will know how frustrating it can be to render the form of the clothing realistically when it changes every time the model moves.) As time wore on lay figures became less and less popular due to untrained artists using them instead of real models - thus making their painted figures look less-than-real.
Gurney shows that many artists continued to use lay figures up until the 18th or 19th century. While both models and lay figures are very expensive, the poor attitude toward lay figures made many artists "ashamed" to use them so they fell out of style. Artists who did use them wouldn't talk about it, and I'm assuming that due to the drop in demand the production would have fallen as well - and probably the production value of the products would also suffer. It became almost a "badge of honor" to talk about how expensive it was to employ real-live-humans each time an artist painted.
Jump forward a couple hundred years, and we go through art-phases where it is more popular to make abstracted figures in painting than highly detailed, accurate ones - a model provides good organic forms from which to draw inspiration while a lay person (even a highly articulated one) would still look like a poor substitute for something real. Realistic painting falls out of style, and now artists are freed from painting every wrinkle and fold in fabric in a realistic manner. Artists and art-schools would obviously still use a real model, because when drawing anatomy there is no substitute for the real thing.
Then we get to now - the present. More and more there is less of a demand for young artists to stick to the overwhelming popular "style" of the time, and the focus on their artwork becomes more on how well they respond to the objects in front of them and render them on paper or canvas. This is called "responsive" drawing - which basically means that you treat all parts of the composition as equally important, and you are only responding to whatever shapes are placed in front of you.
So my curiosity led me to talk to one of the teachers I model for - to ask her if she's ever considered using a lay-figure after establishing a fully-dressed pose with a model like myself. We talked about how, in responsive drawing or painting, a good artist with a live model will choose to leave the details of the drapery out of the picture until the very end (preferably the last 20 minutes they work on it) so that there is less of a chance for the drapery to change drastically every time the model takes a stretch-break. I asked if she had ever considered doing a sustained pose over the course of something like 2 weeks where the focus is not on the model but on the clothes of the model, and using a lay figure as a stand-in after the first day; her answer was no, because this goes against the concept of responsive drawing. She (and every other art-teacher I've talked to) <i>want</i> me to move throughout a pose - they want me to shift my weight, to scratch my face, to let gravity effect me; this gives the students an ever-changing landscape of anatomy that they constantly have to <i>respond</i> to.
So the conclusions I can draw are these: 1) lay figures fell out of popularity because of the costs of buying one, and because untrained artists used them improperly, 2) as the demands of the artistic world changed, so did the attitudes of the artists and using the "real deal" became more important than making the clothes look picturesque, 3) once lay figures were out of style there was a shift in the artistic-realm that meant that the style of artwork they helped produce was no longer popular, 4) artists now (and especially art-teachers) want their students to remain loose and responsive - this works best with a live model that is constantly moving (no matter how subtly), but not so well with a lay figure that can't move at all.
Which makes me understand all the better why none of the professors I have shown Pose Maniacs.com to have ever expressed interest: even anatomically-correct human analogues are too similar to lay figures. There has been an attitude developing where anything other than "the real deal" isn't acceptable as a way of training; that's a hard environment to introduce a new product like a "poseable anatomy model". If everyone in the market is already biased against your type of product, you will find it very difficult to keep the production going. At least, that's the conclusion I have come to.
From his post I can deduce that lay figures were never considered a replacement for a live model when studying the actual form of a human - this makes sense because even the most highly detailed of dolls will never have the "push-and-pull" of real muscles and flesh. Lay figures were used as "stand-ins" for real models after the artist had painted the face, neck, and hands from the real thing - he would then dress up the lay figure and pose it, and he was free to take as long as he needed working on the clothes. (Any artist who has tried to paint a long pose with a clothed model will know how frustrating it can be to render the form of the clothing realistically when it changes every time the model moves.) As time wore on lay figures became less and less popular due to untrained artists using them instead of real models - thus making their painted figures look less-than-real.
Gurney shows that many artists continued to use lay figures up until the 18th or 19th century. While both models and lay figures are very expensive, the poor attitude toward lay figures made many artists "ashamed" to use them so they fell out of style. Artists who did use them wouldn't talk about it, and I'm assuming that due to the drop in demand the production would have fallen as well - and probably the production value of the products would also suffer. It became almost a "badge of honor" to talk about how expensive it was to employ real-live-humans each time an artist painted.
Jump forward a couple hundred years, and we go through art-phases where it is more popular to make abstracted figures in painting than highly detailed, accurate ones - a model provides good organic forms from which to draw inspiration while a lay person (even a highly articulated one) would still look like a poor substitute for something real. Realistic painting falls out of style, and now artists are freed from painting every wrinkle and fold in fabric in a realistic manner. Artists and art-schools would obviously still use a real model, because when drawing anatomy there is no substitute for the real thing.
Then we get to now - the present. More and more there is less of a demand for young artists to stick to the overwhelming popular "style" of the time, and the focus on their artwork becomes more on how well they respond to the objects in front of them and render them on paper or canvas. This is called "responsive" drawing - which basically means that you treat all parts of the composition as equally important, and you are only responding to whatever shapes are placed in front of you.
So my curiosity led me to talk to one of the teachers I model for - to ask her if she's ever considered using a lay-figure after establishing a fully-dressed pose with a model like myself. We talked about how, in responsive drawing or painting, a good artist with a live model will choose to leave the details of the drapery out of the picture until the very end (preferably the last 20 minutes they work on it) so that there is less of a chance for the drapery to change drastically every time the model takes a stretch-break. I asked if she had ever considered doing a sustained pose over the course of something like 2 weeks where the focus is not on the model but on the clothes of the model, and using a lay figure as a stand-in after the first day; her answer was no, because this goes against the concept of responsive drawing. She (and every other art-teacher I've talked to) <i>want</i> me to move throughout a pose - they want me to shift my weight, to scratch my face, to let gravity effect me; this gives the students an ever-changing landscape of anatomy that they constantly have to <i>respond</i> to.
So the conclusions I can draw are these: 1) lay figures fell out of popularity because of the costs of buying one, and because untrained artists used them improperly, 2) as the demands of the artistic world changed, so did the attitudes of the artists and using the "real deal" became more important than making the clothes look picturesque, 3) once lay figures were out of style there was a shift in the artistic-realm that meant that the style of artwork they helped produce was no longer popular, 4) artists now (and especially art-teachers) want their students to remain loose and responsive - this works best with a live model that is constantly moving (no matter how subtly), but not so well with a lay figure that can't move at all.
Which makes me understand all the better why none of the professors I have shown Pose Maniacs.com to have ever expressed interest: even anatomically-correct human analogues are too similar to lay figures. There has been an attitude developing where anything other than "the real deal" isn't acceptable as a way of training; that's a hard environment to introduce a new product like a "poseable anatomy model". If everyone in the market is already biased against your type of product, you will find it very difficult to keep the production going. At least, that's the conclusion I have come to.
Thank you for your interesting history. I got a plastic poseable model from Art S. Buck a few years ago to help me with anatomy but it never occurred to me to paint it.
I did discover these:
http://www.3dscience.com/3D_Models/.....tomy/index.php
http://www.redbubble.com/explore/an.....cal+nude+poser
I did discover these:
http://www.3dscience.com/3D_Models/.....tomy/index.php
http://www.redbubble.com/explore/an.....cal+nude+poser
Great resources! I've also found that http://www.pixelovely.com/gesture/f.....uredrawing.php can be a fantastic website for sketching and gesture drawing. It isn't quite as academic as the links you've posted, however it serves basically the same exact job I do but free.
come to think of it, lay figures maybe had use in times where the mainly used medias were oil. for ink or pencil you wouldn't need one, but for an elaborate oil painting of a rich customer with a lot of clothes, it m ight have been useful.
which is probably part of the reason nowadays' teachers dismiss the idea entirely.
which is probably part of the reason nowadays' teachers dismiss the idea entirely.
You've hit a very important point there! A good oil painting can take years to paint (let alone drying time!) so having a lay figure that can literally sit still forever would be a great boon to an artist. I believe James Gurney's blog mentions "traveling lay figures" artists would use to better match the clothes of a rich noble they were painting who could only sit down long enough to get the face done; the artist could then match outfits from the mini-lay figure while he was on the road to his next gig.
The more I look at the resources
Foxystallion has posted as well as resources other art students have pointed me to in the past year I've realized that the lay figure never really went away, it simply evolved to a new form. While (quite probably because of my training) I personally feel that having a three-dimensional object you can touch and feel for yourself will always be preferable to a flat 2D object that you can only "touch with your eyes" this new form of Poser models and stock photography is by far cheaper and more economical for the young, budding artist like myself. In the end economical will probably win out over traditional appeal.
The more I look at the resources
Foxystallion has posted as well as resources other art students have pointed me to in the past year I've realized that the lay figure never really went away, it simply evolved to a new form. While (quite probably because of my training) I personally feel that having a three-dimensional object you can touch and feel for yourself will always be preferable to a flat 2D object that you can only "touch with your eyes" this new form of Poser models and stock photography is by far cheaper and more economical for the young, budding artist like myself. In the end economical will probably win out over traditional appeal.
some artists would carry their paintings around, instead. I read somewhere that Leonardo used to carry Mona Lisa around for more than ten years, sometimes not adding more than a single streak of paint somewhere before putting it away again. obne could say that Mona Lisa is a WIP, technically.
makes me wonder if the recipient gave up on it eventually...
hm, mini lay figures. nowadays they are little wooden puppets that are done so sloppily they won't even stand straight. :)
digital lay figures might be not much more than a fad, like evwerything "digital" seems to be preferable before the "old methods".
especially if the logo behind it is a half-eaten apple...
makes me wonder if the recipient gave up on it eventually...
hm, mini lay figures. nowadays they are little wooden puppets that are done so sloppily they won't even stand straight. :)
digital lay figures might be not much more than a fad, like evwerything "digital" seems to be preferable before the "old methods".
especially if the logo behind it is a half-eaten apple...
Yes indeed, Leonardo was an infamous procrastinator; in fact he never actually finished The Last Supper! That group of monks had to eventually pay another artist to come over and paint over it because it was so hideous in its unfinished state. It wasn't until Leonardo da Vinci had become a little more famous after his death (and less infamous for being around to annoy everyone) the abbey became interested in restoring - and finishing - Leonardo's great "masterpiece."
Makes me feel like I'm in good company XD
You make me wonder if it wouldn't be possible to make a lay-figure with needle felting methods.... They would be light-weight and very easy to dress and transport....
You're right that a lot of "digital" things are just fads - luckily this fad hasn't gotten so big that it's put me out of a job! I think that because employing a real-live model like myself is incredibly expensive students will always find cheap (or free) methods preferable; at this juncture it just so happens that the cheapest method is digital.
Makes me feel like I'm in good company XD
You make me wonder if it wouldn't be possible to make a lay-figure with needle felting methods.... They would be light-weight and very easy to dress and transport....
You're right that a lot of "digital" things are just fads - luckily this fad hasn't gotten so big that it's put me out of a job! I think that because employing a real-live model like myself is incredibly expensive students will always find cheap (or free) methods preferable; at this juncture it just so happens that the cheapest method is digital.
if I recall right he also took some ten or so years to research the moverments and proportions of horses before he even considered starting that rider statue someone ordered... he must have been really exhausting to be around. :)
a feltie lay figure? if nothing else it might make a nice little doll. :)
on the other hand, I have been using some plastic animals by Schleich, Bully, and PAPO in lieu of a lay figure. tghey ain'tz poseable, but at least well-proportioned, anatomically correct, and won't bite you. :)
a feltie lay figure? if nothing else it might make a nice little doll. :)
on the other hand, I have been using some plastic animals by Schleich, Bully, and PAPO in lieu of a lay figure. tghey ain'tz poseable, but at least well-proportioned, anatomically correct, and won't bite you. :)
I looooooooooooove the little plastic figurines made by Schleich! My father got me a few of them (a dog and a German shepherd) and a barn play-set when I was a little girl and he traveled to Germany - I was very disappointed that I couldn't collect them all! It wasn't until a few years ago that I began to see them for sale in a few select arts and crafts stores here in the States. I have finally begun fulfilling my childhood dream of collecting all of my favorite Schleich figurines! XD They are very anatomically accurate (even their dinosaurs!) and it's very cool to have a portable little reference right there on my desk ;)
hehe, yes, they have a long tradition of providing little plastic animals. :)
PAPO has come up with a number of really well designed anthro a<nimal warriors. lion, tiger, mountain sheep, gorilla, crocodile. there is also a dragon warrior, but that one has an oversized head. their anthro dragon warrior, though, looks awesome, and has a moving jaw. :) they should be available on amazon, I think.
too bad they all are produced in china, except Schleich, which is still made in germany.
funny thing: we have some children's broadcast on TV which must be running for more than 40 years now. some time ago they came up with the idea of providing the kids with even more informatiopn about how the world works, and came up with a magazine. one centers around lions (Pavlov rules), and came with a plastic lion's skeleton, too. :)
PAPO has come up with a number of really well designed anthro a<nimal warriors. lion, tiger, mountain sheep, gorilla, crocodile. there is also a dragon warrior, but that one has an oversized head. their anthro dragon warrior, though, looks awesome, and has a moving jaw. :) they should be available on amazon, I think.
too bad they all are produced in china, except Schleich, which is still made in germany.
funny thing: we have some children's broadcast on TV which must be running for more than 40 years now. some time ago they came up with the idea of providing the kids with even more informatiopn about how the world works, and came up with a magazine. one centers around lions (Pavlov rules), and came with a plastic lion's skeleton, too. :)
Comments