December 27, 2014
The learning curve is very steep, but the rotation of the radialis (it ‘radiating’ around the ulna) vs the humerus hinged to the ulna-elbow is becoming clearer, as is the distinction between the ‘block’ of the carpals and the separate phalanges. I think I drew the saddle joint at the base of the thumb in the wrong direction. Again, I’m not worrying about drawing everything to the correct scale.
4. Upper Limb, posterior.
I’m simplifying things now that I know the names of the bones, aiming for some sort of coherent perspectival scheme but resisting the urge to use tone. Simplifying perspective even further would probably be a consequence of using charcoal rather than graphite. At any rate, I’m coming to grips with planes.
December 27, 2014
Synovial joints is to muscles as geological formation is to landscape. If I’m aware of joints, then I’m hopeful of portraying muscles more convincingly.
I notice the Proko course assignments are closely related to drawings of George Bridgman, the founder of the teaching of modern figure drawing. I needed to look closely at bones (which necessitated knowing their names) and the use of colour helped to differentiate important bone structures.
I notice many of my colleagues are doing this digitally but I can see value in doing the whole thing freehand, even though I’m ignoring correct proportions between forearm and hand, for example.
With this level of detail, working small is a problem. For scanning purposes they are all being done on A4 photocopy paper and because of the increasing complexity, I am resorting to overlays of tracing paper.
The endgame is perspectival accuracy, which has also underpinned the other course, Figure Drawing Fundamentals. Hence, the focus on perspective increases with each set.
1: Upper Limb, anterior. Rough sketch, coming to grips with joint types.
2: Acromioclavicular joint.
December 16, 2014
Second of my personal 100 great Old Master drawings, based on the Hale & Coyle classic textbook, involving both a tracing and, where possible, tracking back to the original painting.
Similar to the Michelangelo pose, but less extreme, is this by Rubens. Again, I’ve used red in the traps, orange in the lats and yellow on the pesky teres group.
Hale and Coyle make many references to the infraspinatus which ultimately means I need to go back and check the scapula bone and the origins/insertions of muscles attached to it. Which is a good thing. The Proko anatomy course will eventually cover all this, but I know Riven Phoenix in Structure of Man deals with the spine/scapula/clavicle connections very well. I think it was Proko who described the scapulas as like plates sliding over the “egg” surface of the upper body.
Just as Michelangelo increased the sense of exaggeration in the painting compared to the original drawing, Rubens does the same. The line of the clavicle is much more horizontal in the painting (perhaps so as not to interfere with the pleasing geometry of the red drape in the figure behind); the back is falling out towards the viewer much more in the painting whereas the sitter for the drawing feels like he’s been posing for a very long time.
There is some confusion in my understanding of the muscles around the hip (there are significant tonal differences between the drawing and the painting in the description of the oblique and the sitter’s entire right side, the painting looking distinctly more realistic).
December 16, 2014
Terence Coyle decided to write a book based on Robert Beverly Hale’s anatomical analysis of Old Master drawings and Anatomy Lessons from the Great Masters: 100 great figure drawings analyzed, published by Watson-Guptill in New York in 1977 was born.
I’ve dipped into this book over the years but it always made me feel like a medical student. However, I’m now getting into it.
Here’s the first of my own 100 great figure drawings, involving a tracing and digging up how the drawing was used for the painting which followed.
I’m mainly interested in the back at the moment – traps in red, lats in orange and the teres group in yellow -, though obviously Michelangelo has put a lot of effort into the posterior aspect of the arms.
The pose in the painting helps fill in the gaps in the drawing. I still don’t know what exactly is going on in the lower half of the body because I think the twist in the body is completely imaginary; notice how he’s lowered the sitter’s left thigh to a horizontal position, presumably so as not to interfere with the draped figure behind and to increase the sense of torsion.
Notice too how naturalistic the drawing is compared to the exaggeration in the painting: the figure’s upper body is identical, but the position of the hands has changed making the two scapulas almost horizontal in the painting.
I’m on the lookout for reference photos showing this amount of twist in the neck. The head looks odd, but that’s probably Michelangelo’s treatment of the heroic/Herculean where he seems to like 11-head high people.
December 16, 2014
Day 5 and the last of the five tracings for this week from reference photos, as per proko.com.
While the back is predominantly made up of the trapezius and latissimus dorsi, I’m becoming more familiar with the teres major below the scapula.
Next week’s course content from Proko will concentrate on the Latin terminology of anatomy and I’m keen to keep the momentum going with muscle anatomy by looking at Old Master drawings and paintings. At the same time, I will continue to make links with general figure drawing, no matter how tentative.