The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Ingbretson #126

What is the most essential knowledge for successfully rendering the human figure: Is it the science of anatomy or the science of seeing? A walk through the various areas of human knowledge associated with the art of painting with a view toward prioritization.

In response to Antiguos

[celsoteixeira]

Always bringing chalenges and new perceptions to what is most basic and simple. How great! Drops of Universes!

[jamesmcginnis]

As always, a great presentation.You can refute the strong form of Antiguos’ claim by demonstrating a camera, - which always gets the surface right but has no knowledge of anatomy. On the other hand, having knowledge of the thing you are looking at can inform your seeing. You can see this in otherwise good painters who often paint boats that look ludicrous to sailors because they misinterpreted the visual impression. You often talk about painting the “essential elements “. Part of what is essential is that information that explains the subject. Without some knowledge of the subject it’s easy to miss that. I loved your example of Michaelangelo. As brilliant as he was, it would not be hard to believe that he had never actually seen a naked woman.

[mesaydin]

Thanks a lot. I have been doodling with anatomy for more than 3 years. It made me good copy maker. Fortunately, after watching your videos i started to draw with my eyes :) such a relief and enjoyment ! Finally i got likeness and mood from my portraits. Furthermore i have the pleasure of drawing whatever i see. I still have many deficiency in experience of drawing and painting but now i really feel that i am a dedicated student of the nature and not a slave of mind manufactured anatomy kind of doodling models. With my best regards. Mesut

[gspurlock]

Thanks. I'm really looking forward to your discussions on the art and/or science of seeing and the subjects from your list.

[kevinrice]

Thanks Paul! I completely agree with what you’re saying here. If the goal is to draw or paint something as it appears to the eye, then knowledge of anatomy, etc. is not at all necessary. I find the real strength in learning anatomy comes in when you want to draw figures from imagination or if you want to stylize or idealize the figure. But if that’s not your goal then I think you really don’t need it.

[utagagua]

Thank you for making such wonderful art andf great lessons! Always interesting to listen and watch

[AlexKellyArtUK]

30:00 These aspects can be termed "objective visual aspects." Munsell's analysis of value, hue, and chroma offers precision in describing what's commonly referred to as "color." While such scientific understanding aids in approaching the truth of nature, it alone falls short in revealing its deeper beauty. Achieving this demands training our perception to grasp both objective and subjective visual relationships. However, discerning between the two is often unclear. For instance, the visual aspect of a line initially seems objective, but as previously noted, there are no lines in nature; they are implied by the contrast between adjacent shapes. In this context, Richard Schmid's quote encapsulates the painter's challenge when representing the truth of nature in visual phenomena:

“…painting the innocence in a child’s expression is impossible, but painting the pattern of colour shapes which constitute her expression is definitely possible.”

[andrewlipson]

I was in 5th grade when I was able to take an anatomy and life drawing class with Robert Beverley Hale in NY ( about half the age of everyone else in the room). I had no idea how lucky I was, but he was an awesome teacher and left a lasting impression. He was using colored chalk on the end of a pole on brown paper when I took the class and after each lesson a grad student would take them and spray them with fixative. Such a great teacher, in your other video you were talking about Hale of the Boston School and it confused me a moment because I thought you were talking about Robert Beverley Hale.

[AlexKellyArtUK]

12:14 that particular diagram of human anatomy looks very much like one by Andrew Loomis. I recall that he states that 8 heads is an exaggeration for a heroic proportion and to ease construction. This makes sense when you consider that Loomis worked as a commercial illustrator where heroic human proportions was a desirable thing in advertising.

[andrewlipson]

I've heard all of what you talk about in the video referred to with the word 'schema', a sort of catch all for knowledge about a subject matter, used particularly in the world children's art development. Schema can be a great aid in drawing as a point of reference to compare and contrast sight to. I like how you mentioned comparing live models to the 8-head sized figure you were taught and they never matched. The point being that you knew to use the head as a measuring reference, but did not then privilege what you learned above what you saw. Without schema a naive artist won't even know what to look for, but an over reliance on schema will leave you in a place like the medieval artists carefully painting a single leaf on a tree at a time.

[Ilya-woodenlipstick]

I really enjoyed this one! I find those ideas really helpful as for a long time i've been puzzled trying to figure out the "fundamentals" of drawing. A big thank You, Teacher!

[gnostie]

This video got me thinking, and here is where I got to. If someone wants to hand-draw figures for an anatomy atlas or a botanical publication, then keeping to scientific conventions is the way forward because people looking at this person's work would be people who are used to such conventions. Scientific knowledge isn't more or less of a knowledge than any other kind, it's just more aggressive in proclaiming its supremacy. But let's say someone takes in the whole scene and sets out to capture the mood in the room or in the field. Obviously, some practical capacity for rendering habitual objects faithfully enough than the picture reminds the viewer of the object would be useful. But I honestly can't think of a single painting I'd ever seen than went in the direction of capturing the mood and at the same time had the need and the place for extremely accurate anatomical detail. To my eye, mood and such kind of detail would have a hard time coexisting on the same canvas without crowding each other out.

[williamgraf]

Thank you Paul! I've been thoroughly enjoying all your videos! I studied, "many moons" ago at the the Cecil/Graves studio in Florence and remember hearing many Ives Gammell stories and quotes, this being one of according to Hoyle!" As to the anatomy, I agree with your philosophy as pertaining to "painting" the figure and as you stated a more than a cursory knowledge is always beneficial! I'm sure there are hundreds of anatomy books out there, the one I reference and draw on is the Gottfried Bammes Anatomy for Artists and Illustrators.

[Jesus-mvyr]

Been binging all of these videos for the past couple months, they are fantastic; any thoughts on Myron Barnstone and his drawing courses

[larrymarshall]

I know that artists don't like to give the camera power, but here it works. You could have made the point clearly by asking "Is a photo of a naked human inaccurate?" If so, what IS accurate in this context.

[apophatic-nonsense]

The female morphology text by Richter has been translated, it was published a couple years ago, and can be found on amazon.

[omnesilere]

7.5 heads? 7 heads? He intentionally measured them for years and then got sidetracked before dropping the number lol

[richardgiedd]

A late comment to this post: I came across this comment on anatomy by Ingres In the Amaury-Duval:
“ Watch out there, you are slipping in to it. You have indicated here something which I don not see (in nature). Why do you underscore it? Because you know it is there (as distinct from actually seeing it” ). Have you been studying anatomy? There now! That is what that dreadful science leads to, that horrendous science which I cannot think of without loathing. Had I been obliged to study anatomy, gentlemen, I would never have made myself a painter. Just copy nature naively, like a simpleton, and that in itself will amount to something.
Interesting...