IVstudios wrote:Again, I still disagree. Wrong math is always wrong and always useless. Art less so. Were the egyptians "wrong" for using a flat perspective when drawing people? Because their anatomy is bad does that make their art less important? But if there math was bad, no pyramids.
Art History 101, the Egyptians used that horrible perspective because they wanted to convey the most information they could on STONE, additionally the concept of perspective (as we know it) is relatively new, Renaissance
new. This is the context for their wonky perspective. So while "wrong" by today's standards they have a reason for why it is what it is. Hart's errors are errors because they are either technically
wrong or they pigeon-hole aspiring artists with poorly grasped concepts and notorious "bad art" habits. (If you require I can retrieve bad art examples from him from the Internet, but I'm sure you're familiar with them.)
IVstudios wrote:First off: You've got a little logical fallacy on your shirt there. Me failing to prove you wrong does not automatically prove you right. Just because I can't prove you're not a Sasquatch doesn't mean you are one.
Aside from getting your fallacies confused let's clarify something. I said Hart was a bad source for learning art from and elaborated as to why. Your "counter" was to state I was wrong but you did not state any support. As for a back on-topic, thank you for posting images on why Hart's "reference" is plainly inferior to others' books.
And what have you learned from these drawings of neck muscles? Beyond showing that they can indeed turn with the head? Does it talk about the limitations of the movements of the neck? How about how the muscles change depending on the movements of the jaw? How about how the muscles at all change when the head moves, or why? Does it even list what the names of these muscles are when he references them in the diagrams?
(Ignoring that the text says the muscles are attached to the clavicle but the representations of such are hovering well above the actual bones.) If a newbie can be expected to learn these names, they can do the same for an actual anatomy guide actually intended for artists
. Additionally, there is no real reason why the Trapezius is in color in that 3rd diagram when what the text is referring to is the Sternomastoid and it's visibility from the back. (Additionally these illustrations are not very accurate, if you have to use a quick ref, you're a Google search away from a muscle diagram, why use Hart's? Or if you have a book at all, why settle for Hart's?)How Loomis does it.
(Courtesy of Google.) Look you can actually see the muscles AND you get different head views, what a bargain! *If you want an actual image of the neck area breakdown, I'll fetch it.
Supinated and Pronated, what accessible words
. Again, this is the lingo that comes from anatomy books intended for artists. Additionally, none of the muscles are indicated or which ones changed depending on the angle of the arm or how the tense/relaxed state of the hand can change how the muscles appear.How Loomis does it.
(Courtesy of Google)
I want you to look at your own hand for three seconds, hold it up to the screen if you have to to see what is so very wrong with this picture. The textual tips are "correct" but the hand and it's components are depicted very wrong
.How Loomis does it
(Courtesy of Google) *While not a direct link to a breakdown of the hands, the guy has a whole book dedicated to hands (and heads)
And as for the style thing, a side by side comparison of the same character in two styles to show how they differ, and a brief overview of the focus of each style when it comes to representing the human body. Danny Phantom has seen better days
Others have already picked at it, but the basic breakdown of both characters demonstrates he doesn't know what he's talking about simply by virtue of how he skims over everything. There's a reason
both look like poor knockoffs of what they're supposed to represent.
Others have already voiced why anything less than the "visual best" is detrimental, but I'll give it another kick. The text has some truth in it because they're parroted from better books, but newbie artists won't know any better and associate these flawed diagrams with the partial information presented with them.
That is what makes Hart's books bad and why defending or otherwise "permitting" purchase of these books will have a negative effect on the artist. For the "casual artists" crowd you mentioned, Robybang brings up an excellent point, why would any fan settle for Hart when they can get a "how to" from the actual artist(s) they admire? (Or just copying the characters wholesale from whatever they are reading or watching?)