3 ms·

Stuff like this is hard to validate. For most renaissance artists, their self-portraits are far from photorealistic. There is also quite a big difference betw

by smokel 3y ago

Stuff like this is hard to validate. For most renaissance artists, their self-portraits are far from photorealistic. There is also quite a big difference between painting from nature and by construction from the mind, which I think is important here. I suppose that one learns a certain template for faces, mostly by practice. If most of that practice is on self-portraits in a mirror, then, yes, the rote characters may look like that face as well. It would take deliberate practice to have multiple templates available. Any comic book artists who'd like to chime in here? Observing this phenomenon in contemporary artists is troublesome, because they are so much influenced by photography, not only by anatomy or live observation. An interesting contemporary artist in this context might be Philip Akkerman [1]. He has made over 10,000 (!) self portraits, nearly half of them are paintings. [1] https://philipakkerman.com/ https://philipakkerman.com/

benbreen 3y ago
"Stuff like this is hard to validate. For most renaissance artists, their self-portraits are far from photorealistic." Author here. Agreed, it's definitely not a science. I suspect the author of this article I link to in the post might disagree though: http://www.laboratoiredanthropologieanatomiqueetdepaleopathologiedelyon.fr/PALEOBIOS%202007/biométrie%20et%20oeuvres%20d%27art.htm http://www.laboratoiredanthropologieanatomiqueetdepaleopatho.... He is making an actual claim to scientific validity, complete with tables of measurements of the distance between Benvenuto Cellini's "lateral nasal point" and pupils in various potential self-portraits. I'm skeptical, but it's interesting to note that the author seems to know what he's talking about (director of a university paleopathalogy lab and "Expert en Anthropologie d'identification" for the French legal system).
- mlyle 3y ago
  The big confound here is: are you mostly measuring things about the artist's true appearance in a self-portrait, or are you measuring things about just how he is inclined to portray a face in general (either in a self-portrait or otherwise)?
anyfoo 3y ago
I think much of what you say appears to be covered in (indeed, the point of) the article?
- smokel 3y ago
  Haha, I still have a long way to go to make myself clear on an internet forum. I have thoroughly reread the article, and I think my comment has four original, albeit very minor, contributions, that are not covered in the article. Granted, the information density of my comment may be low. I also agree with the entire article, so my remarks are in line with what is said there.
syntheweave 3y ago
When cartooning without reference you have two general methods available: 1. Recall a contour you've committed to muscle memory, e.g. through blind contour studies. 2. Construct a form from primitive geometry, which can be memorized as a recipe like stating the figure's proportions in "heads of height" (e.g. Andrew Loomis's figure drawing books). While you can adjust the proportions of contours in 2D by moving your hand with exaggeration, adjusting a form in perspective is a much more calculated thing, and artists tend to gravitate towards simpler, letter-like ratios in their proportions unintentionally as they make adjustments. Thus, unusual poses and perspectives tend to be distorted towards a kind of default, symbolic figure - and mapping them to the intended character needs reference to help the brain see how the proportions differ. There are tricks that can reduce the guesswork(e.g. Burne Hogarth Dynamic Figure Drawing) by starting with drawing a well-understood perspective and then making 90 degree camera moves to restate the pose in a different viewpoint. But a reference lets you get a contour immediately, and it avoids distortion, so comic artists will tend towards using reference for solving the really hard drawing problems - even if you have no technology to help, you could get a friend to make the pose and then draw the contour of that, then fix up whatever's necessary by adding some construction over that. For similar reasons cartoonists will tend to draw the same kind of "symbolic" face - enough to indicate character and staging, but not measured like a portrait drawing. Depending on how they practiced faces, it could be their own face or an ideal construction. And if they have the visual library available, they can make new faces by combining the symbols differently. A good caricaturist can just look and get the contours and have 80% of the likeness in an instant, and then fill in the rest symbolically.

by smokel 3y ago

benbreen 3y ago

"Stuff like this is hard to validate. For most renaissance artists, their self-portraits are far from photorealistic." Author here. Agreed, it's definitely not a science. I suspect the author of this article I link to in the post might disagree though: http://www.laboratoiredanthropologieanatomiqueetdepaleopathologiedelyon.fr/PALEOBIOS%202007/biométrie%20et%20oeuvres%20d%27art.htm http://www.laboratoiredanthropologieanatomiqueetdepaleopatho.... He is making an actual claim to scientific validity, complete with tables of measurements of the distance between Benvenuto Cellini's "lateral nasal point" and pupils in various potential self-portraits. I'm skeptical, but it's interesting to note that the author seems to know what he's talking about (director of a university paleopathalogy lab and "Expert en Anthropologie d'identification" for the French legal system).

mlyle 3y ago
The big confound here is: are you mostly measuring things about the artist's true appearance in a self-portrait, or are you measuring things about just how he is inclined to portray a face in general (either in a self-portrait or otherwise)?

anyfoo 3y ago

I think much of what you say appears to be covered in (indeed, the point of) the article?

smokel 3y ago
Haha, I still have a long way to go to make myself clear on an internet forum. I have thoroughly reread the article, and I think my comment has four original, albeit very minor, contributions, that are not covered in the article. Granted, the information density of my comment may be low. I also agree with the entire article, so my remarks are in line with what is said there.

syntheweave 3y ago

When cartooning without reference you have two general methods available: 1. Recall a contour you've committed to muscle memory, e.g. through blind contour studies. 2. Construct a form from primitive geometry, which can be memorized as a recipe like stating the figure's proportions in "heads of height" (e.g. Andrew Loomis's figure drawing books). While you can adjust the proportions of contours in 2D by moving your hand with exaggeration, adjusting a form in perspective is a much more calculated thing, and artists tend to gravitate towards simpler, letter-like ratios in their proportions unintentionally as they make adjustments. Thus, unusual poses and perspectives tend to be distorted towards a kind of default, symbolic figure - and mapping them to the intended character needs reference to help the brain see how the proportions differ. There are tricks that can reduce the guesswork(e.g. Burne Hogarth Dynamic Figure Drawing) by starting with drawing a well-understood perspective and then making 90 degree camera moves to restate the pose in a different viewpoint. But a reference lets you get a contour immediately, and it avoids distortion, so comic artists will tend towards using reference for solving the really hard drawing problems - even if you have no technology to help, you could get a friend to make the pose and then draw the contour of that, then fix up whatever's necessary by adding some construction over that. For similar reasons cartoonists will tend to draw the same kind of "symbolic" face - enough to indicate character and staging, but not measured like a portrait drawing. Depending on how they practiced faces, it could be their own face or an ideal construction. And if they have the visual library available, they can make new faces by combining the symbols differently. A good caricaturist can just look and get the contours and have 80% of the likeness in an instant, and then fill in the rest symbolically.