Do you care about the accuracy of anatomy?

[Winterbass 763]

I've been to some blogs and tumblrs just an hour ago and this particular topic came up way too many times. It kept bugging me a lot and I've decided to ask what the forums think. 

 

It's about whether you care about the way people draw their ponies, anthros, whatever, when it comes to the anatomy.

 

To me, anatomy really doesn't matter. Most of my favorite artists don't draw anatomy "the right way", yet their art is stunning in both presentation and emotion. Sure, some people who don't care about the anatomy draw ponies in really weird ways, but does it really matter that much to people? As long as everything is in proportion, why should anatomy matter?

 

Some artists that I follow get bombarded by comments like "Wrong anatomy, therefore not good" and "Eww, what's wrong with her anatomy? This sucks!". All of which are artists that work their ass off to make the art. I myself also have gotten similar reactions which left me trying to figure out what's wrong with my art, because I really don't see any mistakes at all.

 

I'm also really confused why anatomy would make someone dislike or like a piece. You can't judge work just by looking at the anatomy. It's called a drawing style for a reason. 

 

So, what do you think? Is the anatomy really that important? And why? Because I really don't get why.

[Kaspars L 100]

Incorrect anatomy doesn't bother me. It seems like some people fail to realize that art is not all about realism. I think it should only matter if the artist has actually intended to portray a character with correct anatomy.

[QuirkyUsername 1,576]

Personally it depends. If it has a decent enough style to make up for it I can over look it but a bad style and poor anatomy can be very visually unpleasant at times. To me it really comes down to the artist but I won't condemn an artist solely on anatomy. I've seen quite a few artist whos art is amazing but their anatomy is pretty average.

[Aisling Ink 195]

I think, as Quirky said, that is up to the artist. Anatomy can be changed, just like human anatomy, but it needs to be balanced and well constructed. It is important in its own way, if you do study anatomy you will notice various mistakes in the artworks you see and it might bother you. Personally I think that if one studies anatomy you can change it and play with it as well. Just like human anatomy in cartoons.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,241]

The way I see it, if the art itself is good, then I can forgive any strangeness to the anatomy. That could just be the style that the artist creates with. Same with Quirky, I have seen plenty of art where the anatomy seems somewhat off or different than usually but the art itself was great, soooo, it just doesn't bother me that much. Then again I do not look at tons of art anymore so perhaps my opinion is not entirely valid.

[Shanks 10,816]

As long as the anatomy is accurate enough to where it still looks like the characters than it is close enough for me, artists have different styles and I think that is a good thing. Besides when you get right down to it the ponies in the show aren't exactly 100% accurate as far as what real life horses look like but they look adorable and are mostly compelling and well written characters.

[PoniesPlease 365]

People tell me I should draw, and I do try, but if even the slightest part of the body seems disproportionate, I will crumple up the paper and throw it into the bin with enough force to sunder even the hardiest of shields!

 

So yeah, I do care about it.

[silvadel 1,393]

It is sort of like messing up the underlying framework of a design, or paining on a warped canvas.  This is often one of the problems people have with drawing pictures of other people -- they do not have the underlying musculature correct so it looks "wrong." 

[Smarts 1,622]

I don't care about the accuracy of anatomy, at all. Artists have their ways of drawing their art. If the art is good, then it's good. Art isn't just about realism, it's about using your imagination.

[Crispy 5,563]

Some artists that I follow get bombarded by comments like "Wrong anatomy, therefore not good" and "Eww, what's wrong with her anatomy? This sucks!".

 

You follow Lil' Miss Rarity, don't you Squigward.

 

At least, that's the artist I see get the most crap for drawing "inaccurate" anthros.

[Winterbass 763]

Personally it depends. If it has a decent enough style to make up for it I can over look it but a bad style and poor anatomy can be very visually unpleasant at times. To me it really comes down to the artist but I won't condemn an artist solely on anatomy. I've seen quite a few artist whos art is amazing but their anatomy is pretty average.

 

A bad style will always look bad. It doesn't matter how correct everything is, if the artist "sucks", the art will be bad no matter what.

 

 

I think, as Quirky said, that is up to the artist. Anatomy can be changed, just like human anatomy, but it needs to be balanced and well constructed. It is important in its own way, if you do study anatomy you will notice various mistakes in the artworks you see and it might bother you. Personally I think that if one studies anatomy you can change it and play with it as well. Just like human anatomy in cartoons.

 

I know quite a bit of anatomy, ranging from humans, horses and foxes to chickens, snakes and beetles. I'm not at all bothered by the anatomy simply because I don't think anatomy matters, even when it's up to the point of "weird" or "mutilated". If given the right approach and emotion, even those pictures can look incredible.

 

The way I see it, if the art itself is good, then I can forgive any strangeness to the anatomy. That could just be the style that the artist creates with. Same with Quirky, I have seen plenty of art where the anatomy seems somewhat off or different than usually but the art itself was great, soooo, it just doesn't bother me that much. Then again I do not look at tons of art anymore so perhaps my opinion is not entirely valid.

 

Everyone's opinion is valid. Someone who doesn't make music can still give his or her opinion on a song. Never think your opinion's invalid, that's bollocks. 

 

People tell me I should draw, and I do try, but if even the slightest part of the body seems disproportionate, I will crumple up the paper and throw it into the bin with enough force to sunder even the hardiest of shields!

 

So yeah, I do care about it.

 

That's your opinion and your feeling on how you think you yourself should draw. But what do you think about other people who, in your eyes, get the anatomy wrong? I too have certain expectations when I'm drawing myself, but that doesn't mean other people should meet mine as well.

 

You follow Lil' Miss Rarity, don't you Squigward.

 

At least, that's the artist I see get the most crap for drawing "inaccurate" anthros.

 

Heh, Lil' Miss Rarity wasn't actually one of the ones I had in mind, but now that I think about it, Jay also got plenty of flak for drawing the anatomy "incorrectly".  I actually was thinking about Kver, Drawponies and Jitter initially. Heck, even Pigfish and CrookedTrees were annoyed by these people.

 

--

 

I just don't get how people can get so upset over anatomy. I get more annoyed when people complain about it more than when someone gets it wrong. People draw however the hell they like, and they don't need to meet people's standards. That doesn't mean people should be blind to constructive criticism, but it also doesn't mean artists should meet your expectations when they're drawing for themselves.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Winterbass

[PoniesPlease 365]

 

 

That's your opinion and your feeling on how you think you yourself should draw. But what do you think about other people who, in your eyes, get the anatomy wrong? I too have certain expectations when I'm drawing myself, but that doesn't mean other people should meet mine as well.

 

Apologies for misreading the OP. 

 

I guess it does bug me when I see it. I know absolutely nothing about art, so for me it has to be perfect in an anatomical sense. So yes. But I hate it when people SAY that the art is bad because of a disproportionate anatomy,or even incorrect color. Its unfair to the artist.

[Harmonic Revelations 8,835]

I don't usually mind except for when the face anatomy is messed up because it makes it unpleasant to look at, in my honest opinion. If the drawing is actually high quality and the anatomy is a little off it doesn't bother me unless the facial features are messed up.

[. eris . 1,661]

Here's the thing with me, about anatomy; I've only learned to draw rather recently, and I'm trying to teach myself with limited success. Being, of course, less talented than a mule on meth, I botch my anatomy up rather spectacularly. 

 

With that being said, I think it's extremely important for an artist to at least know and learn the correct anatomy before developing one's own style. You can't stylize something, or create a style with the excuse of, "Oh, I hate drawing ears, so in my style, their ears look like this." I honestly believe that you need to learn correct anatomy before you go off stylizing anything.

 

However, once you feel comfortable drawing correct anatomy, and know how ball-joints work and whatnot, I think it's extremely unfair to hold all artists to the same, "You have to draw all anatomy this way!" standard. If the artist knows the anatomy and chooses to ignore it, that's one thing. 

 

Keep in mind this is coming from an extremely amateur artist and a rather derpalicious one at that.

[Scootalove 10,689]

The anatomy does not always matter, if your able to fix any other problems and the anatomy problem just stands out. If the face is really messed up, then I would recommend to work on that.

[~Silver Essence~ 2,625]

Not at all.

 

However, there are at times when it does bother me when it's done on purpose for a reason, but I really don't mind either way.

[Lucky Lass 528]

Here's the thing with me, about anatomy; I've only learned to draw rather recently, and I'm trying to teach myself with limited success. Being, of course, less talented than a mule on meth, I botch my anatomy up rather spectacularly. 

 

With that being said, I think it's extremely important for an artist to at least know and learn the correct anatomy before developing one's own style. You can't stylize something, or create a style with the excuse of, "Oh, I hate drawing ears, so in my style, their ears look like this." I honestly believe that you need to learn correct anatomy before you go off stylizing anything.

 

However, once you feel comfortable drawing correct anatomy, and know how ball-joints work and whatnot, I think it's extremely unfair to hold all artists to the same, "You have to draw all anatomy this way!" standard. If the artist knows the anatomy and chooses to ignore it, that's one thing. 

 

Keep in mind this is coming from an extremely amateur artist and a rather derpalicious one at that.

 

This, I think if you want to peruse art as more than a  hobby and get better then you need to learn proper anatomy before you go with your own style. You can tell artists who know what they are doing from artists who don't care about anatomy at all, because there is a difference between a lovely well done style and a style where their limbs all look broken.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Lucky Lass

[ShadowRose2k 271]

Style over science.   Art is about expresion not correctly drawing.      Yeah somethimes people get carried away with the way they do art but thats the way it is.

 

Anyway,  if ya wanted correct anatomy, then MLP would be drawn alot diffrently.

[Lucky Lass 528]

Style over science.   Art is about expresion not correctly drawing.      Yeah somethimes people get carried away with the way they do art but thats the way it is.

 

Anyway,  if ya wanted correct anatomy, then MLP would be drawn alot diffrently.

 

But the people who draw and animate for MLP still know realism and can draw proper anatomy.

The point is you have to know the basics and the rules before you can break them.

[Scootadress 361]

Well, for me...I get annoyed at anatomy if its not done in a stylized way or on purpose. No, your art is not anatomically correct, drawing like a five year old is NOT a style. I hear that all the time from my friend. She draws really bad, and I've been helping her. She claims her way is "her cartoon" but, scribbles does not constitute style.

 

I prefer anatomy but if its in good taste, I'll ignore it. I can't stand it when crappy drawing equates to style. 

[Icy Void 19]

I personally don't care if the anatomy is correct, though I may be bugged by it if it's rediculously incorrect and not on purpose. It all comes down to the art style or just artistic talent as far as how the anatomy looks.

[Faulty Roze 200]

I'm sort of a new comer to pony drawings, so typically I try to draw as accurate as possible. No lean way whatsoever. However, I'm finding myself slowly breaking the habit

[Winterbass 763]

Here's the thing with me, about anatomy; I've only learned to draw rather recently, and I'm trying to teach myself with limited success. Being, of course, less talented than a mule on meth, I botch my anatomy up rather spectacularly. 

 

With that being said, I think it's extremely important for an artist to at least know and learn the correct anatomy before developing one's own style. You can't stylize something, or create a style with the excuse of, "Oh, I hate drawing ears, so in my style, their ears look like this." I honestly believe that you need to learn correct anatomy before you go off stylizing anything.

 

However, once you feel comfortable drawing correct anatomy, and know how ball-joints work and whatnot, I think it's extremely unfair to hold all artists to the same, "You have to draw all anatomy this way!" standard. If the artist knows the anatomy and chooses to ignore it, that's one thing. 

 

Keep in mind this is coming from an extremely amateur artist and a rather derpalicious one at that.

 

Unless the artist isn't really serious about drawing, he or she wouldn't just think "Oh well, guess the ears don't work out for me, so let's just draw them in a way I don't want them to actually be." An artist would be serious about improving and drawing the picture they have in their head.

 

My question still stands though, why does an artist have to know the anatomy before developing their own style? I've seen plenty of artists developing their own style without even having laid a glance on the anatomy. And all of their art looks fine, if it weren't for people bringing up the whole anatomy thing non-stop.

 

 

 

This, I think if you want to peruse art as more than a  hobby and get better then you need to learn proper anatomy before you go with your own style. You can tell artists who know what they are doing from artists who don't care about anatomy at all, because there is a difference between a lovely well done style and a style where their limbs all look broken.

But the people who draw and animate for MLP still know realism and can draw proper anatomy.

The point is you have to know the basics and the rules before you can break them.

Well, for me...I get annoyed at anatomy if its not done in a stylized way or on purpose. No, your art is not anatomically correct, drawing like a five year old is NOT a style. I hear that all the time from my friend. She draws really bad, and I've been helping her. She claims her way is "her cartoon" but, scribbles does not constitute style.

 

I prefer anatomy but if its in good taste, I'll ignore it. I can't stand it when crappy drawing equates to style. 

 

I still disagree on all of this. 

 

 

 

 

Legs are too long / arms are too short, the ear is reversed, actually facing the wrong way in this position, back legs are way too much out of proportion. Also, the neck is really long.

 

 

 

 

Neck too thin. Again, legs aren't the same size. Right back leg bent in a really strange way.

 

 

 

 

Everything's "wrong" with the picture. Sizes don't add up. The OCs legs shouldn't work that way, plus the tails are placed on the wrong spot on their bodies.

 

 

 

 

Front hooves would have to be nearly as big as the body of this one, back legs seem really thin compared to the front hooves.

 

 

 

 

Ears are all messed-up, back hooves would be almost 2.5 times the size of the front hooves. Snout is really small compared to the rest of their face.

 

 

 

 

Front hooves are nearly half the size of the back hooves. Neckline would suggest her spine would be completely messed up. Wings are also starting a bit too low.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet, when looking at these pictures, they all look totally fine to me. I know what's "wrong" with them, yet it's still good art even with all their "mistakes".

I'm quite sure this isn't what 5-year old children draw, nor would be seen as "bad" by the majority of people.

I'd also like to add that 2 of these artists were recently hired to draw art for games. So there's that as well. 

 

I'm still confused.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Winterbass

[Scootadress 361]

Unless the artist isn't really serious about drawing, he or she wouldn't just think "Oh well, guess the ears don't work out for me, so let's just draw them in a way I don't want them to actually be." An artist would be serious about improving and drawing the picture they have in their head.

 

My question still stands though, why does an artist have to know the anatomy before developing their own style? I've seen plenty of artists developing their own style without even having laid a glance on the anatomy. And all of their art looks fine, if it weren't for people bringing up the whole anatomy thing non-stop.

 

 

 

 

I still disagree on all of this. 

 

 

 

 

Legs are too long / arms are too short, the ear is reversed, actually facing the wrong way in this position, back legs are way too much out of proportion. Also, the neck is really long.

 

 

 

 

Neck too thin. Again, legs aren't the same size. Right back leg bent in a really strange way.

 

 

 

 

Everything's "wrong" with the picture. Sizes don't add up. The OCs legs shouldn't work that way, plus the tails are placed on the wrong spot on their bodies.

 

 

 

 

Front hooves would have to be nearly as big as the body of this one, back legs seem really thin compared to the front hooves.

 

 

 

 

Ears are all messed-up, back hooves would be almost 2.5 times the size of the front hooves. Snout is really small compared to the rest of their face.

 

 

 

 

Front hooves are nearly half the size of the back hooves. Neckline would suggest her spine would be completely messed up. Wings are also starting a bit too low.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet, when looking at these pictures, they all look totally fine to me. I know what's "wrong" with them, yet it's still good art even with all their "mistakes". I'm also quite sure this isn't what 5-year old children draw, nor would be seen as "bad" by the majority of people. I'd also like to add that 2 of these artists were recently hired to draw art for games.

No, I don't mean it with these examples. I mean actual scribbles, like a five year old drew them. And I get annoyed when they do that and claim its a style when they could, you know, try to improve.

 

Like, the girl I'm tutoring. She's drawing really really really uh...

 

something you could draw at age five and work on it to make it look, you know, like you tried to put some more effort in it.

 

I don't mind minor things like that. I do that all the time. I just don't like it when people use that as an excuse to do shit. 

 

I meant that your drawing shouldn't always be considered a style. If they worked very hard on those styles for years, they earned it. If you draw scribbles and call it a style, its not really a style. You can only work on a style if you know everything about what your doing already, right? They learned how to and worked on it to create a style.  

 

I dislike it when a new drawer, one that wants to be a cartoonist at that, claims a style, but lacks the knowledge of common things someone should know to improve it. (Like, she won't move the body. She doesn't know proportions even with her 'style'.)

 

As long as its not massively different, I don't care. I prefer some form of it though.

[CT-1138 3,182]

They're magical ponies that can fly, talk, and go on friendship adventures, I didn't think anatomical accuracy was ever a option, to me.