Talk:Body proportions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	Class: This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Why?

Do the proportions of the human body conform to any notable local maxima? Is there a reason that the arms are of this size, that the legs are of this size, etc.? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 21:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

somebody:

Anyways I believe that this description skips a head length. there seems to be one between mid thigh and mid calf. just under the knee. I'm not going to post that scince i'm not anauthority on body proportion. the 3d model I'm working on didn't look at all right (it actually didn't work at all) without that head length.

Another Somebody: It is missing one, its only 7 heads tall ...

[edit] The eighth head...

The current description of '8 heads tall' seems a little strange, especially when we get to the last one - which is supposed to extend from just below the ankles to 'the feet'.

I'm assuming it means: from 'just below the ankles' to 'the tips of the toes', but is the height of the figure measured in this outstretched state? Because it makes it very awkward to follow as a quick guide in figure drawing.

There are a few views here over how many heads to use, and I know it isn't an absolute measurement and only a proportion guide, but the current article has gotten me looking somewhere else.

Terrahnahjacitor 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree...how about "just above the ankles to the soles of the feet?"

No, the height is not measured in an outsretched state, just a pretty normal stance.

The fact is that there were more than one canon for different purposes: 8 heads was "ideal", 10 heads was "heroic", I think 7 realistic (though it can even be less) and of course this assumes adulthood. It could be argued the actual headage matters less than the relative proportions of all the other body parts however. A good source is Andrew Loomis's figure drawing book, now long out of print but knocking around the web nevertheless. I guess the illustrations must still be copyright though. It's a shame we can't get any more "modern"(ish) illustrations than Vitruvian Man which doesn't clearly show the head-to-head divisions, classic though it is. Adytum72a 07:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Name

Is there some reason why the very general sounding "body proportions" was chosen over say, "Figure Drawing Canon"? As it stands the content in 100% artistic, so shouldn't that be reflected in the title? There is nothing to stop information on e.g. genetics and anything else related being added, which is all fine and well... unless it should be an article for artistic determination of proportions? I guess I'm just surprised that searching WP I couldn't find any mention of (artistic) canon. I've added art to the Canon page but this article doesn't use the word. Adytum72a 07:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is refered to as body proportions as opposed to figure drawing canon because figure drawing canon is used to describe posture, facial features, clothing, demeanor, ect for drawing a perticular type of character, where as this page is about the realistic proportions of the body.--scorpion 451 rant 00:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)