Hi Mattew,
I did studies of the skeleton in different styles. Could you please check them?
And I have some questions for everyone according to reference numbers!
1. The distance between the circles of the pelvis and ribcage looks too big in the Reference number 1, but in my skeleton too small; they even overlap each other! Don’t know why!
– I also didn’t understand how he connects the leg lines to the pelvis by showing the greater trochanter bone like in the middle of the circle. Or how I should do it in my drawing?
2. I didn’t understand Loomis’s limbs curvy lines. Why are they curvy like the muscles instead of showing straight, realistic bones? And the way he curved them, I didn’t understand them—like some inwards and some outwards!
– Did I get the angle of the discs of the pelvis correct?
3. I didn’t understand the way he simplified the two bones together in the lower arms and legs. Did he just draw one of them, or how did he do it?
– I also didn’t understand the left disc perspective—how it turns like this! And also the patella position—it should be higher, like on the lower part of the upper leg, not between the two leg bones where they meet in the middle, or not?
4. – Also, this artist did the patella in the middle! But I realized he did them at different angles, more straight and shorter, and the distance between discs was much bigger!
Did he want to show the discs without the sitting bones, so he did it shorter than Loomis?
Also, the feet look too big, like shoes, not bones!
– The last question: Is the area that connects the discs in between supposed to resemble the back part of the pelvis where they are connected?
Thanks alot
Nadim
Recent Comments