CGTalk > Techniques > Art Techniques and Theories
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-06-2005, 02:51 PM   #31
jmBoekestein
likes a flower =)...
 
jmBoekestein's Avatar
portfolio
Jan Mark Boekestein
Netherlands
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,854
Send a message via ICQ to jmBoekestein Send a message via AIM to jmBoekestein Send a message via MSN to jmBoekestein
Well, it seemed to me you weren't striking any core with your question. You were asking about variations in anatomy, are those dimples then?

As to impoverished, are youtelling us what variations are or querying about their accuracy in your work? Or maybe trying to find out things about it? If you want it to be representative of something, you'll have to simply dive in the books and data. Basically...
__________________
modelling practice #1

Last edited by jmBoekestein : 08-06-2005 at 03:03 PM.
 
Old 08-06-2005, 03:02 PM   #32
Stahlberg
Lord of the posts
 
Stahlberg's Avatar
CGSociety Member
portfolio
Steven Stahlberg
Lead Artist
Streamline Studios
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,601

Quote:
some weird, media-dictated idea of the human face

If you're talking about thin as a stick versus curvy and sexy - a group of fashion designers (most of them gay men, which means they prefer bony) are responsible for that (and I say that with nothing but respect).
That, plus the fact that people in rich countries are literally eating themselves to death more and more, and there's a growing backlash to that.

No one can 'dictate' what faces we like. That's a modern myth. The idea is silly, and vaguely insulting. Asian women operate their eyes to raise the lids, which makes the eyes look bigger - this is a desirable female trait to most people all over the world. That is DNA. It's not a product of brainwashing.
 
Old 08-06-2005, 03:24 PM   #33
John Keates
Fiddler
 
John Keates's Avatar
john keates
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmBoekestein
are youtelling us what variations are or querying about their accuracy in your work? Or maybe trying to find out things about it? If you want it to be representative of something, you'll have to simply dive in the books and data. Basically...


I am asking what I am asking. The thread title and content say it all. Does anyone here know about variations? The sage Stahlberg did, thats why he has mentioned the one about Asian ladies eyes - thanks for that Stahlberg

I have often noticed the largness of thier eyes but I always attributed it to the high fat content of their diet (which may lead to the opposite of sunken eyes which would make them appear larger) plus the fact that thier eyes would contrast with thier darker skin.

See... Stahlberg brought up an interesting point and now we can talk about it rather than getting side-tracked by somethign else. If you want to talk about notions of beauty and conformity then by all means start a thread about it. That isn't what this thread is about.

I am well aware that there may be books and research done on the subject but it is hard to find. I was thinking that maybe people here knew about it or could give me some leads.

You obviously don't know about the subject so I don't see why you post. I feel like the bad guy here but I am just trying to keep things lean and interesting. Please PM me for further enquiries.
 
Old 08-06-2005, 04:10 PM   #34
jmBoekestein
likes a flower =)...
 
jmBoekestein's Avatar
portfolio
Jan Mark Boekestein
Netherlands
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,854
Send a message via ICQ to jmBoekestein Send a message via AIM to jmBoekestein Send a message via MSN to jmBoekestein
It's like this, people with no chin:

The bones there are smaller for some reason, meaning the jaw bone. This could be lack of certain substances leading to too little growth or just genetics.
All the muscles and tendons are still in place pushing the skin outwards, so you get odd bulges which would usually be around the (chin)bone there but are now not around but solely present. the bulge depends on the amount of usage of the muscles.

These are just simple things. Otherwise you need to be familiar with the basics of the human form to get to why it appears a certain way. So it's either, understand the anatomy first and then try and find the deviations from it, or 'what would you like to be using variations for?'. I'm busy with the second since I see no point in discussing all the various differences on a board for art theory because they are simply out there for the viewing and observing and are obviously countless, not theoretic at all. Then again, from an 'art theory' point of view, there are things to discuss, the usage of them visually. Which relates perception of others and ofcourse inevitably to beauty and ugliness. So again to be on topic, what's it your asking about? I mean you are on the art theories and discussion forum and not the artistic anatomy forum, so, I don't get your point. I might have been off topic responding to some issues posed, which was in good fun I believe. But it was all off topic anyway. The sage up there mentions beauty ideals, should we discuss this now?

I don't PM this in order to try and get something out of this. But, if it's just some random info on variations you're asking, that's fine with me and I'll sit back.
__________________
modelling practice #1
 
Old 08-06-2005, 04:37 PM   #35
John Keates
Fiddler
 
John Keates's Avatar
john keates
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,475
Well ok, let me re-phrase my question...

"I try to make sure that I represent a wide variety of body/face types in my work so I would be interested to know if there any good sources of information about the variation between people rather than just the similarities and how these variations are created - whether that be through lifestyle or genetics or a combination of the two."

Oh, hang on... that is identical to my original question.

At no point did I ask why we would wan't to use this variation so this thread isn't about that. Anyway, why wouldn't we? If you don't want to use it then fine... what has that got to do with me?

You say "So it's either, understand the anatomy (my italics) first and then try and find the deviations from it"

My point is that there isn't a "The anatomy". Yet again I will state that there are variations in anatomy. Not variations from the norm (what is the norm?) but variations due to genetics/lifestyle which people tend not to discuss (maybe because they don't want to bring up issues of race?)

You seem to assume that normal=beautifull where normal=healthy I suppose. As it happens, many of the models which we see in the midia do not have normal faces. Many female models have abnormally small jaws and are told by authadontists that they should have thier jaw "corrected" for health reasons. Also, the large jaw and heavy brow that makes men look hunky are caused by high levels of testosterone. High levels of testosterone are bad for the immune system and cause stress and violent behaviour.

I will also repeat again that it is NOT possible to derive all variatoin from a standard model. Even if it were, the thread still stands as a discussion point of how this variation can work. And by the way, I have a reasonable knowledge of anatomy - I just don't see that it can necesseraly help us work out all variation in a way that is obvious - as I explained in the eyebrow example and the dimple example.

I will stress again that this thread isn't supposed to be about ideals of beauty - I am after an objective and non-political look at the variations in anatomy of the worlds population.

If you don't like the topic then don't post to it. Please.

Last edited by John Keates : 08-06-2005 at 04:47 PM.
 
Old 08-06-2005, 04:45 PM   #36
John Keates
Fiddler
 
John Keates's Avatar
john keates
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,475
Oh yeah, with the chin example in the first post... I could have been clearer there. What I mean is that, maybe as well as having a sunken jaw line, they also have a bag of flesh (fat?) under their chin which makes them look chinless... but they don't have much fat anywhere else. Is this caused by thier lifestyle or is there maybe an un-common gene for storing fat around the neck just as there is for storing it around the kidneys and back etc?

I'm not expecting an answer for this particular question of course... it is just an example.
 
Old 08-06-2005, 05:09 PM   #37
Stahlberg
Lord of the posts
 
Stahlberg's Avatar
CGSociety Member
portfolio
Steven Stahlberg
Lead Artist
Streamline Studios
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,601

Well when it comes to fat-storing, that's obviously genetic... most features of the body are genetic. Only a relative minority of things like bunions and broken noses and bone-eating pathogens etc are caused by the environment. Unless you count aging as part of the environment and not part of the genetic; depends on definitions.

Since evolution works the way it does, we always have a huge majority of 'normal' or nearly so, then a smaller and smaller percentage of more and more different or 'abnormal' physiology.
Exactly what the aberrations are, is very difficult to establish fully if you think about it: by definition the most abnormal is very rare, and so hard to find. I think you could dedicate several lifetimes of study only to pinpoint what is the norm for the human body and what are all the aberrations from it. A good start would be to study to become a doctor, but even that I think would not be enough. If there is a single book about it I haven't found it, let me know if you do.
 
Old 08-06-2005, 05:24 PM   #38
John Keates
Fiddler
 
John Keates's Avatar
john keates
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,475
AARRRGH!.. not you as well!.... are you guys trying to wind me up?

What is this idea of the "norm" with "abberations" from it? Show me a photo of a normal person and I will show you another photo of someone who looks quite different but is just as normal.

We don't in any way need to use notions of normality in order to study genetic variations. For example, there are white swans and there are black swans. You might say that white swans are normal and black ones are "abberations" but an Austrailian might say the opposite. We could spend forever trying to decide which is normal. Which evolved from which... which is more healthy ( and in what environment ), which is more common? Are we talking about common now or common through the whole of time? Or the whole of phase space?

OR... we could leave notions of normality completely alone and just acknowledge that there are PERFECTLY NORMAL DIFFERENCES between things. Black swans and white swans. Quite simple.

Or are you supposing that there is some kind of superhuman on which we are all based? Because there isn't!

So I say AGAIN. If you know about the differences between people and the way that those differences work then please enlighten me. If you don't know anything about it, or if you think that it is a bad question, then just don't post. Quite simple.

Last edited by John Keates : 08-06-2005 at 05:39 PM.
 
Old 08-06-2005, 06:09 PM   #39
jfrancis
Know-it-All
portfolio
Joseph Francis
VFX Supervisor
Los Angeles, USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 382
Knowing average proportions is a drawing tool.

There are such things as average proportions. This is a mathematical reality. If you know those average measurements, you can more competently analyse the degree to which the model in front of you agrees with or departs from those proportions.

It sounds to me like you object to the term "normal"

"Norm" in this case is a mathematical term.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...G=Google+Search
"Norm" is a synonym for "mean" or "average" --

"normal" and "abnormal" carry a lot of baggage now, but something abnormal is not, by definition, always "bad" or "undesirable." It could simply be "abnormal."

Last edited by jfrancis : 08-06-2005 at 06:21 PM.
 
Old 08-06-2005, 06:12 PM   #40
RoundRobbin
Expert
 
RoundRobbin's Avatar
portfolio
M H
3d generalist
USA
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Keates

So I say AGAIN. If you know about the differences between people and the way that those differences work then please enlighten me. If you don't know anything about it, or if you think that it is a bad question, then just don't post. Quite simple.


Everyone has the same facial pattern. Look at fibinachi's theories and the golden mean, The facial pattern gets exponentially more complex or simple with every face, although patterns' complexity might differ, the pattern will still maintain it's mathematical sum of the human race. You don't need books on 'medical abnomailties', all you need is your minds eye.

Everyones statements which you happlessly strike irrelevant in your thread is what made this thread progress so well. The swan anaology doesn't fit, especially if you use DArwinian theory which artists somehow intertwine in their idealogical conventions to prep creation or duplication from quantity which gets labeled the norm or an abberation. abberations that DONT fall into those patterns are abberations. Theirs a lot of relevance.
 
Old 08-06-2005, 06:16 PM   #41
Kargokultti
pittance
 
Kargokultti's Avatar
Veera Luhtala
employed
Helsinki, Finland
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stahlberg
No one can 'dictate' what faces we like. That's a modern myth. The idea is silly, and vaguely insulting. Asian women operate their eyes to raise the lids, which makes the eyes look bigger - this is a desirable female trait to most people all over the world. That is DNA. It's not a product of brainwashing.


Did I tell you how the TV people come to my place and punch me till I'm black and blue if I think about faces that deviate from the ones they force-feed us. No? Well, that's because they don't.

Boekestein was right in that there is no one media, and no one united will behind it, but the trends are clearly visible. To discuss them, we use such conversational crutches as generalizations, hence the word 'media' when 'global, nearly immaterial, but still very real trends in the popular imagination' would be more appropriate.

And no, that is not DNA. DNA is DeoxyriboNucleic Acid. Eye enlargening surgery is usually called 'plastic surgery'. And surgery is just a nice word for "making wounds". I'll approve of eye largening, breast enhancing, thigh reducing operations the day they are achieved by DNA therapy. Until then, they're just a slightly more sophisticated form of ritual body mutilation.

Sorry, went a bit sarcastic there. Couldn't help myself.
 
Old 08-06-2005, 06:19 PM   #42
Kargokultti
pittance
 
Kargokultti's Avatar
Veera Luhtala
employed
Helsinki, Finland
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrancis
Knowing average proportions is a drawing tool.

There are such things as average proportions. This is a mathematical reality. If you know those average measurements, you can more competently analyse the degree to which the model in front of you agrees with or departs from those proportions.


Yes, of course there is the mathematical average. But do you really believe that the average face proportions we've all been taught at our arts classes were created by a bunch of mathematicians?
 
Old 08-06-2005, 06:23 PM   #43
jfrancis
Know-it-All
portfolio
Joseph Francis
VFX Supervisor
Los Angeles, USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargokultti
Yes, of course there is the mathematical average. But do you really believe that the average face proportions we've all been taught at our arts classes were created by a bunch of mathematicians?


I don't think you are objecting to what is to be considered an average face.

I think you are objecting to what is to be considered an ideal face.

I purposely avoided that word.
 
Old 08-06-2005, 06:28 PM   #44
mosconariz
Learning From U
 
mosconariz's Avatar
portfolio
Fernando de Anda Orellana
Calcetín Animaciones
Mexico City, Mexico
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,371
Send a message via MSN to mosconariz
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stahlberg
Well when it comes to fat-storing, that's obviously genetic... most features of the body are genetic. Only a relative minority of things like bunions and broken noses and bone-eating pathogens etc are caused by the environment. Unless you count aging as part of the environment and not part of the genetic; depends on definitions.


I don't agree with this, most identical twins are not identical at all, their anathomy differs in fat, height and even in details in the shape of the nose etcétera; and they have the SAME DNA... this twins, if you doesn't look close, you'll see them identical. But they aren't because they have had their own experiences in life.

Maybe we can make something for this thread, maybe we can sketch all the cool variety we find in streets and upload it here... or maybe we should close this thread cause at this point we're going nowhere, hehe
__________________
 
Old 08-06-2005, 06:29 PM   #45
John Keates
Fiddler
 
John Keates's Avatar
john keates
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrancis
Knowing average proportions is a drawing tool.

There are such things as average proportions. This is a mathematical reality. If you know those average measurements, you can more competently analyse the degree to which the model in front of you agrees with or departs from those proportions.


Look I know that having a model of "normal" anatomy is a usefull tool. I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that, whilst there is a lot of discussion about normality, nobody talks about the variation.

We can take all the people that exist and find the mathematical average and use that as a model. This average person will have about 1.99 legs and 31.8 teeth. They will be kinda dark brown, they will have a sorta button/not button nose, kinda grey eyes, both sets of genetals, a slight remenance of glasses etc etc.

Anyone seen a person like this?

So we have our average person and now we want to find the variations from that "norm". OK what are the variations? We are back to square one arn't we.

I'm not asking about what is normal. I have plenty of books telling me what the base model is. I would like to know about the VARIATIONS. The normal model tells me diddly squat about them. There could be green people with upside down noses and the "normal" model wouldn't tell me that at all.

Someone here show me a person that they consider to be normal and from which all facial characteristics can be derived and I will show you how there is no such person, and even if there were, there would not be the information within them which would allow us to un-contravercially extrapolate the full range of features seen in people around the world.

Everything in this post I have written in some other form in this thread. PLEASE don't make me repeat myself again. The question is quite specific. If you can't answer it then don't....
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.