{"id":14430,"date":"2016-05-03T20:13:28","date_gmt":"2016-05-04T01:13:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vitruvianstudio.com\/?p=14430"},"modified":"2016-05-05T21:17:11","modified_gmt":"2016-05-06T02:17:11","slug":"5-laws-for-drawing-better-figures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vitruvianstudio.com\/blog\/5-laws-for-drawing-better-figures\/","title":{"rendered":"5 “Laws” for Drawing Better Figures"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’m not a big fan of “laws” in drawing and painting. There’s an exception to every rule, so it seems that whenever I tell a student that x<\/em><\/strong> is “always true”, there ends up being some damn\u00a0reason why it’s actually not<\/em> true in the\u00a0particular case at hand \u2013 and then I have to backpedal.<\/p>\n

But still, principles can be helpful when you’re learning to draw and paint. Even if x<\/em><\/strong> isn’t “always true”, it’s good to know if it’s often<\/em> true. Knowing what we can expect to see, and why we can expect to see it, can lead to more astute\u00a0observations and better decisions while drawing.<\/p>\n

A good teacher can give you these\u00a0principles.\u00a0For me, such a teacher was the late Martha Mayer Erlebacher<\/a> at the New York Academy of Art<\/a>. Her singular\u00a0strength as an instructor was her insistence on absolutes. She taught us that basic human anatomy isn’t really a matter for interpretation. The\u00a0important stuff is largely\u00a0the same from one person to the next, and she gave us 5 “Laws” that\u00a0helped us to draw figures that looked\u00a0convincing.<\/p>\n

These “Laws” aren’t about the names of bones and muscles, but are instead general principles governing the\u00a0arrangement<\/em> and expression<\/em>\u00a0of structures on the body. They qualify as “Laws” because they’re universal \u2013 they apply roughly equally to every individual, and every\u00a0part<\/em> of every individual. We can see them\u00a0at work globally throughout the figure.<\/p>\n

Below is an accounting of Martha’s Laws, at least to the best of my recollection.<\/p>\n

1. The Law of the Diagonal<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Every muscle on the body crosses at least one joint.\u00a0The biceps, for example, crosses two<\/em> joints on the arm: the shoulder (long head) and the elbow. On its path from end to end, the muscle itself is oriented at a slight angle\u00a0relative to the long bone of the upper arm \u2013 the humerus. The biceps starts near the inside<\/em> of the arm at the shoulder (medial), and passes toward the outside<\/em> of the arm at the elbow\u00a0(lateral) \u2013 it’s at a\u00a0diagonal<\/em> relative to the long axis of the arm itself. This diagonal relationship between a muscle form and the larger stucture on which it sits can be seen everywhere on the body. Look for it.<\/p>\n

2. The Law of the Overlap<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The human body is a 3-dimensional entity. Depending on your angle of view, particular volumes will eclipse others, which in turn eclipse still others. Noting the particular “stacking order” of form, and representing it with overlaps in the contour, is a simple way to convey 3-dimensionality in a line drawing.<\/p>\n

A clear example of this can be found on the upper arm. The deltoid is a large triangular muscle connecting the upper arm to the shoulder. It overlaps both the biceps in the front and the triceps in the back, both of which\u00a0emerge from\u00a0under<\/em> the deltoid from their points of origin on the upper arm and scapula respectively.<\/p>\n

A simple notation of the deltoid’s primacy in this stacking order of muscles can be made by extending\u00a0it’s contour\u00a0inside<\/em> the silhouette of the arm, even if just for a short distance, truncating the contours of the biceps and\/or triceps. Such simple adjustments\u00a0can transform an otherwise flat and “noodley” contour drawing into a\u00a0solid, 3-dimensional, and anatomically descriptive figure.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0The Law of Convexity<\/strong><\/h2>\n

All contours of the body are convex, meaning they curve\u00a0outward<\/em>. Some convexities may be so attenuated that they appear to be almost flat, but they will never, ever scoop inward\u00a0\u2013\u00a0<\/em>they will never be concave<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the convex curves will be of a particular type. The high point, or\u00a0apex\u00a0<\/em>of a curve will never appear to be in the center, but will instead be displaced to one side or the other. This asymmetry is the hallmark of\u00a0trajectory<\/em> curves, where the rate of curvature changes from end to end. Symmetrical curves, where the apex is in the center \u2013 think of a segment of a circle \u2013 are called\u00a0neutral<\/em> curves, and they are nowhere to be seen on the body. Don’t draw them.<\/p>\n

4. The Law of the Space<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Prominent convexities on the contour\u00a0are rarely seen right next to one another. Instead, any two\u00a0full\u00a0forms tend to be separated by a flatter “spacer” form, serving as a kind of “rest stop” on the contour. This idea can be seen in subtle ways all over the figure. For example, the two pectoralis muscles of the chest are separated by the\u00a0flatter form of the sternum between them. Similarly, the iliac crest of the pelvis separates the full forms of the external oblique<\/em> above and the gluteus medius<\/em> below.<\/p>\n

5. The Law of “Close Hugging”<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Huh?<\/em><\/p>\n

I confess, I didn’t understand this one when Martha first presented to us, but it sank in slowly over the course of a few weeks of\u00a0drawing in her class.<\/p>\n

What the “law of close hugging” refers to is the densely-packed nature of form on the body. There’s a kind of “hierarchy” of structure\u00a0on the figure, where large underlying forms provide a foundation for other forms\u00a0on top of them. The influence of those foundational forms can be seen in the overlying structures because what’s on top “hugs close” to what’s underneath.<\/p>\n

There is no space, for example, between a bone and the muscle form that attaches to it \u2013 they’re tightly fused together, like geological strata… or like the layers of a sandwich pressed together hard in a George Foreman Grill<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

It became clear during\u00a0anatomical drawing class\u00a0why this law is\u00a0important. An exercise we repeated often was to make\u00a0a line drawing of a figure from life, and then draw\u00a0the ribcage and pelvis (followed by the long bones of the\u00a0limbs)\u00a0inside<\/em> the figure, referring only to our class notes and direct observations of the model. It’s very tricky to do this correctly, especially when you’re still struggling to grasp what these skeletal volumes really look like.<\/p>\n

One of the\u00a0common mistakes that students make\u00a0is to leave\u00a0way<\/em> too much space between the outer contour of the figure, and the inner anatomical\u00a0structure. The rib cage, for example, doesn’t “float” inside the chest. The rib cage\u00a0is<\/em> the chest, with muscle forms densely packed on top of it, radiating in all directions. The large egg-shaped form of the rib cage influences the shape of the torso\u00a0because all the muscles, fat and skin on top of it\u00a0conform\u00a0to it’s shape.<\/em><\/p>\n

All of it is densely packed together.<\/p>\n

If you do leave space between a\u00a0skeletal volume\u00a0and the outer contour of the figure \u2013 as would be appropriate, say, when drawing\u00a0the femur inside the thigh \u2013 you must be prepared to account for the distance between them. There are very specific muscle forms, in very specific groupings, that fill-up that space all they way to the surface of the skin. The space inside the contour of the figure must be considered\u00a0the way a bookkeeper works in\u00a0a ledger \u2013 there are no “floating” or “empty” entities. Everything must be accounted for.<\/p>\n