Talk:Body proportions

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

somebody:

your genetics define the basic human proportions. What you eat and how active you are (ex: weightlifting, running, etc) will affect your proportions, though you will still have the basic proportions described here.

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 ...

This article is very badly written. Discussing spurious ideals of proportions has nothing to do with actual proportions. I was hoping to find ways to relate foot length to leg length, etc.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Idealized?

So is the part about the HEAD (4 eyes wide, length of nose, etc) idealized as well? It isn't very clear on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.211.103 (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

"These ratios may not always reflect the actual shape of the model's body, if there is a model. In other cultures, different ratios may be emphasized for different aesthetic effect."
Needs work.
--"...if there is a model."--Where the idea of a model come from? Is this sentence necessary at all? What is it supposed to mean?
--"In other cultures..."--What 'other' cultures? What culture do you think this is?
--'different' should be removed, as it conveys no meaning in the sentnece.
74.185.249.234 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]