What do you consider as bad anatomy and what do you consider as an anatomy in different style than realistic? Here's an example: Badly drawn anatomy or anatomy with own style?
The top shows more of an understanding of anatomy with edges and forms being simplified forms of the real things, the bottom half is just blobs.
There's no clear distinction that it's legs, it might aswell be a man who's legs are sausages.
>>2713036
I heartily agree, I need to work for legs a lot
>>2713035
Bad anatomy stems from lack of knowledge. Anatomy in a different style is the artist intentionally changing it in way that he knows differ from reality, but it's done for aesthetic reasons.
The picture you posted is just poorly drawn.
>>2713045
Cool, interesting point of view
Usually once you know how anatomy works, it shows even through stylization. Example: Alice Neel
Badly drawn anatomy - don't be trying to establish a 'style' yet OP. The style should come from your shorthands you develop studying actual anatomy, not an attempt to skip studying actual anatomy.
>>2713035
Bad anatomy is obviously wrong even if no careful analysis of what is wrong is placed.
Stylized anatomy is sometimes over simplified, but you can tell is not wrong by eye.
Proportions are the biggest burden, as bad anatomy always fails in these.
>>2713055
>Alice Neel
This is fucking awful.
>>2713066
Still better than most of /ic/ plus she 'made it'
>>2713073
>>2713073
Well, he 'made it' too. that proves nothing.
>>2713035
In a style, proportion, form, and perspective is usually accurate to reality, just exaggerated in ways that do not destroy the fundamental structure with some psychological influence seeped in. The reason things like say, chibi art, work so well is because people psychologically perceive the face as more important than the rest of the body, but facial characteristics and body proportion is still kept to a guideline of how it appears on real people (or a slight ideal of real people).
Bad anatomy lacks understanding of form, perspective, and proportion. Your pic is an example of bad anatomy because there is little understanding of those three fundamentals. The upper torso looks flat, the scapula look disconnected from the rest of the body and the shoulders also look weird, like they are in a full back view while the rest of the body is 3/4 back view. The upper arms are elongated, the legs, like some said, look like sausages. I can tell supposed to be a male person, but that's about it, and I doubt I would be interested in seeing anything else.
>>2713077
Still has decent figure work
>>2713035
>What do you consider as bad anatomy
Not knowing the structure of the human body while trying to present one.
It gets obvious fast for anyone who at least read anatomy book so he knows what the fuck he is looking at.
bones and muscles are more complex that people try to present in art,you really have to know what you are drawing not just a shape of a muscle.
Weight in the body is to me a dead giveaway. You can draw awkward poses, but if there is no understanding of where the weight goes in the bone structure it really shows.
>>2713098
>not knowing the structure of the human body
Please, even an elementary student knows. You got arms, legs, stomach, head, etc. Easy shit.
>>2713098
Depends what you want to do with your art. If you have something to say with it, if you want to reach people, tell stories etc, then a decent understanding of surface anatomy in combination with understanding certain bone structure landmarks is more than enough and your time is better spent on more important things.
You have a limited time in your life and people like you really need to figure out what they actually want to achieve as artists. You will probably never become an anatomy teacher like Hampton, Loomis or Huston, so if all you do is waste your time studying anatomy beyond what is needed, you will never have an audience and never have a job as artist.
>>2713035
>bad anatomy
Simplification, awkwardness.
>stylized anatomy
Exaggeration, confidence.