Is the Pelvis the single most difficult part of the skeleton

It's a squat cone with an elipse base and its point cropped off.

It's right there op. You know what it looks like, you should be able to draw it. It's fucking bone, it only has one consistent shape.

>>2726292

epic

>>2726274
>Is the Pelvis the single most difficult part of the skeleton to draw?

Try drawing your hands

>>2726274
Your brain doesn't know how to process it yet. The problem is connecting the lateral and frontal view, and understanding the tilt in a standing position. Study it more until you can visualize it from different angles. Learn the Latin names for landmarks, this will help you memorize the shapes and speed the process up.

Don't buy the snake oil about easy simplifications unless you want to draw shit cartoons

File: redline.jpg (38KB, 754x364px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 754x364px

>>2726274
Maybe I'm not doing it well myself, but it seems pretty simple. Watch Proko's video on the subject, look at the bone from many angles and you'll come up with your own simplification. All you need to show are the major forms and correctly positioned landmarks.

>>2726274
cyberpunk helmet

>>2726321

nice forms my dude

its a box with cylinders attached to the bottom or front and another larger box on top

Just draw the box and then add more boxes for anything else

File: kjg.jpg (55KB, 194x229px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 194x229px

>>2726382

>>2726274
Agreed, this thing is mother nature trolling with artists. Sometimes you even go "oh, it's like this" but then it all goes to nope.

You are better off ignoring most of the bone structure and concentrate on the visible masses, proportions and muscle attachment points.

>>2726300
>Don't buy the snake oil about easy simplifications unless you want to draw shit cartoons

Then why do even qualified artists who draw detailed figures still advocate for simplifications?

Do you just draw detailed anatomy in your layin and think that's a good thing?

File: bammes.jpg (73KB, 688x921px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 688x921px

Yes the pelvis is very complex since it is comprised of multiple bones that interlock and twist about each other. I think the best simplification is as that other anon said where you imagine the entire thing as an upside down cone with the point cut off. Otherwise seeing the entire pelvic area (muscles included) as a tilted box is a remarkably good way of envisioning things.

Two things helped me in my understanding of it:
1) Bammes. I'll post up some of his diagrams for you.

2) Seeing a pelvis in real life. Seeing the forms of the bones in real life make it look much simpler than you might have imagined, and it makes things instantly "click" as you can physically see the forms in front of you and how they sit in space. if you ever have a chance to see a real skeleton (or an anatomically correct model) then do so, and walk around it and study it closely.

File: bammes2.jpg (33KB, 601x379px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 601x379px

>>2726470

File: bammes3.jpg (45KB, 606x367px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 606x367px

>>2726471

File: bammes4.jpg (88KB, 643x820px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 643x820px

>>2726473

File: bammes5.jpg (41KB, 406x705px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 406x705px

>>2726477

File: bammes6.jpg (61KB, 547x820px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 547x820px

>>2726478
And this is the last one

>>2726479
beautiful, thanks

>>2726483
Peck also has some nice diagrams in his book, but I only have it as a hard copy so have no images to post here.

I like the way he splits the pelvis into two halves, each being a twisted propeller form.

>>2726468

There are different types of simplification. proficient anatomy artists generally do silhouette simplifications or linear/vector-like measurements based on a solid understanding, not cutting things down to drawabox kindergarten geometric shapes. Proko's bucket doesn't count, he can't draw convincing people

File: IMG_0510.png (4MB, 2048x2732px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2048x2732px

>>2726486
I happen to have a scan so here's everything on the pelvis from Peck

File: IMG_0511.png (4MB, 2048x2732px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2048x2732px

>>2726540

File: TempImage.jpg (797KB, 1727x2304px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 1727x2304px

>>2726542

File: IMG_0513.png (4MB, 2048x2732px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2048x2732px

>>2726544

File: IMG_0514.png (4MB, 2048x2732px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2048x2732px

>>2726545

File: IMG_0515.png (4MB, 2048x2732px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2048x2732px

>>2726546

File: TempImage.jpg (777KB, 1838x2453px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 1838x2453px

>>2726547

Convince me that Hitler wasn't responsible for the Pelvis.

Protip: You can't.

>>2727608
w-whoa

>>2727608
there are skeletons with pelvises older than hitler

>>2726536

This. You're better off trying to understand the actual thing itself and then simplifying rather than starting simplified and never learning it at all.

When you see good artists cut down the fat it's because they know what they're doing.

>>2726274
Is there a some kinda trick to finding the distance between the ribcage and the pelvis?

>>2728166
There are no shortcuts. Study the proportion of the human skeleton.

>>2728166
2 cranial units between the bottom of sternum and the 1st sacral promontory of the sacrum

1 cranial unit between the bottom of the last ribs and the bottom of the ASIS, 2 units to the bottom of the ischium

If you're using "heads" as a measurement, stop

>>2728175
I am using craniums and thanks mate that actually helped me a lot.

File: image.jpg (37KB, 480x259px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x259px

>>2726458

You can't fucking learn muscles without learning bones, there is no other way to be consistent on insertion points. Git gud you lazy fuck.

>>2728727
>You can't fucking learn muscles without learning bones
Never go full Hogarth

File: image.jpg (168KB, 508x763px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 508x763px

>>2728730
I don't even read him man, I'm dead serious that going the trouble of learning bones for a couple of months or even weeks will save you time in the long run. As I said, it will make your anatomy consistent instead of trying to settle with melting bodies.

Just draw each part (skull, rib cage, arms, legs, hands, pelvis) one week at a time and you will notice that your anatomy will look solid. It also helps with gesture drawing and proportions in general.

Once you learn why the pelvis looks how it does and where the each process is both insertion and origin points will fall into place through common sense alone.

>>2728738
Oh, I was just a passing anon making a joke. It was a reference to a line from Tropic Thunder ("never go full retard"), and a reference to the fact that Hogarth's anatomy books don't actually cover the skeleton and are just the muscles so all the figures are rubbery and they're useless books in many ways.

>>2728743
What's the best book for learning the skeleton?

>>2728746
The best thing is to have an actual skeleton that you can draw from and walk around. Next best thing is to combine a couple books because there is no singular one that is perfect. I think Peck does a great job at showing the skeleton but he mostly shows the real forms of it in an accurate way, so you probably want to supplement him with someone like Bridgman or maybe Hampton to get an idea of how to break that skeleton up into simpler forms as well so you understand it in a more complete way. Bammes actually might be the best option because he does it all sort of, but I think his best works are still in German and not in his English books so be careful of what you buy.

File: image.jpg (448KB, 1600x1072px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 1600x1072px

>>2728743
Kek I figured you were the same guy and got triggered

>look up hogarths books
This seems damaging

>>2728751
>This seems damaging
It's very divisive among artists. Most claim it is damaging, but some praise it. I myself have been very careful around it, and have picked up a couple things but never devoted much energy into for fear of how it may affect me. That said, some of his books have some excellent sections of foreshortening and he does at least push the boundaries of posing and unusual angles and things which is very rare in figure books. Some really good artists like Marko Djurdjevic learned to draw from Hogarth, so it's possible to learn from him for sure. He's probably best studied at arm's length while you have several other books in your other hand.

Also funny thing is that book you posted a picture of, despite being an anatomy book, has like the first 70 pages just him ranting about how shit modern art is.

Beginner here:

How good do I need to be before I start learning anatomy? And how exactly do I learn it? There are a lot of books that show you how correct anatomy looks like but how exactly do I practice it?

>>2728827

Paolo Rivera says the fastest way to learn anatomy is to sculpt it. It sounds like good advice.

>>2728827

You don't need to be particularly advanced to start practicing. You need to be able to measure, adhere to proportions, and possess some spatial understanding that you can translate onto the paper. Besides that it's just a matter of doing a shitload of studies.

How you actually study it is different for each person. Some pattern following bones - > muscle insertions -> muscles > surface figure seems to make the most sense. How detailed you're going to be depends on your goals.

>>2728924
what do you mean by muscle insertions, and how is it different to muscles?

>>2728924
Guess I need to be able to draw simple geometric shapes from all angles first?

File: image.jpg (36KB, 308x477px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 308x477px

>>2728927
Not that guy but basically insertions are the spots where muscle tucks into the bone surface, origin is where is starts to stick out.

When you study bones notice the spots where there's odd portruding parts and "hooks", if you manage to find a model of a skeleton its easier see them.

There's also zygote body and is a 3D learning tool, you don't need to buy the pro package. It's basically a 3D model of the body and you control which layers of muscle you want to see. The representation of the muscles are not the best but you can clearly see both origin and insertion points. The bones are pretty accurate too.

So how reasonable can you hope to get with anatomy?

Are artists with good anatomy knowledge able to draw a detailed person from any angle? Or will they still use references for difficult angles and details?

>>2728972
I have printed scans to help me out whenever I'm doing figure drawing. It helps immensely. My professor could draw everything straight from memory but he's been doing it for 10+ years.

I've seen stubborn students that want to ace it straight from the beginning but honestly I think they are sabotaging themselves.

There's a point where you won't need any reference and you'll be the baddest motherfucker .

>>2728727
Get the difference between most and all. You should have posted patrick instead.

>>2728961
Yes, if you can't do that it's silly to jump ahead.