I've been wondering if people who draw this stuff have killed people before, how do you draw so good?
There's a lot of material to be studied, if you were to search for cross-sections of human body. In fact, they have those in certain museums and medical faculties and you can donate your body to science to be preserved in any state you want (only in certain countries), so.
But 'so good' is relative, being even this picture still has small number of anatomical errors. The cross-section for fingers, for example, shows too thin of a bone (well, maybe artistic's choice for whatever this creature is) and not enough ligaments to move it. Another point to nitpick is there's no visceral fat visible wrapped around the intestines nor any trace of the connective tissues usually securing them in wrapped form.
There's a lot of material to be studied, if you were to search for cross-sections of human body. In fact, they have those in certain museums and medical faculties and you can donate your body to science to be preserved in any state you want (only in certain countries), so.
But 'so good' is relative, being even this picture still has small number of anatomical errors. The cross-section for fingers, for example, shows too thin of a bone (well, maybe artistic's choice for whatever this creature is) and not enough ligaments to move it. Another point to nitpick is there's no visceral fat visible wrapped around the intestines nor any trace of the connective tissues usually securing them in wrapped form.
Agreed. Researching a bit of anatomy should be part of any self-respecting artist. Working as hospital attendant there are very few artist that make you think artist has actually studied or worked with living subjects. I can recall only once maybe getting feeling "shit this person has been part of autopsy and not just watching tv". Not that it would be bad thing. Actual anatomy when you go under epidermis is not pleasant to eyes for average person. Not to mention how exhausting it would be to draw correctly.
Leave a comment