|
Dan, you should definitely start a new thread to discuss the topic of anatomy in portraiture, specifically. If you feel it's of great importance, instead of burying it here under the name of another subject where people wouldn't necessarily look, give it the prominence a specific title would insure.
That said, here's my take on the subject. If you've read everything I've written on this thread, you would know that my point here is that the worthiness of a painting has more to do with what the artist brings to the table as opposed to the source of the reference. To a large degree, this has to do with the level of understanding an artist possesses of both their subject and the craft of painting. One aspect of this is certainly anatomic knowledge, however knowing where all the bones and muscles are located plays but a small part in the making of a convincing illusionistic painting.
Proper anatomy doesn't necessarily insure that a painting will be a good. In fact, there are many great paintings done by artists whose anatomical prowess is considered sub-par (Vermeer and Raeburn). I've also seen paintings by anatomical masters that display a strong tendency to over-accentuate the anatomy, at the cost of depicting form in light (Michaelangelo). In my experience, anatomy is but one stone in the wall of painting aptitude, however, I don't know if it's the entire foundation.
|