Beans!

I did some beans wit heads (and added limbs when there was some time), and I guess I'm stepping out of my comfort zone to ask for some critique.

My main issues are 1) I feel like I'm not seeing the orientation of the "bean" right in the poses and 2) I'm not sure how to exaggerate the bean more that the pose I'm drawing is. For the first problem, I notice it the most with poses that are twisting slightly; something is always slightly off to me. For the second problem, I assume it's just figuring out how to correctly see the line of action in the pose then exaggerate it.

(If the images don't show up, let me know.)

Well, the orientation of the bean is determined by the position of the ribcage and the hip, so you "only" need to find the landmarks, that show that.... which is admittedly hard enough to do, especially when major landmarks are hidden by limbs or just muscles (shoulder...) or even body fat...

To me the upper part of the bean became a bit clearer once I started to more consciously differentiate between ribcage and shoulderline. This means the ribcage isn't as rounded on the top as you still draw it a lot, it is formed like the peak of an egg, with the neck marking where the tip of that egg is, and then the shoulders sitting somewhat independently on top of that egg. The tip of that egg usually isn't visible, at it is obscured by the shoulders, but drawing the ribcage as an egg rather than as a sphere helps with the rest of the anatomy a lot, as it leaves the correct space for the shoulder joints and bones and muscles to fill.

In reaction, it is on some poses easier to understand where that ribcage hides, AFTER you draw in a shoulderline, just as one single line along the clavicles for orientation.

Finding the one perfect shortcut for the pelvis is a chore, especially as the visibility of marks varies quite a bit dependening on pose and point of view.

In a pinch, look at the thighs to triangulate where those hip joints have to be. Other than the shoulder joints, they are 100% fixed to the pelvis, so you can always backward design from the thighs, if you find nothing else.

If the belly is visible, it often helps to trace a curve along the centre of the belly muscles to exactly locate the groin. On a back view, the spine may be visible for that purpose.

It's also a question of what you want to develop the drawing into, which shortcut is the most useful. If you want to improve perspective it's useful to very consciously start with a box, from which you cut out curves to leave space for the thighs and the belly. If you want to focus more on flowing lines, sketching a pair of underpants is often easier and more useful. If a big buttoc muscle hides everything else, just a big circle, or the upper form of that thigh might be the best way to do it.

Oooh kay, so much for useful landmarks, and now to a topic, where I personally disagree a bit with Proko, and that is the Line of Action. The way he sells it is, that it is a single line, so it has to be an easy starting point. I don't find that single line easy at all, because he attaches so much purpose to it. I try to consciously remind me to use it every now and then, but in the end I almost as often don't use it, and in some poses I just don't feel it helps a lot at all.

The exaggeration of the pose part to me is also a bit more complicated than advertised. On a very basic level, it just counteracts a typical beginner's mistake, to unconsciously straighten the torso, and thereby produce stiff poses. So, if you see, that the bean is slightly bent, it is generally a safe bet to draw it bent a bit more. If you see, that the bean is twisted, it is safe to attempt to twist it just a bit more. That is the very base line level of that advice.

But it carries a second layer, namely that exaggerating the pose is also a first step into stylizing the pose, and as with all styles, that is an aesthetic decision, which should be made from the context of your artistic goal for that pose. Exaggerating adds more dynamic to the expressed motion, but sometimes you also want to emphasize calmness, in which case just exaggerating contradicts your goal. It is good to be able to exaggerate, it is better to understand how it impacts the result, so you can do it consciously.

For now, for practice, you probably should alway try to exaggerate as hard as possible to counteract that beginner's tendency to draw stiff torsos, but it is a rule and a stylistic choice, not a law.

Also: If you ever look at your finished drawing and get the uneasy feeling: Somehow the pose looks stiff, but I don't know why, here is your number one suspect to interrogate: Did you bend and twist that torso enough?

• Aunt Herbert edited this post on January 10, 2024 2:20pm.
• Aunt Herbert edited this post on January 10, 2024 2:25pm.

One more thought, one little trick I added to my inventory, and on some poses like #10 on the first page and #2 and #4 on the second page, I think you are somewhat starting to develop it anyways, but aren't sure yet what you are doing.

The idea of the bean is to show "the main masses". Especially when drawing very overweight people, I find it somewhat useful to add one or two (three ?) more masses, namely the apron of fat and on women the breasts. Other than head, ribcage, pelvis, those masses do not determine the placement of joints and limbs, but they can obscure the marks for ribcage and pelvis a lot, and especially modify the outline of the torso a lot.

Making a distinction between apron, breasts, and torso helps me to standardize ribcage and pelvis towards their skeletal foundation, and get a better eye for where those are. The apron's form is usually simple enough, for the breasts I often indicate the underside of both breasts in one curvy w-shaped line.

After separating those forms from the torso, the catalogue of possible body types just narrows down to a much clearer taxonomy of simple repeating forms and shapes.

Hello, and thank you for the thoughtful feedback!

Regarding the exaggeration, you mentioned the artistic goal of the pose; I mainly want to draw poses for characters from imagination, and exaggerated poses are more...interesting, I guess? Is that the kind of goal you mean?

I do eventually wish to be able to draw poses that are more subdued and calm, but the kind of subtle movement that's in "calmer" poses tends to be a little difficult to draw without stiffening. (At least for me right now.)

Yes, maybe don't read too much into my warnings against too much exaggeration.

I just had a recent experience with drawing a kind of sort of Tai Chi pose, where I pushed the bending and twisting of the torso to the extreme, and ended up with a very cool looking action pose, that sadly had not a lot of resemblance to the somber, relaxed and collected expression of the reference, and I had to backtrack the exaggeration a lot to fix that.

I just wanted to tell you, exaggeration is a rule, not a law. A law you always follow, no matter what, a rule you always follow, except if there is a clear and obvious reason not to.