this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2025
65 points (95.8% liked)

Traditional Art

5727 readers
64 users here now

From dabblers to masters, obscure to popular and ancient to futuristic, this is an inclusive community dedicated to showcasing all types of art by all kinds of artists, as long as they're made in a traditional medium

'Traditional' here means 'Physical', as in artworks which are NON-DIGITAL in nature.

What's allowed: Acrylic, Pastel, Encaustic, Gouache, Oil and Watercolor Paintings; Ink Illustrations; Manga Panels; Pencil and Charcoal sketches; Collages; Etchings; Lithographs; Wood Prints; Pottery; Ceramics; Metal, Wire and paper sculptures; Tapestry; weaving; Qulting; Wood carvings, Armor Crafting and more.

What's not allowed: Digital art (anything made with Photoshop, Clip Studio Paint, Krita, Blender, GIMP or other art programs) or AI art (anything made with Stable Diffusion, Midjourney or other models)


make sure to check the rules stickied to the top of the community before posting.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Dürer's work on human proportions is called the Four Books on Human Proportion (Vier Bücher von menschlicher Proportion) of 1528. The first book was mainly composed by 1512/13 and completed by 1523, showing five differently constructed types of both male and female figures, all parts of the body expressed in fractions of the total height. Dürer based these constructions on both Vitruvius and empirical observations of "two to three hundred living persons", in his own words. The second book includes eight further types, broken down not into fractions but an Albertian system, which Dürer probably learned from Francesco di Giorgio's De harmonica mundi totius of 1525. In the third book, Dürer gives principles by which the proportions of the figures can be modified, including the mathematical simulation of convex and concave mirrors; here Dürer also deals with human physiognomy. The fourth book is devoted to the theory of movement.

(Wikipedia)

Scan at Archive.org

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

(Let's turn this conversation upside down, shall we?)

Not 100% related to your point, but I showed this picture to a family member who studied painting, and she also compared him with Leonardo's drawings, but also noted that she found that Dürer still wasn't nearly as good with representation of muscles. You can flip through the book on archive.org (link in OP) and see for yourself how he drew complete bodies. Leonardo cutting up corpses gave him intimate knowledge of the anatomy, whereas Dürer's observations were still limited to what's visible from the outside, and according to the family member he could outright invent some muscles that would look alright but weren't anatomically correct.

I take it you compare these drawings to Vitruvian Man, mainly? Because IIRC da Vinci's caricatures were much more organic, or at least never used this sort of scheme/proportions as the basis.

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 2 points 3 weeks ago

I take it you compare these drawings to Vitruvian Man, mainly?

Hehe, probably, maybe... I'm not sure!
But honestly... I just don't know. To me, these are absolutely the super-greats of the super-greats, so to ask a bumbling moron what he things about it all... lol.

At least I'm pretty good at doing vocal impressions, anyway, such as PeeWee Herman's.