Talk:Body proportions

Why?

Do the proportions of the human body conform to any notable local maxima? Is there a reason that the arms are of this size, that the legs are of this size, etc.? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 21:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

somebody:

your genetics define the basic human proportions. What you eat and how active you are (ex: weightlifting, running, etc) will affect your proportions, though you will still have the basic proportions described here.

Anyways I believe that this description skips a head length. there seems to be one between mid thigh and mid calf. just under the knee. I'm not going to post that scince i'm not anauthority on body proportion. the 3d model I'm working on didn't look at all right (it actually didn't work at all) without that head length.

Another Somebody: It is missing one, its only 7 heads tall ...

This article is very badly written. Discussing spurious ideals of proportions has nothing to do with actual proportions. I was hoping to find ways to relate foot length to leg length, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.79.240 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The eighth head...

The current description of '8 heads tall' seems a little strange, especially when we get to the last one - which is supposed to extend from just below the ankles to 'the feet'.

I'm assuming it means: from 'just below the ankles' to 'the tips of the toes', but is the height of the figure measured in this outstretched state? Because it makes it very awkward to follow as a quick guide in figure drawing.

There are a few views here over how many heads to use, and I know it isn't an absolute measurement and only a proportion guide, but the current article has gotten me looking somewhere else.

Terrahnahjacitor 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree...how about "just above the ankles to the soles of the feet?"

No, the height is not measured in an outsretched state, just a pretty normal stance.

The fact is that there were more than one canon for different purposes: 8 heads was "ideal", 10 heads was "heroic", I think 7 realistic (though it can even be less) and of course this assumes adulthood. It could be argued the actual headage matters less than the relative proportions of all the other body parts however. A good source is Andrew Loomis's figure drawing book, now long out of print but knocking around the web nevertheless. I guess the illustrations must still be copyright though. It's a shame we can't get any more "modern"(ish) illustrations than Vitruvian Man which doesn't clearly show the head-to-head divisions, classic though it is. Adytum72a 07:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Name

Is there some reason why the very general sounding "body proportions" was chosen over say, "Figure Drawing Canon"? As it stands the content in 100% artistic, so shouldn't that be reflected in the title? There is nothing to stop information on e.g. genetics and anything else related being added, which is all fine and well... unless it should be an article for artistic determination of proportions? I guess I'm just surprised that searching WP I couldn't find any mention of (artistic) canon. I've added art to the Canon page but this article doesn't use the word. Adytum72a 07:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is refered to as body proportions as opposed to figure drawing canon because figure drawing canon is used to describe posture, facial features, clothing, demeanor, ect for drawing a perticular type of character, where as this page is about the realistic proportions of the body.--scorpion 451 rant 00:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Idealized?

So is the part about the HEAD (4 eyes wide, length of nose, etc) idealized as well? It isn't very clear on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.211.103 (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording

"These ratios may not always reflect the actual shape of the model's body, if there is a model. In other cultures, different ratios may be emphasized for different aesthetic effect."
Needs work.
--"...if there is a model."--Where the idea of a model come from? Is this sentence necessary at all? What is it supposed to mean?
--"In other cultures..."--What 'other' cultures? What culture do you think this is?
--'different' should be removed, as it conveys no meaning in the sentnece.
74.185.249.234 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Up is Down

I was expecting to find an article about the human proportions as defined by the artists of the renaissance. What I found is an article about sociological study of perceptions in different cultures. Ok, ok, ugly people are pretty too. ;)

Yes, I'm not surprised to learn that the British find beauty in short, crooked legs. How else would they fit in their coracle otherwise?

And why is the icon for the "Visual arts portal" a Jewish amulet against the evil eye? That's some twisted logic right there! Is there something I'm not getting? 67.206.187.38 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Rktect (talk · contribs) was banned in 2005 from all articles dealing with weights and measurements and after frequent violations indefinitely blocked. He has come back recenty editing from two accounts and several IP addresses. Those accounts are now blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rktect. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

So what are the usual ranges of body proportions?

For example, what are the ranges of adult height, adult leg length, adult arm length, etc. and the ranges of the ratios? The article seems to be missing the actual subject. 74.96.172.110 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite right. I was expecting this to be an article about anatomy, but it turns out to have practically no anatomy in it. Maybe there is another article lurking somewhere? Anthropometry?86.162.38.70 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

this could be easily the least useful article in wikipedia

when someone goes to the "body proportions" one would expect something like: "arms are on average X% of the size of the legs and Y% of the size of the torso" or "the standard way of measuring the human body is X and Y" or any other form of information on the relative sizes of parts of human anatomy to each other and how they are measured. the only thing that remotely comes close to that is "An average person is generally 7-and-a-half heads tall", then there is something about the "idealized size of legs to body ratio" which is completely useless without proper anatomic information to give any context. this article is nearly devoid of any real content, I'm baffled why this even exists. 2804:14C:65D0:8274:417A:18CC:7359:87C (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It really is a very poor quality article. Other articles that might be more helpful:

• Female body shape
• Male body shape

Additions to this list welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Leg-to-body ratio

The article has a section "leg-to-body" ratio - with no definition! How is 'leg' defined? It could be any of

• floor-to-crotch:
  • an approximation to this I found (unconvincing source) is "standing height minus sitting height" [chair seat to top of head]
  • ankle-bone to crotch ("tailor's "inside leg").
• "floor to greater trochanter",
  • ankle-bone to ditto, in other words, "femur plus tibia": the source I found for this is not sufficiently convincing but seems more scientific
• floor to illiac crest
  • ankle-bone to ditto
• floor to waist

Body could be

• floor to crown of head

I could go on. Fix it or delete it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

After a lot of googling, finally I found an academic paper that defines its terms:

The present study investigated the relationship between LBR, defined as the height to perineum divided by total height, and perceived attractiveness.

— Kiire, S. Effect of Leg-to-Body Ratio on Body Shape Attractiveness. Arch Sex Behav 45, 901–910 (2016).

so 'leg' is defined as floor to perineum (crotch), not greater trochanter (major hip bone, head of femur), illiac crest (pelvic rim) or even waist, all of which I have seen. The 'total height minus sitting height' (chair seat to top of head) is a tolerable approximation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Redefining the scope of this article

Recognising that most of the content of this article is about artistic anatomy, I have decided to wp:be bold and just declare that this is exactly the scope of the article and no more. So I have added a {{short description}} and an {{about}} hat note to that effect and have started to clean up the article accordingly. If anyone objects, please do so now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok by me, although a rename making this clear might be needed later. Meanwhile, it is male and Female body shape that should be in the hatnote, as the closest scientific articles. There is a certain case for a merge to Nude (art), which currently has more on the subject than here. You'll want to copy or replicate the start at Art_of_ancient_Egypt#Characteristics_of_ancient_Egyptian_art. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Phew! I didn't quite realise what a Pandora's Box I had opened. Yes, the art of Egypt will have to be covered, and of course China, Japan, India as well as the Western Academic tradition.

I agree with your decision on medical use, but the complaints above from IP visitors suggest that the {{about}} definitely needs to include anthropometrics and clothing sizes.

I don't really agree that it should be merged into the Nude article. Yes, relative proportions are easier to 'read' on the nude figure but apply equally to draped figures.

I am surprised that we don't have an article or even a redirect for artistic anatomy, any suggestions? (I don't think it should redirect to this article but the Nude article or surface anatomy might be possible? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Either here or Nude, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

New sources to be followed up

• This has good detail on the Egyptians. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• The Cubit and the Egyptian Canon of Art may be useful too, though it is not obvious to me why it matters which cubit is used when the canon should (sic?) be about relative rather than absolute proportions. I am still trying to make sense of it.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • These led me to Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art by Gay Robins, who explains Iverson's deduction of the Egyptian Canon of Proportions rather more clearly than Legon [who, tbf, I suspect takes it as read that his readers are already cognoscenti]. Maybe I will have time tomorrow to write it up. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Making a note of Iverson's book in which he declares the Canon of Proportions:
    

Erik Iverson (1975). Canon and proportions in Egyptian art (2nd ed.). Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

Although only some of Robins's book is visible in preview, it seems clear that Iverson was guilty of confirmation bias: he saw what he wanted to see and shoehorned [or discarded as 'artistic incompetence'] the evidence to fit his theory. It seems certain that there was a grid system because traces have been found: the argument is about whether the grid-squares have a defined size – or simply that it was used as a device to scale up a drawing on a papyrus to a whole wall. Which is interesting but takes us off the topic of relative proportions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• What is Ancient Egyptian art? is better though maybe errs in the opposite direction (too simplified).

Hmmm - it gets very complicated. Most general art-historical accounts of the "canons" of various periods slide over the question rather quickly, & one begins to see why. But it would be great to get a coherent summary that does better here. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I found a reference in a book on Indian art to shilpa shastras as the Indian version of the canon, and we have an article about it. Progress! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a huge body of texts or various types, mostly rather late in date, & with far more on temple architecture than sculptures. Most of it has not been translated, afaik. But there may well be stuff, probably reflecting Medieval India rather than Classical India. The general art histories of India don't have much at all on figure canons. There's this, off an EL on that page (take a look at the previous chapter too!). Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Aesthetic canon, artistic canon

Given that the article Aesthetic canon is really about artistic canons, I propose to move it to "Artistic canon" (the current title will remain as a redirect).

Full disclosure: until a few days ago, the article had other material not directly related to visual or plastic arts, but it consisted of uncited musings that forked the articles on physical attractiveness, makeup, fashion but without any specific focus on canonical frames of reference.

Please make any observations at talk:Aesthetic canon#Proposal to change name. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I have initiated a wp:requested move process. As of today, the discussion is whether the name should be open ended ("Artistic canon") or well-defined ("Artistic canon of body proportion"), Please contribute at talk:Aesthetic canon#Requested move 26 September 2020. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Following earlier discussion, I have revised the proposal to be "Artistic canons of body proportions". Please make any comments at the article talk page via link above. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Ratios (section)

As an artistic reference, this section is a mess. First two lines are great, expressing the proportions in terms of "heads" after that it is less helpful. Please someone straighten this out. Atrusoghen (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I have prefixed the section with

Further information: Artistic canons of body proportions

but the rule around here is, if you need anything done properly, you have to do it yourself. So go take more from the sources already cited or go hunting for new ones. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Male/female

In the 'See also' section the language describing female and male forms is asymmetric and implies that male is the 'human' form and that the female form is causally different: "Female body shape – Cumulative product of the human female skeletal structure and distribution of muscle and fat Male body shape – General shape of a human body" This seems to arise accidentally from the use of references to two articles, one on the human body and one on the female. I think we should be aiming to present the male and female forms in parallel terms. To do this we would need to adjust the two pages referred to, then the links would shake themselves into place. I'm off to look at those pages; meanwhile I post this for criticism. Lorenzoil (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead. The immediate problem is that Male body shape redirects to Human body shape: "male body shape" does not have a dedicated article like Female body shape. So perhaps the solution is to create one? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)