"Smws" <smw### [at] poboxcom> wrote:
> Yeah, other people have said that too. It looks a little strange to me too.
> The thing is, when I modelled it I made sure to follow that guideline (it
> was drilled into me in art class :))- here is a side view to show that the
> eyes really are about halfway between the chin and the top of the head.
> Perhaps I have the highest point too far back? Perhaps it's camera angle?
> What do you think?

Looking at the profile, the occiput (the lower rear part of the head) looks
too high up on the neck.  The back of the cranium looks constricted
top-to-bottom.  I've never seen any art instruction mention the back of the
head, though.

Skull: http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus188.html

Caveats on the illustration:

1.  The skull appears to be tilted back somewhat, so measuring proportions
may be misleading.  I just included it to compare the back of the cranium
with the rest of the skull.

2.  This is almost certainly a white European male, which your model
obviously is not.  This same illustration appears in a more ancient edition
of Gray's _Anatomy_, one which refers to African skulls as "degraded."
Presumably, Dr. Gray would illustrate using a skull with presumably
"normal" phrenology.  (This is not to put down Dr. Gray; in his time,
science had yet to discover that race is imaginary.)

Post a reply to this message