You must log in or # to comment.
Art is about capturing the feeling of a thing, not recording and replaying the actual thing.
A good drawing discards almost all of the unnecessary information from the real scene. Then you exaggerate to bring out the essence - which lines get thicker, which shades get darker, which features are literally enlarged or shrunken.
That’s the labor of the artist, to decide what’s relevant and what’s not.
Same kind of thing here.
If you compare the drawn body to a real body’s actual size and proportions, ‘full figure’ is basically ‘somewhere between normal and a healthy skinny’.
‘Tall and thin’ is in actuality ‘starvation/anorexia/muscular dystrophy/something like that’.
The proportions are fundamentally unrealistic, which, on the one hand, duh, but on the other hand, does literally create an unrealistic body size/shape/proportion standard.
I feel like I’m going insane with this stuff, is there really no better terminology? Because one huge factor with how people look is their general build, like how broad their shoulders are, for example. That, to me, looks like the biggest difference between the illustrations.
Isn’t that dress covered in fringe? I mean, she’s in great shape either way, but fringe all over a dress is bulking.
What an awful image format. Why is this still a thing?
Because I think they like it when we complain about it. In that spirit, I LOVE 10,000 pixel tall image posts! They are so easy to view and definitely not annoying.
Oh absolutly! In fact… I meant the exact opposite of what I said!
I think a contributing factor is the art style.
A simple trace has no shading or depth, which then the widest section of each part is brought to the front, on the same plane of the slimmer parts of that section.
For example, a cyclindar has a gradual taper to the full width. This art style would just flatten it to a rectangle.
I don’t think “skinny” is being used correctly here, which seems to be the whole source of conflict.
Taylor Swift isn’t skinny. She certainly isn’t overweight, but skinny doesn’t mean “not overweight”, it means thinner than average. It’s the opposite extreme of fat, with the norm being somewhere between. Taylor Swift is in the normal range. Emma Stone is skinny.
If you’re using “skinny” to mean “not fat”, obviously there’s going to be some disagreement with those who use “skinny” to mean “thinner than normal”.
Taylor Swift is (supposedly) 5’10" and around 130lbs.
That is skinny. Even according to BMI, she’s bordering on underweight.
From the photo she would appear to weight more than 130lbs (for 5 10 height). My one daughter is 130 at 5’ 8" and looks much skinnier than TS
It’s almost like everyone’s body is different or something. Weird.
If it is true she’s 130 at 5 10, she must have really low muscle mass
I think it depends on where you live too, skinny (as in thinner than average) being a relative measure.
I live somewhere extremely skinny by global standards and she wouldn’t be called skinny, people might say, “yeah I guess she’s skinny” if asked, but she wouldn’t be seen as “a skinny person” because she wouldn’t be far off the average. Same way a 5’8 woman wouldn’t be a “tall woman” in the Netherlands.
Still seems like a definitional problem, with an imprecise meaning behind the word “skinny.”
Even according to BMI, she’s bordering on underweight.
Bordering on, but still on the “normal” side of the chart.
Does “skinny” look to broad population averages, or celebrity averages, or even celebrity averages for that particular age, or some kind of ideal? Is “skinny” a pejorative, negatively loaded term?
I wouldn’t call Taylor Swift “skinny” if that’s intended to mean thinner than ideal. But she is thinner than the American average. Is the American average considered “fat”? How much of a gap is there between skinny and fat, occupied by people who are neither?
Is “skinny” a pejorative, negatively loaded term?
Not in our society. Skinny is seen as the ideal.
BMI is a terrible metric, and even then her BMI is on the lower end of the normal range.
Oh I’m aware. That’s why I threw in that even according to the faulty BMI scale for women, Taylor Swift is considered bordering on underweight to being underweight.
That you think Taylor Swift isn’t skinny says way more about you than anything else.
Her weight has fluctuated, like most normal people. When she was closer to 115, she was closer to skinny, not at 130. Certainly not in the reference photo, which is probably the fullest I’ve seen her. There are plenty of photos where you could make the argument, but they look much more like the “exaggerated” sketch anyway. She is not skinny in the reference photo provided.
When she was closer to 115, she was closer to skinny, not at 130.
She was unhealthily underweight at 115.
Aka “skinny”
And unhealthily overweight = “fat”
Wow you cleared up all the confusion immediately with this really clear definition of skinny and fat! WHHOOOAAAA WOWWWEEE /s
Correct.
In the context of the post they clearly were using “skinny” to mean “not plus sized”.
Right, that’s the problem. They were using the word in a way that’s inconsistent with the dictionary definition, causing confusion.
That is not a problem except for men who are way more interested being pedantic over semantics than they are in talking about a visual phenomenon. And then then, almost all of them are being dishonest.
There’s no real confusion. Anyone who can rub some brain cells together can figure out what was meant. The context is visually demonstrated. It’s unmissable since you have to look at it to even know it’s time to get uppity about Taylor Swift being called skinny and then pretending like OF COURSE Taylor Swift looks plus size in drawing format since she’s not skinny!
This is just straight up a situation where a bunch of neckbeards just want to comment their opinion on a woman’s body while pretending like they’re upholding the strict rules of language and meaning against unwashed hordes.
No one said Taylor Swift was plus sized. She is a relatively thin, but healthy weight in that picture.
The whole post was about the “expectation” of skinny people in art. They then proceeded to trace a thin, but not skinny, person in loose clothing.
Not there aren’t body positivity issues in the world, but this post itself seems dishonest overall in its premise and execution.
The whole point being demonstrated is that someone who is obviously not plus sized in real life will read as plus sized when their silhouette is traced into a drawing. It doesn’t matter if they are semantically skinny, thin, or normal, only that they are not plus sized but will be when traced.
So what is the dishonesty you’re suddenly detecting? That Taylor Swift is actually not skinny therefore this illusion doesn’t work? It’s a visual illusion you’re claiming is false, so visually demonstrate your counterpoint. Otherwise this is just throwing things at a wall to see if it will stick. After all, that outfit is clearly not loose fitting, as we can clearly see in the image.
Again, all this “confusion” and “problem” you’re detecting are just neckbeards arguing about anything except the actual visual illusion because commenting on the exact right verbiage to categorize women’s bodies into is more interesting to them than, you know, visually demonstrating why a theorized visual illusion does not hold.
It’s a visual illusion you’re claiming is false, so visually demonstrate your counterpoint
The outfit is not as tight fitting as the drawing on the right, and the pose doesn’t help. We can all clearly see it in the image. There are plenty of images of her that would look slim even when traced.
I can’t upload an image for some reason, but here’s a good example.
The drawing on the right, as in the stylized “skinny” one from the comparison drawings? The difference between those two side-by-side pictures is the body, not the tightness of the outfit. Again, the one on the left is traced from the actual photograph. Look at the actual photograph of Taylor Swift in that post. Where do you see a bunch of loose fabric in that oufit’s torso? Do you actually think Taylor Swift is swimming in that outfit since she’s actually as skinny as she was 13 years ago? Just her legs alone, which are not under that dress, will clearly demonstrate otherwise.
Of course a picture of a much skinnier Taylor Swift will look skinnier than one of a less skinny Taylor Swift. But that has nothing to do with the visual illusion described being apparently dishonest, which was your last assertion after you moved on from the semantics being the whole problem. This has taken quite a journey since your original assertion.
All of this is proving my point that this entire post is only a problem for guys who just want to argue about a woman’s body instead of the visual illusion. Not a single person who is arguing about “skinny” vs. “thin” semantics is demonstrating a single thing about how it affects the theorized illusion, that clearly isn’t their interest. To them, this post is just an avenue to share “valid opinions” on the right way to describe women’s bodies.
That’s also not a uniformly right fitting outfit. It’s tight on the shoulders and hips, but looser at the middle Drawn clothes don’t have to have any thickness or areas to stretch.
The trace does not match the photo and is the wrong pose. its squishing her arms and shoulders down and ignoring the twist in her stance, making her chest look blobby.
That is really illustrative.
This comment caused me such agony that I now have no other option but to draw a bead on you.
I’ve done painting of live models who are objectively attractive to have people (men I’m sure) say nasty things about the model.
Like attractive in real life an attractive in TV/Internet are different and a 10 on person is a 4 on the Internet or whatever.
This is a great illustration of that problem.
I think anyone who’s seen a decent amount of celebrities in person can attest to this. People who look attractive in 2D do look attractive irl, but in an uncanny way? Less of a sexy - I want to date this person - attraction and more of a confused - how is it possible to look like this - admiration.
That’s a fair point, though some look amazing either way.
Clavicular is a perfect example of this, he looks like a statue not a person
TBH lots of supposedly attractive celebrities look kind of weird to me, probably mostly due to fashion (makeup etc.). That would probably be even worse IRL, depending on whether they’re “done up” and how much of their look is plastic surgery.
I always love this type of thread-squabbling.
Obesity has become such a pervasive problem that people do not even understand what it means to be skinny.
I grew up in the '70s when we ate the appropriate amount of food. 50 years later let me tell you my friends, what you think is skinny is NOT skinny.
Taylor Swift’s legs would jiggle if you shook them…
Most people’s legs will jiggle if you shook them, even thin people.
This thread is insane. Apparently skinny people can’t jiggle because…I guess they’re not allowed to have meat and organs and other squishy jiggly things?
Just sexy bones I guess!
I was honestly hopeful coming into this thread only to be confronted a wall of people basically arguing that cartoon bodies are an attainable beauty standard or something?
Just a bunch of people arguing that Taylor fucking Swift is not skinny.
It’s wild.
No. That only happens when there’s surplus fat or stretched skin.
Skinny people don’t jiggle.
It’s really true.
How much fat is “surplus”?
I wouldn’t call it “surplus”, mind you. Gimme the ones with a belly, all genders.
I really did not intuit how fat people truly are until I lost about 65kg and got fairly toned and muscular.
I hit 73kg at 188cm at that was with so much added muscle vs prior. If you had taken away all the muscle mass that I had added through my journey I’m confident to say I would have been around 65kg. This was with around 11% body fat.
Rediscovering at my own body in the mirror and seeing what actually skinny was… Completely blew my mind and changed my perspective forever
You can also look back at photos of people in the 70s from various cultures. We’ve become fatter overall because of processed food and reduced exercise.
We’ve also gotten significantly taller and older in only about a century.
Year Median age
1820 - 16.7
1860 - 19.4
1900 - 22.9
1940 - 29.0
1970 - 28.1
1980 - 30.0
1990 - 32.9
2000 - 35.3
2020 - 38.8
I won’t deny that this is true, but it’s also the case that cartoons tend to have larger heads. The skinny version of swift here is also shorter and has more narrow shoulders / hips. She’s not just drawn thinner, but literally smaller to accommodate the proportionally larger head. I think this is kind of exaggerating the effect. If the artist had instead drawn a larger head, it wouldn’t be as dramatic.
Oh I love this!
