Another quote from Ted Seth Jacobs:
Geometric and Organic Shapes. There is a radical difference between shapes of things made by nature and those manufactured by man. Although nature is capable of producing some startlingly geometric forms, most living creatures, and especially we humans, are irregularly shaped. Our shapes are adapted to carry out specific functions. Unfortunately, many books about how to paint and draw present the human form as a collection of simplified geometric shapes. For example, the head may be described as an egg shape, or the eyes as spheres, along with many squarish planes and slices, cubes and cylinders. It is important to remember that none of these abstract geometric forms exists on the body. Humans are human-shaped.
I’m so glad you’re posting about Ted’s book. It’s a scandal that it’s been out of print for so long. I felt fortunate 6 months ago to have bought it from a dealer for “just” $70… In the end, though, whoever doesn’t own it should just bite the bullet and pay whatever needs to be paid… it will be worth every single penny.
This is true, but isn’t the purpose of geometric shapes not to substitute but to break down form into simplified shapes as an aid to rendering and visualization? I think of the approaches advocated by Loomis and Hale that stress structure, for example. I’m curious to know your thoughts on this.
I think that it’s useful to be able to think in terms of geometric shapes, but there is a point at which they get in the way of understanding form. The problem with geometric forms is that they are symmetrical. Organic forms are not symmetrical. Their outlines are not composed of parallel lines. Those lines are of unequal length. Curves do not have their point of outermost curvature in the center. If you try to simplify forms geometrically, you don’t get anything that looks truly organic. I think that’s what Ted means when he says that “humans are human-shaped.”