Anyway, this was inspired by someone on dA who claimed that cartoonists don't need to learn realistic anatomy and all of that.
Cartoonists are ARTISTS. They need to learn everything else any other artist does. Not just anatomy. That's how their characters look balanced. No, a lot of cartoon characters do not have realistic proportions, but cartoonists know how to bend, exaggerate and play with proportions to make their characters unique in their own style so that it works for that character's universe. It works for them, because they know how to draw realistically and know their proportions and such.
Learn the rules before you break them~
I've made this mistake. I used to believe that I didn't need to learn real anatomy for humans or animals or anything. But then I fucking grew up and realised how wrong I was. And I started practising. My anatomy is not perfect, but it's much better than what it was and I can draw a decent looking human.
And because of that, I can play with things a little more to make a separate, more exaggerated cartoony style as opposed to my normal, more realistically proportioned style (Still working on that cartoony style, I need to make it look more balanced).
Sorry if none of this makes sense, I don't seem to be good at the ranting or something? I don't know.
I do draw really warped and strange characters and art but I'm still trying to learn proper anatomy when my art calls for it.
That shit does get reflected in their work regardless of what you deny.
And again...no. They don't know most basics. Even Myazaki has admitted the industry suffers greatly from artist who lack life experience in order to draw stylistically. They can copy, no doubt but if you asked one of them to draw something natural, they would probably fuck it up.
If not, a cartoonist's drawings can look really awkward and squiggly.
Heck, even the most well-known cartoonists today study anatomy.
But in a professional career, you do.
Otherwise you'd be describing abstraction...
I'll just leave you to your ignorance.
You don´t NEED anatomy to be a great and professional artist. You even said it yourself in your comment over there about animes. Those people work professional. And US cartoonists twist limbs of their characters as well.. not to mention the sizes of heads, hands and other parts who suddenly change or are simply too big for REAL anatomy.
You should watch some frames closer and think about their character´s design before starting a stupid argument like this. But it is useless to talk to someone who actually seems to be ignorant and thinks to have more Knowledge and Skills about Art then I have so..
I know I am right.
And what you say might be your opinion and others should share it if they want.
If someone WANTS to draw with perfect anatomy, fine. I support that. Learn as much as possible. But you don´t fucking NEED it to be great at Art. .. lol or how you said "professional".
And since it useless to talk to someone who has not much experience with drawing in this genre, I´ll just head out and say:
Have a good Day
I thank you so much for this stamp.
There is tons of guides in the search results.
I would go so far as to say that cartoonists need to pay -more- attention to anatomy, because they don't have the crutch of photo-textures and other fake-3Disms to fall back on. So when a cartoonists' anatomy looks horrible, people think it looks like shit. Whereas the Half-Life developers can fail both anatomy and physics forever, and people will still be forever-convinced that the graphics "look real".
An earlier poster said something about the problem with anime-anatomy "is that people have ridiculously long body, tiny or disgustingly large shoulders, and teeny necks". Yes, they do. Have you looked at an actual person, in-person?! Humans are incredibly freaky-thin stick figures that defy all cartoon-reason. Even Sir-friggin'-Mixalot is far taller than wide, with a tiny pin-head, weirdly-proportioned shoulders, and other freaky elongated bipedal features.
Cartoonists are not abandoning the need to simulate "movement" and create an illusion of 3D space. Hopefully. Or maybe lemme rephrase that:
Shitty cartoonists are abandoning the need to simulate movement and create an illusion of 3D space. If that's the whole appeal of a cartoon "style" to you, then Gee, No Wonder Your Art Looks Like Crap.
Or maybe I should be even -more- specific:
Cartoonists do not need anatomy, because the term "cartoonist", like so many of the people who persist with it, is a relict of a fortunately-bygone era where the term "cartoon" meant "newspaper", "syndicate", "shit", and a lot of other things it genuinely deserved to mean but didn't need to. "Cartoonists don't need to learn anatomy" is a tautology. Without anatomy, your drawings look like shit. Which, these days, tends to be the difference between people who self-refer as "cartoonists" as opposed to those who self-refer as "cartoon artists".
Cartoonists don't need to learn anatomy. Artists need to learn anatomy. Interpret that as you will. If you want to be a cartoonist, go right ahead. Plenty of people do. Otherwise, you need to learn the ever-loving fuck out of anatomy, -especially- if your art-style is cartoons. Y'see, what an artist is abandoning, by adopting a "cartoon style", isn't anatomy. What they're abandoning is every other tool they would otherwise have available for 2-dimensional representation.
I know I'm being semantic about the word "cartoonist" here. Not everyone is going to read that much into it. But there's enough people who do, and will, that the word has become bottled career-suicide. People in the industry, or even the general audience, hear the word "cartoonist" and it's like, Welp, They Know What Your Deal Is. It's conditioning - you call yourself a "cartoonist" and that's what people hear: You're someone who doesn't need to learn.
Kids who want to learn a cartoon-style, rather than just "have" one, need to learn anatomy especially well, specifically because they don't have any other method of presenting a human form. They're the last artists who can be taking short-cuts, because they don't -have- any. That's what a "cartoon" -is-. Cave-artists understood this. 3-year-olds understand this.
What's the universal symbol for oversimplified drawn-representation of the human form? It's got nothing else going for it -but- anatomy. When all you've got is 3~5 lines and a circle, it's hard to make anything look like anything. But it works - because honestly, what the hell else in nature could possibly look so freakishly stick-figureish than a human body?
Being a "cartoonist", even without word-stigma, means drawing 7-head-tall humans and having people respond with "WTF is this studio-CLAMP shit?!". You wanna do that for a -living-, then honey, you've got your work cut out for you. Whether you want to compress your 7-head people down to 4, go actually studio-CLAMP on them and crank it up to 9 or 10, or even (le gasp!) retain photo-reasonable proportions while cartoonifying your "style", you're in a rough spot.
And the only genuine way out is to do your homework. You have to understand why they think it "looks wrong", and how to get them to -think- it looks right (whether or not it actually does), before you can really even -have- a "style". And that necessarily involves knowing what it looks like when it actually is "right".
Maybe the best way to get kids to want to "learn anatomy" is to get them to realise what those words mean. I daresay the best learning-tool a 2D artist has is a 3D modelling tool. In fact, CGI is probably -more- helpful for a 2D artist the flatter their "style" is. I mean, this is what anatomy is:
Take a 3D model, and look at it in a "CG-space" viewer.
Now delete all of the textures. All of them. Delete all of the shaders, the shadows, and just-generally anything else you can think of that would make it look more advanced than the early Playstation 1.
While you're at it, hit 'simplify mesh' a few too-many times.
Now move the model. Pose it. Animate it. Blindly screw with the camera and then see if you can even tell what the fuck you're lookin' at.