>>525180>It's still anatomy.
But it's not science. Anatomy as understood by someone studying medicine require you to develop a detailed understanding about the operation of
the body, it's organs, it's nerves, it's circulatory system, it's development.
Calling what we study as artists, the shapes of muscles (without understanding anything about their internal structure or operation) and their connection point a 'science' is a joke. >How can someone can say that shape is unrelated to anatomy anyway?
You can copy shapes without any sort of comprehension about the working principles of what you depict. You can model a tree or a car without first studying botany or mechanics.
The anon you argue with is actually right, an ability to accurately mimic shape comes first and is much bigger use to an artist than having an anatomical map of the body.
But anyone who is serious about model humans should still learn their anatomy since it's so much easier to look at a human body when you understand what it is you are seeing.
How do you even define your shape without any sense of anatomy? A blob?
You define it as a set of ratios, angles, relationships between topographical features. The same way you would go about capturing the shape of any unfamiliar objects.
The shape exists without it's internal operating principles. The same way you can paint a landscape without understanding it's geology, you just mimic what you see.