Home General Discussion

Is it harder to sculpt women than sculpting men?

To anyone that sculpts characters, do you have a slightly harder time sclupting women(beautiful sexy women) than men? or perhaps the reverse? If so, why is that?

Just curious if there's a reason or if it's common that some people have a harder time with women, or if you guys feel like it's the same difficulty level.

Replies

  • Shiniku
    Offline / Send Message
    Shiniku polycounter lvl 14
    Well, male anatomy has always come more naturally to me, probably because I am male. I think generally people have an easier time with their own gender, but there are exceptions to that.
  • Two Listen
    Offline / Send Message
    Two Listen polycount sponsor
    Traditionally I've found it more interesting to paint men, but I think that's probably more because there's generally more definition/detail, which has captured my interest much more than painting (or sculpting, it's all the same to me) girls.

    Women, well I mean it's usually just a very soft face with little in the way of imperfections. Smooth with subtle shapes. Same with bodies, a girl's arm compared to a guy's - which is going to have more definition? Definition and detail gives me purpose and knowledge to work with. Painting a...pleasantly shapely tube without much definition I generally find to be much less interesting, which has led to a lack of practice, and I'd probably have to spend longer on it if I did it. I also feel like an aesthetically pleasing guy is generally more accurate to life than what is typically accepted as an aesthetically pleasing girl (I'm mostly talking face here, believe it or not). Faces especially for female characters tend to be so specific with how smooth they are, how small and perky their noses are, how big/shapely their eyes are, the lips that are always open just a bit, etc. That's the norm, anyway.

    Though, I have noticed a bit of androgyny making its way into my faces from time to time, which is something I'm actually happy about. I'm beginning to appreciate the creative subtleties that can be implemented in women. Freedom to do things with makeup, eyelashes, hairstyles, jewelry, etc. I will have to try to work on some women in the near future, I think.
  • Neox
    Offline / Send Message
    Neox godlike master sticky
    It depends on what you want to depict, i think less "beatiful" (whats considered to be beauty these days mostly) women can be done almost the same as the average male game character.

    You can do almost anything to male sculpts and they still can turn out manly, while when you give the wrong wrinkle in a womens face too much weight it will turn her into a guy.

    Beautiful women are all about subtlety, the wrong balance in minor parts can turn the whole thing around.
    In the end it's all about practice, if you did nothing but women for years, they will be easier for you, sadly the majority of game characters i do are male, therefore i think i lack experience in that field.
  • MM
    Offline / Send Message
    MM polycounter lvl 18
    No.

    If you consider every single aspect of a human being from muscles to bones to skin and fat, then it does not matter what gender you sculpt.

    they are 100% equal in difficulty.

    the only difference lies in the eyes of the observer and their capability to objectively judge the quality of the work and how much they are willing to compromise in each gender in regards to anatomy/flesh/bones etc.
  • Ruz
    Offline / Send Message
    Ruz polycount lvl 666
    I Think guys , or more specifically muscular guys are harder to sculpt, women not so much so, but they are still tricky to say the least.
    as soon as you go down the realism route then any mistakes or imperfections in anatomy tend to stand out like a sore thumb.
  • Decoyz
    I thought this was an interesting comment, coming from one of the character artists of Mass Effect 3. Even this guy agrees that females are harder.

    "What was the most challenging asset for ME3?

    Rodrigue: I think it was the female characters in general. It's so hard to get a female character that pleases everyone. Whatever the project, the female characters are always the ones that need the most iterations because we all have a different idea of what a beautiful woman looks like.

    The Reapers were also a challenge because on the tech side these guys are so big it was tough to get them running in the engine while keeping them looking awesome."

    taken from http://pixologic.com/interview/mass-effect3/7/
  • JordanN
    Offline / Send Message
    JordanN interpolator
    Male game characters usually get the benefit of being in decked out space armor and wear helmets to cover up any bad muscles.

    Female game characters you just export the naked mesh when you're done. :poly122:
  • ysalex
    Offline / Send Message
    ysalex interpolator
    No, not at all. What IS harder is sculpting subtle characters, man or woman. The problem is that men are hardly ever sculpted with subtlety. They get rock hard muscle definition, no fat. Seems like modeler sculpt women trying to be as beautiful as possible , requiring a lot more subtlety, and so it gets harder.
  • slosh
    Offline / Send Message
    slosh hero character
    I'm gonna chime in with my 10 cents. I do think both are equally difficult. There is so much to anatomy and perfecting it is nearly impossible. I will say that with males, its easier to cover up since you can have a lot of muscle definition while with women, its much more subtle. I find women much more difficult to get right, faces and anatomy wise. I find that people who say women are easier cuz there is less detail really aren't seeing the forms underlying the skin very well. I find women more difficult but I also enjoy it much more.
  • Two Listen
    Offline / Send Message
    Two Listen polycount sponsor
    The issue is that when people start out sculpting, they almost always start with making male characters. Barbarians and orcs and superheros, etc. They look at references of muscular anatomy, that ecorche just about everyone has sitting on their desk, and photography of men who are very fit. That unguided practice instills in the artist the habit of sculpting individual muscles in an almost paint-by-numbers sort of process. When they begin to confront situations where truly understanding the concepts of subtlety and organic anatomy is required, they get completely stumped.

    I don't view that as an issue, it's just the process most people learn in. I mean really, that's pretty much all they're going to find when people say "Go study anatomy". You pick up any anatomy book, what've you got? Muscles. Fit, idealistic bodies. Even if they wanted "guided" practice, is it really that easy for folks to go out and find a guide who's going to teach them how to paint subtle attractive lady features? Or are they going to get stuck posting shit online where they're lucky to get "Go study anatomy" as a crit?

    Besides, I kind of feel like subtlety is on the other end of the extreme. It's not what anyone should be trying to do at first. First you have to do things "right", do something basic and normal. Muscle groups, bones, proportions, etc. Once you've got normal, then you mess it up and make it weirder/more extreme, or learn to fine tune it with attractive subtleties.
  • thomasp
    Offline / Send Message
    thomasp hero character
    Decoyz wrote: »
    I thought this was an interesting comment, coming from one of the character artists of Mass Effect 3. Even this guy agrees that females are harder.

    "What was the most challenging asset for ME3?

    Rodrigue: I think it was the female characters in general. It's so hard to get a female character that pleases everyone. Whatever the project, the female characters are always the ones that need the most iterations because we all have a different idea of what a beautiful woman looks like.

    i think that says it all though. no difference in 'difficulty' to do the work but female characters get judged on a different and much subtler scale (i.e. attractiveness).

    unless you work for square, then you are f*cked both ways. :)
  • Two Listen
    Offline / Send Message
    Two Listen polycount sponsor
    Well, by contrast, if instead of learning on your own, you were to take some life drawing or painting or sculpting classes at an atelier or local college, they would have you working from a lot of different body types, both male and female. So gender wouldn't even be a point of contention for you. They would nip the contrived muscle business in the bud very early on and have you thinking more in terms of tone and subtlety at a very early stage.

    I won't deny that as a potentially helpful possibility, but I would still consider scuplting or painting the "beautiful sexy women" art OP was referring to to be a ways down the road from pumping out silhouettes and studies of nude 20-60 year olds. Better than grinding on biceps, for sure, but my point was that the subtlety and "beauty" usually interpreted from female forms isn't exactly "art stuff 101", so it makes sense that there aren't as many people who hit that point and are able to churn it out.
  • PyrZern
    Offline / Send Message
    PyrZern polycounter lvl 12
    In general, I think it's harder to create beautiful women. Because it's very subjective and relative. What's beautiful ? Well, I can tell you, it's quite narrow. Very few women can be considered beautiful by everyone/the majority/the standdard. This is largely due to media and society as a whole.

    Men, on the other hand, men. Any goes for men. As long as it's not anatomically disaster. Men have many faces on the magazine. Women ? All women look the same. (to a certain degree) on a magazine cover.
  • MM
    Offline / Send Message
    MM polycounter lvl 18
    PyrZern wrote: »
    In general, I think it's harder to create beautiful women. Because it's very subjective and relative. What's beautiful ? Well, I can tell you, it's quite narrow. Very few women can be considered beautiful by everyone/the majority/the standdard. This is largely due to media and society as a whole.

    Men, on the other hand, men. Any goes for men. As long as it's not anatomically disaster. Men have many faces on the magazine. Women ? All women look the same. (to a certain degree) on a magazine cover.

    that makes no sense.

    if you ask a straight girl then it would be the opposite of that.

    men, woman, what ever you sculpt, it is all the same level of difficulty IF you want to achieve the same level of quality.

    it seems really absurd to say men cannot be beautifully sculpted. there are same amount of subtleties to be handled when sculpting a male form.

    few examples:
    http://cghub.com/images/view/248562/favorite:14152/
    http://www.telekiraul.com/


    it all depends on at what point you are willing to be satisfied by a specific piece of art. every single human sculpt out there has TONS of flaws all around it. it all depends how many flaws YOU can see. If you are good at female sculpting you will see more flaws in females and vise versa.

    if you think one is easier than the other then the problem lies in your own observation.
  • Wendy de Boer
    Offline / Send Message
    Wendy de Boer interpolator
    I agree with Shiniku. It's usually easier for an artist to portray their own gender.

    Maybe it's because you are most familiar with the subtleties of your own body. Maybe it's because artists usually start out portraying their own gender, because they relate to it better. Either way, one is not harder than the other, it's just what you are most familiar with and have practiced the most.
  • PyrZern
    Offline / Send Message
    PyrZern polycounter lvl 12
    MM wrote: »
    that makes no sense.

    if you ask a straight girl then it would be the opposite of that.

    men, woman, what ever you sculpt, it is all the same level of difficulty IF you want to achieve the same level of quality.

    it seems really absurd to say men cannot be beautifully sculpted. there are same amount of subtleties to be handled when sculpting a male form.

    few examples:
    http://cghub.com/images/view/248562/favorite:14152/
    http://www.telekiraul.com/


    it all depends on at what point you are willing to be satisfied by a specific piece of art. every single human sculpt out there has TONS of flaws all around it. it all depends how many flaws YOU can see. If you are good at female sculpting you will see more flaws in females and vise versa.

    if you think one is easier than the other then the problem lies in your own observation.

    I'm not saying men can't be beautifully sculpted. I'm saying sculpting men isn't so focused on oh-so-handsome quality. Whereas most sculpted women are oh-so-Victoria's Secret Models.
  • Mask_Salesman
    Offline / Send Message
    Mask_Salesman polycounter lvl 13
    Well one main source of confusion on this topic could be said to be, it's hard to create a GOOD sculpt regardless of gender. Compared to throwing muscles onto a grizzly male with no thought of weight or body fat. ;P
  • MM
    Offline / Send Message
    MM polycounter lvl 18
    PyrZern wrote: »
    I'm not saying men can't be beautifully sculpted. I'm saying sculpting men isn't so focused on oh-so-handsome quality. Whereas most sculpted women are oh-so-Victoria's Secret Models.

    whether an artists focuses on a male sculpt to be beautiful or not is completely irrelevant to the question of topic here. artists not focusing on any particular subject does not equal to that subject being easier than other subjects.

    most 3d artists are creating female models, so the question of one being more difficult than other is answered usually with a bias like you just did.

    forget about digital media, think of traditional sculptures. there are tons of properly done male figures and comparatively less anatomically correct female sculptures. that does not mean male sculptured were easier to make back in renaissance period, it just means nude female models well less available back then.

    objectively thinking, they are equally difficult.
  • LRoy
    Offline / Send Message
    LRoy polycounter lvl 14
    ysalex wrote: »
    No, not at all. What IS harder is sculpting subtle characters, man or woman. The problem is that men are hardly ever sculpted with subtlety. They get rock hard muscle definition, no fat. Seems like modeler sculpt women trying to be as beautiful as possible , requiring a lot more subtlety, and so it gets harder.

    i'd say this. with men you can get away with just making muscles everywhere (you can't, but people do anyway) with women you have to be more aware of where the structure is since they tend to be ultra sexy and everything everything has to be very apparent. breast on ribcage, hips flare out, etc.

    obviously they're very close anatomically thats just the way people tend to look at them.
  • szl_
    Apologies for necroing this thread but I was searching google for tips on sculpting likeness and came across this and I found the discussion intriguing and wanted to add my own thoughts and perhaps restart the discussion.

    I sculpt characters with a focus on likeness. From my experiences, sculpting women is MUCH more difficult when it comes to likeness. The main issue that plagues me is that female features are often subtle, small, soft and not well defined. This really bumps up the difficulty (for me anyways) for likeness sculpts since accuracy and details are so important yet observing, understanding and translating those details and subtleties from reference photos to my sculpts can be very challenging. It doesn't help (especially with famous women) that you have to deal with makeup, lighting, filters and plastic surgery in your reference photos, specifically aimed at making her features even softer and more subtle!! This ends up making the task of sculpting the likeness of a female even more daunting.

    Males on the other hand often have strong, sharp and well defined features making it far easier to observe and work with the lighting used in photos of males often makes their features even stronger and more prominent. As anyone who has ever attempted a likeness can tell you, when something is off, even by millimeters it can throw the accuracy out the window, I cant tell you how many times I have been stuck on a likeness only to move some little part (especially eyes) a tiny bit and its like Im suddenly looking at a brand new model!

    Now if I am just sculpting random heads/faces with out aiming for likeness, I would agree that both present an equal challenge, perhaps women being slightly easier in this case due to their softer and more gentle subtle features.. 
  • Alex_J
    Offline / Send Message
    Alex_J grand marshal polycounter
    are you heterosexual male though?
    i am. if i look at a woman, i really study her. especially if she is attractive.
    men, my eyes couldn't care less. can't make myself care what they look like at all.

    i bet your sex preference plays a big role. for example a horny hetero woman might find that the things which make a male attractive or not are equally subtle as i find for the women i prefer.
  • zetheros
    Offline / Send Message
    zetheros sublime tool
    Kay Vess

    no one took my bait, damn lol
  • kanga
    Offline / Send Message
    kanga quad damage
    I think you generally do better with what you see in the mirror. If you know that tho it would be smart to sink more time into your weakness because being out of balance isn't good for marketing. That same leaning would transfer over to likenesses I reckon.
  • NikhilR
    Offline / Send Message
    NikhilR polycounter
    zetheros said:
    Kay Vess

    no one took my bait, damn lol
    That model really was better off just being a straight scan of the actress without any alterations.


  • zetheros
    Offline / Send Message
    zetheros sublime tool
    you weren't actually supposed to take the bait NikilR! hahaha

    To answer the question though, IMO women are definitely harder to sculpt
  • gnoop
    Offline / Send Message
    gnoop sublime tool
    Usually it's children and young women  who are harder indeed .    With a man or old person you could perfectly hide your lack of  skills  behind  more prominent features , muscular outfit   etc.    Because man  is where nature  does  its variations.        While  with young women,  lets be honest, they  are all  looks same while young and pretty,  having roughly same  scaled facial features , same  perfected by nature proportions.       Would women be all bald and wearing same clothes  we would have troubles distinguishing one from another probably.    So it takes certain skill  to display  very subtle individual  variations , body plasticity  the way they wouldn't look like  robots or some "babe"  cliche.

  • Rima
    Offline / Send Message
    Rima interpolator
    gnoop said:
    Usually it's children and young women  who are harder indeed .    With a man or old person you could perfectly hide your lack of  skills  behind  more prominent features , muscular outfit   etc.    Because man  is where nature  does  its variations.        While  with young women,  lets be honest, they  are all  looks same while young and pretty,  having roughly same  scaled facial features , same  perfected by nature proportions.       Would women be all bald and wearing same clothes  we would have troubles distinguishing one from another probably.    So it takes certain skill  to display  very subtle individual  variations , body plasticity  the way they wouldn't look like  robots or some "babe"  cliche.


    Sorry, but that's some incel shit.

    Women have just as much variety as men. If anything, those variations are more overt in women; consider the difference between a woman with an hourglass figure and one that's more pear-shaped. You can get that kind of difference from natural differences in bones, let alone the exaggeration you can get depending on a woman's natural fat distribution.  Plus you have variations in size and shape of breasts, fat pads, boney landmarks....And that's not even accounting for anything brought on by ethnicity. If you include hair, you'll get way more variety there, too, as women are generally allowed to grow and style their hair as they please, whereas men are pressured to have the typical short back and sides or such, making them often look far more generic.

    The proportions of women's facial features are by no means "perfected by nature", and the idea that only men have significant variations is ridiculous.
  • gnoop
    Offline / Send Message
    gnoop sublime tool
        Why  you trough  sexually derogatory terms so easily .     Have I offended you  or women in general saying  their  look  is more perfect  thus having less visual deviations and more subtle  variations .      You think  the variations  more overt  , I say more subtle .    Do you think it's enough  to gaslight me ?   
    What I meant basically in another words is that when you  draw or sculpt  a male  and make a big nose, ears  or long  unproportional arms,  rough facial features in general  it would be probably not a Greek god   but still  nothing  looking  bad . Cover it with prominent muscularity  and it's fine. Nobody even notice if you made mistakes in anatomy  really.    You can see them even in Michelangelo drawings.    Mistakes are easy to hide.
    Children and  young women - not so easy.   Any mistakes would  cry out loudly , will be eye catchy.        And about  similarity it's an episode from my own experience when  I once  thought  other woman is my girlfriend and she wasnt and I had been appalled. 

    Hair styles  is  a huge variation indeed  , that's why I said if bald .   Fat distribution variation  is more of a male feature too imo.
     Years ago  I  went through army service and we all had been  hair cut bald  and in a uniform . You would be  amazed how much different each of us looked yet.     Vc  female flight attendants for example,  I sometimes  need some time to figure out is she the same  person I spoke  5 min ago  with or not.   
       Its not about de-valuating  women,  it's about how hard it is to picture them   without either falling in certain visual cliche  or a sort of a caricature exaggeration trying to catch individual traits.         
    Children is another story.   You can clearly see how creepy they look in early Renaissance time.  and how much better they suddenly are 100 years later.

  • okidoki
    Offline / Send Message
    okidoki greentooth
    There was this joke in Crocodile Dundee 2 when two asians saw Dundee and thought this was Clint Eastwood.. like most "western" people can not tell if some asian is chinese, japanese, korean, malaysian... and when you speak to them; they are from Brooklyn..
    What i'm trying to say is.. someone has to be used/trained to see the differences. Like for every eight year old people over 25 are.. old.. :wink:

  • Rima
    Offline / Send Message
    Rima interpolator
    gnoop said:
        Why  you trough  sexually derogatory terms so easily .     Have I offended you  or women in general saying  their  look  is more perfect  thus having less visual deviations and more subtle  variations .      You think  the variations  more overt  , I say more subtle .    Do you think it's enough  to gaslight me ?   
    Because it's just sexist. The idea that women are "more perfect" or whatever is complete nonsense, not to mention it's incel rhetoric. Of course it's offensive; I'm a human being and I'm not a sexist. And more than that, it's just....Well, tremendously out of touch. If you truly have so much difficulty telling women apart, I think that's on you, and not some objective trait of women.

  • okidoki
    Offline / Send Message
    okidoki greentooth
    Seeing the world as some individual see it might not alwass be meant offensive.. sometimes people are just not aware..

    For example: Ever heard of prosopagnosia ?? (..and i'm presuming anything here ) My uncle had a milder form. Which already sometimes leads to arkward moments when for example he ranted about a certain employee at the supermarket which is a friend of mine and was sitting at the table..
  • Rima
    Offline / Send Message
    Rima interpolator
    Well, is there a kind of prosopagnosia that exclusively effects you when you look at women?

    Whether someone means offense or not doesn't mean they're not saying something offensive. If you say something sexist it's right for it to be called sexist, whether you think you're being one or not. Weird ideas like women being "perfected by nature" or all looking the same are exactly that.

    I mean, if I started saying <insert ethnicity here> all look the same while white people are very varied, you'd probably call it racist, right?
  • zetheros
    Offline / Send Message
    zetheros sublime tool
    are white people very varied?

    ^ This was a joke, by the way. Artists take things way too seriously here. Don't worry, I have friends who are white
  • gnoop
    Offline / Send Message
    gnoop sublime tool
    Rima       You think marking a random idea in context of how more complex picturing  or even  say distinguishing women from each other may be  for someone   by a sexually derogatory slur  or making a generalization of a sort  it originates from  someones sex,  sexual behavior or success  is not sexism? 
      
     Because  "perfected by nature",  really ?     Be "perfect"  is what?  A discriminatory term ?    Diminishing women intellectual capacity , worth   or achievements ?        Especially  when context of "perfected"  was really describing  an amplitude in strictly  visual appearance  deviations   vs  those in males for picturing  purpose.  A part of sexual dimorfizm in nature , nothing else.  

     You are not agree , it's ok   but why  you feel  offended?       It's because  of patriarchy considered  women a "fairer sex"?     End even  if any distant  allusion to fairer sex offends you   may I  remind not every culture  thought that way and not always.   Had been opposite way in antiquity when patriarchy been absolute.        And what's some may believe a patriarchy as a social organization in human history had been  always oppressive not strictly toward women,  men too.    Patriarchies kill more men probably and still doing it. 



  • Rima
    Offline / Send Message
    Rima interpolator
    Well for starters, it's that ugly notion that women and men aren't the same. Especially if you're going to talk about looks and say that women are better proportioned or more even or perfected or whatever; it's just the kind of rhetoric incels love when they pretend that women have it so easy and can get whatever they want and look good without even trying.

    You don't need to be saying something overtly negative to be saying something sexist. Making ridiculous broad statements like "women all look the same and don't have the same diversity as men" definitely counts, too.
  • pior
    Offline / Send Message
    pior grand marshal polycounter
    "[...] incel shit"

    So, slurs based on/assuming/making fun of someone's sentimental or sex life are cool again now ?
  • Rima
    Offline / Send Message
    Rima interpolator
    pior said:
    "[...] incel shit"

    So, slurs based on/assuming/making fun of someone's sentimental or sex life are cool again now ?

    Sorry, but you're being incredibly disingenuous if you're going to try to pretend that when anyone says "incel" they're talking just about someone's sex life, and not commenting on their misogynistic attitudes. That person's sex life is entirely beside the point.

    How the hell is it apparently fine to say all women look the same and make incel-like comments about how we look, but describing it as incel when someone repeats incel rhetoric is problematic?
  • sacboi
    Offline / Send Message
    sacboi high dynamic range
    Irrespective of gender, I find distinguishing anatomical subtleties from experience working with traditional media can be extremely challenging too capture whether trying to sculpt a marquette in clay or via life drawing class - hideously tortuous I tell you wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

    ....thank the good lord I'd stuck with mechanical hard surface when switching over to digital.  
  • gnoop
    Offline / Send Message
    gnoop sublime tool
    Rima     What  I  said  was that  young woman   facial proportions  deviations  for example  are more focused around   lets say  not "perfected by nature" if it offends you   but  rather  just  around certain genetic optimum .      No massive noses  , prominent  cranial details  .  big ears   , anything  that would make  picturing a man simpler by just depicting those even in a caricature style.
     And by having  lesser of those traits   young female  faces may blur into unspecific "pretty young woman"  image   looking sort of same when you passing by.    ok , Maybe just for me if nobody agree.        Just an observations   trying  to explain the complexity of depicting  women and why  you fall in certain "babe" cliche while trying to do so.     I even  haven't said  women are all  same   , only  that they look  same  at a certain age frame if hairs and clothing  would be  out of consideration.      Something you struggle with in Zbrush   with a bald head when performing a scan cleaning.  Few touches  and it's zero likeness already, just an abstract young woman.

    And you want to paint me sounding misogynistic by all means .   First by  word "perfect"   and when it's not exactly falling in misogynistic puzzle     than  with  "look same" ,  again by all means  pooling it  out of  depicting  women vs men context into  diversity discussion.      Isn't it ridiculous?      it has noting to do with diversity in modern  meaning of the word.     Meaning not the look exactly  but rather how equally and fair people are represented in  income  and society .

      So tell me what's misogynistic  in my comment?    What harm does it provoke or instigate  exactly?   Is it a threat  to women social status , security   and well being?     Maybe it discriminates them or  provoke sexual harassment?     Implies   women life is easier  like you said earlier ?  How exactly?   Or maybe worthless ?    Bearing an ugly notion   men and women are not same you say.    In what  respect exactly?  They sure LOOK not same.     What look  similar or not has to do with  women  vs man value or social and economic status ?   Does  a certain age group that  look   similar  for me and at the same time  perfect in a way  and thus hard to find individual traits to portray   make me  hate or de-value them ?


     
         



  • NikhilR
    Offline / Send Message
    NikhilR polycounter
    Rima said:
    gnoop said:
    Usually it's children and young women  who are harder indeed .    With a man or old person you could perfectly hide your lack of  skills  behind  more prominent features , muscular outfit   etc.    Because man  is where nature  does  its variations.        While  with young women,  lets be honest, they  are all  looks same while young and pretty,  having roughly same  scaled facial features , same  perfected by nature proportions.       Would women be all bald and wearing same clothes  we would have troubles distinguishing one from another probably.    So it takes certain skill  to display  very subtle individual  variations , body plasticity  the way they wouldn't look like  robots or some "babe"  cliche.


    Sorry, but that's some incel shit.

    Women have just as much variety as men. If anything, those variations are more overt in women; consider the difference between a woman with an hourglass figure and one that's more pear-shaped. You can get that kind of difference from natural differences in bones, let alone the exaggeration you can get depending on a woman's natural fat distribution.  Plus you have variations in size and shape of breasts, fat pads, boney landmarks....And that's not even accounting for anything brought on by ethnicity. If you include hair, you'll get way more variety there, too, as women are generally allowed to grow and style their hair as they please, whereas men are pressured to have the typical short back and sides or such, making them often look far more generic.

    The proportions of women's facial features are by no means "perfected by nature", and the idea that only men have significant variations is ridiculous.
    I think its more about women conforming to a standard of beauty which might be what leads to a lack of variation in popular media.
    Female clothing also tends to be more fitting and highlighting curvature, even if there isn't much curvature (like Kay Vess) so the anatomical variations if any do stand out and there is more to highlight and criticise. 

    I'm sure there is substantial variation that is more observable if they had no makeup and didn't use clothing that helped in body contouring which men aren't expected to get into.
    And no its not always men making women consider these choices, women compete with other women even if the underlying purpose is to feel confident and they insist has nothing to do with gaining attention from men.

    I've always been annoyed by how limited fashion choices are for men in western fashion. Every clothing store you walk into the men's section is a tiny corner compared to womens which is several floors. 
    So much resource wasted in the pursuit to look attractive.


  • NikhilR
    Offline / Send Message
    NikhilR polycounter
    Rima said:
    gnoop said:
        Why  you trough  sexually derogatory terms so easily .     Have I offended you  or women in general saying  their  look  is more perfect  thus having less visual deviations and more subtle  variations .      You think  the variations  more overt  , I say more subtle .    Do you think it's enough  to gaslight me ?   
    Because it's just sexist. The idea that women are "more perfect" or whatever is complete nonsense, not to mention it's incel rhetoric. Of course it's offensive; I'm a human being and I'm not a sexist. And more than that, it's just....Well, tremendously out of touch. If you truly have so much difficulty telling women apart, I think that's on you, and not some objective trait of women.

    Maybe more women ought to stand up to women objectifying themselves through rubbish like onlyfans instead of trying to influence the appearance of 3D models in popular licenses.
    I'm surprised there isn't a major movement against 3D porn and pornography in general, as well as clothing and fashion brands that very clearly objectify women.
    I'm thinking its because the focus tends to demonise men as being the initial cause of why the situation is the way it is, then again I'm not seeing any real push from feminists running platforms like only fans into the ground, many of them see it as empowerment.
    So its no wonder if it starts influencing younger women to conform to that trend and limits the variation the audience is willing to accept in video game media.
    Not that opposing it is going to make any difference, in the end its what sells that matters so that will decide what is popular.
  • zetheros
    Offline / Send Message
    zetheros sublime tool
    why would anyone make moves against 3d porn? That's a domain where everyone is truly equal; women, men, cthulhu, Blizzard IP
  • mcdivitt
    Female anatomy has more subtle curves and details that are less defined compared to the angular, more pronounced features typically associated with male figures. When sculpting men, you can exaggerate muscle definition, sharp lines, and bone structure to create a recognizable male form. In contrast, female anatomy often relies on softer transitions and more subtle forms, which can be harder to get right and can look off if even slightly overdone.
  • Rima
    Offline / Send Message
    Rima interpolator
    gnoop said:
    What  I  said  was that  young woman   facial proportions  deviations  for example  are more focused around   lets say  not "perfected by nature" if it offends you   but  rather  just  around certain genetic optimum .      No massive noses  , prominent  cranial details  .  big ears   , anything  that would make  picturing a man simpler by just depicting those even in a caricature style.
     And by having  lesser of those traits   young female  faces may blur into unspecific "pretty young woman"  image   looking sort of same when you passing by.    ok , Maybe just for me if nobody agree.        Just an observations   trying  to explain the complexity of depicting  women and why  you fall in certain "babe" cliche while trying to do so.     I even  haven't said  women are all  same   , only  that they look  same  at a certain age frame if hairs and clothing  would be  out of consideration.      Something you struggle with in Zbrush   with a bald head when performing a scan cleaning.  Few touches  and it's zero likeness already, just an abstract young woman.

    Women have those? You've never seen a woman with a big nose? Weird ears? Maybe you should look at more women.

    The sexism is in the way you're treating men and women as if they're different creatures, and the weird incel-adjacent rhetoric about women's appearances that basically completely erases anyone that doesn't look like your imagined idea of a woman. Like claiming that having big noses or whatever is exclusive to men. You can add disclaimers like "at a certain age" but the point is you're still talking shit and putting women on this weird pedestal where they're naturally beautiful and similar-looking, and that is sexism. This "genetic optimum" doesn't exist.

    NikhilR said:
    Maybe more women ought to stand up to women objectifying themselves through rubbish like onlyfans instead of trying to influence the appearance of 3D models in popular licenses.
    I'm surprised there isn't a major movement against 3D porn and pornography in general, as well as clothing and fashion brands that very clearly objectify women.
    I'm thinking its because the focus tends to demonise men as being the initial cause of why the situation is the way it is, then again I'm not seeing any real push from feminists running platforms like only fans into the ground, many of them see it as empowerment.
    So its no wonder if it starts influencing younger women to conform to that trend and limits the variation the audience is willing to accept in video game media.
    Not that opposing it is going to make any difference, in the end its what sells that matters so that will decide what is popular.
    Now that really is sexism. You're going to lay the blame for sexism at the feet of women who are, in almost all cases, doing it to survive instead of the men who actually hold those views? That platform is infamous for the women who do it being desperate because the economy is in shambles and they've been sold a the story of the top 0.1% who got rich doing it.

    Plenty of feminists aren't fans of OF or porn; the problem is they run perilously close to becoming SWERFs.

    Anyway, this is getting nowhere. Not exactly talking to a receptive crowd, so I'll let the thread get back to its original point before someone comes down hard on the derailment.
  • Melomad
    Offline / Send Message
    Melomad polygon
    For a long time I found women easier to draw/sculpt because of the rythm of the body, especially the hips. It served as a starting point for me to figure out the rest of the drawing. Nowadays I find no peculiar difficulty in either sexes. I think it's generally true that people struggles less with depicting their own body. When I struggled drawing men, I was trying to make beautiful men--and that comes with a lot of expectations. So my advice for people struggling to make beautiful women is to first make a woman and see how that goes. What is considered a beautiful women changes every years anyways.
  • Joao Sapiro
Sign In or Register to comment.