I wanted to know if it's a matter of manual capability or is it a standard? What is more valuable nowadays?
Dear Katarzyna,
I have been lecturing Human Anatomy for 25 years. Here's my personal view:
A classic is a classic, whatever you do, you cannot change this.
In terms of Arts in general, you have to refer to classics, before you start innovating. (This is true for classic ballet, classical music, or even pictorial Art...)
In terms of Anatomy, and of Anatomy teaching, I will always refer to classic books, before recurring to modern images. The more different pictures you present on a lecture, on the same subject, the more you grab student's attention and the better results you get.
I usually project animated versions of images from classical Anatomy books, and then add a photographic proof of the same element, for comparison and modernised approach to a subject. (sometimes, you can refer to classic errors of concepts, and then correct with a parallel better photographic image, taken from a different perspective.)
Hope this was useful.
Best regards from Portugal !
You should also start using software I think. Though both are valuable, software produced illustrations are widely used. Classical way of illustration is still appreciated.
Classical illustrations are still the most beautiful illustrations and can show a lot of more details and can show things much clearer a photo never can. Illustrations from computer and software are very often bad. But professional illustrators turn more and more to computer. So I do. Some reasons: 1. you can correct your illustration in many ways and so often you want, 2. you can use parts of the illustration for other illustrations, 3. you have much more possibilities. BUT: First you have to learn the classical way of illustration and then go to the computer.
Thanks everyone. Dear Martin, could we talk about it via messages? It'd be very helpful
Dear Katarzyna,
I have been lecturing Human Anatomy for 25 years. Here's my personal view:
A classic is a classic, whatever you do, you cannot change this.
In terms of Arts in general, you have to refer to classics, before you start innovating. (This is true for classic ballet, classical music, or even pictorial Art...)
In terms of Anatomy, and of Anatomy teaching, I will always refer to classic books, before recurring to modern images. The more different pictures you present on a lecture, on the same subject, the more you grab student's attention and the better results you get.
I usually project animated versions of images from classical Anatomy books, and then add a photographic proof of the same element, for comparison and modernised approach to a subject. (sometimes, you can refer to classic errors of concepts, and then correct with a parallel better photographic image, taken from a different perspective.)
Hope this was useful.
Best regards from Portugal !
so when you do your own research and need a scheme do you use gimp yourself or find someone who will do a quick sketch?
I might prefer drawing myself, actually. You get more quickly to the point you want to emphasise. Even if the artistic end-result is bad, you will capture your students attention easily when you draw your sketches in public. (I do practise my sketches, previously, of course. I usually draw, in preparation to my lectures.)
Dear Colleagues,
In anatomy, to my experience, classical illustrations offer an added value. E.g., see the beautiful Atlas of Anatomy by Landsmeer (1976). Medical artists, however, are not easy to find. One of the masters was the late Jan Tinkelenberg from Leiden University. The application of 'clear line' ('klare lijn') drawings one can also practise oneself, for instance while preparing your lectures, and try this out on blackboard in class later. (As a side effect, this also helps you a lot to understand gross anatomy.) So far my experience...
Wishing you much success,
with kind regards,
Koos Jaap van Zwieten
well what about regularpublications, not handbooks and lectures?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Anatomy