
Nobody Knows What Running Looks Like - tokenadult
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/nobody-knows-what-running-looks-like/381171/?single_page=true
======
vidarh
> In fact, for all the studying of the human form we humans do every day,
> we’re terrible at replicating and identifying the correct walking or running
> posture.

There may very well be unique difficulties with running too, but I'd argue
that what we are terrible at is replicating and identifying 3D scenes from 2D
in general (and vice versa), to the point where it takes a _great_ deal of
attention to detail to create 2D representation of 3D that most people can
easily relate to.

My goto example is Lego. Lego gets usually gets it right in their build
instructions. Most of their competitors don't. Find some build instructions
from any of the second-tier brand of building blocks, and it's often _far_
harder to relate the depictions in the instruction booklets to the in-progress
models even if the sets are simple.

Part of this is probably that most people are _really bad_ at actually
watching mundane stuff with sufficient focus, even when drawing it right then
and there, and instead tends to draw (usually inaccurate-but-good-enough)
abstractions, and it's not surprising people get this wrong.

Another example of what people often get wrong which is trivial to get "right"
if you actually look: Draw a sunset over water, with the sun still above the
horizon, with the suns reflections. This is a thing we've almost all seen lots
of times - at least in pictures. Yet people often gets the reflections
entirely wrong (compare a google image search for sunset photos vs. sunset
drawings; on the other hand the _paintings_ mostly get it right) even though
this is down to recognising and remembering a trivial geometric layout.

------
DocG
As artist, you would want to draw persons facing towards viewer. It makes
pictures usually more compelling. When drawing correctly, you would
efficiently cover half the body or rotate the person away from the viewer.

Running is awkward pose, as half the body seems to be rotated the other way
always. But in a art, it is preferable to have subject moving one certain way.

So it is only natural to pose people like this, if you are uncertain how they
are in real life or it does not matter. Because it is way more aesthetically
and understandable for the viewer. In creek example, you could show persons
genitals and upper muscular body, not only one of them.

~~~
Tombone5
Yeah, the article mentions in passing that it could be artistic choice. The
observations at the end, where it appears it might be more natural to take the
"wrong" stance when holding a running pose is probably the main reason. Couple
this with the fact that painted art is fiction (and thus not that concerned
about the details), so many painters primarily use other paintings as
reference and its not hard to see why this error could survive so long.

Compare this to the portrayal of guns in film for instance, or the sound in
space. The survival of the erroneous portrayals in both the case of painting
and film probably have very similar explanations.

~~~
tjradcliffe
The comparison with films is a good one. There is a rich vein of cinematic
tropes that are unrelated to the world we live in but dramatically useful. In
the movies, everyone still has an answering machine, and cars start--or don't
--as if they had carburetors and distributors instead of fuel injection and
electronic ignition.

------
bazzargh
Some of the examples given are fairly dubious, were those really intended to
be running? I'll grant the Greek vase but the statue of Khonsu has the left
arm forward not in a running motion, but to grip his staff, which has gone
missing from this statue. It's his standard pose. I'm not saying the thesis is
wrong, just that seems to be a bad example.

------
Swizec
I can't remember the title, but I vividly remember reading this description of
a naturally athletic person in a novel when I was a kid: "He was a gifted sort
of person, his left foot naturally followed his right arm."

Or something to that extent. I don't know why that stuck in my mind to this
day, probably because at the time I was the exact opposite of such a person.

Also, I just tried the _" mimic a static part of running"_ and I figured out
why I got it wrong, despite having just run 5km this morning. My left foot was
forward and so was my left arm. BUT, when I played out the motion to its end I
figured out why - my back foot was about to swing forward and my front arm was
about to swing backwards. So it was actually correct even though it might seem
wrong upon casual inspection.

~~~
qnaal
that's what it feels like is going on in the japanese example, and I have
trouble believing donatello's angel isn't supposed to look that off-balance
and dynamic.

also the french figure looks like he's doing something weird with a stick, and
only the center, standing figure on the new yorker cover is "homolateral",
which I think adds to the intended effect.

one could say it appears that "Rose Eveleth" enjoys writing more than critical
research.

------
iamthepieman
This didn't ring true for me at all. The first thing i do if someone asks me
to draw a running person is to imagine myself running. And that picture is the
correct one. It's hardly a conscious thought - it's just reflex. Imagining
myself with both right leg and arm extended is painful and requires mental
contortions.

Now I may still create a poor representation of a running person but that's
due to my artistic ability, not my internal representation of running.

------
DennisP
I once took a class on tracking. When the instructor discussed gaits, he said
when an animal is being aggressive, its gait will change and it will swing the
legs on each side of the body together, instead of alternating normally.

He said it's true of humans too. If someone walks toward you the way these
artists depicted, he's ready to fight. If he's mouthing off but walking
normally, you're probably safe.

I have no scientific references to back any of this up so take it for what
it's worth. The instructor was someone who tracks down a lot of lost people
and fugitives for law enforcement, along with teaching survival classes.

(And this was walking, not running. He didn't claim anyone would run this
way.)

~~~
jtheory
I imagine the situation is slightly different for a quadruped gait than for a
biped like us... but even walking like this looks _profoundly_ weird if you
see it in real life.

If someone glared at me across a rowdy bar, then walked towards me with a
matched arm/leg gait, I would be rather more likely to burst out laughing than
feel threatened.

I personally have no trouble noticing when this is wrong in drawings --
recently I saw that the RyanAir instructions on how to exit an aircraft get
this wrong in a few places! -- but that's perhaps because when I was a child
my siblings and I actually talked about this problem. E.g., if my little
sister made this error in a drawing, my brother or I would point it out (not
too unkindly, I hope) and demonstrate exactly what it looks like in real life
to walk/run that way. I also remember just breaking into this kind of matched
run spontaneously just to get a laugh. People who have never seen it before
recognize instantly that something is dreadfully wrong, but it can take them a
moment to figure out what's awry.

It's honestly hilarious to watch someone run this way -- I highly recommend
trying it for entertainment purposes.

There's one exceptional circumstance when this is the natural gait: if you
have a child sitting on each of your feet, and you are walking while dragging
them along. THEN you need the extra lurch to help you keep moving.

~~~
prestonbriggs
Consider [http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/18/weekinreview/walk-this-
way...](http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/18/weekinreview/walk-this-way-or-how-
the-japanese-kept-in-step.html)

------
fela
looking at google images results [1] it seems like most paintings get it
right, although it might be a biased sample

update: searching for "running cartoon" the number of wrong poses increases
significantly(I guess unsurprisingly)

[1]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=running+painting&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=running+painting&tbm=isch)
[2]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=running+cartoon&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=running+cartoon&tbm=isch)

~~~
shalmanese
A search for running drawing also has pretty much every result in the correct
pose:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=running+drawing&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=running+drawing&tbm=isch)

~~~
jasallen
Even in the cartoons it seems most are correct. As someone who first learned
how to focus and get-things-right by drawing at an early age and since, I
found it pretty unlikely this premise could be correct.

Not thrilled with the drawing guides either. All I can tell you is I _never_
draw from a picture and I _never_ make this error. Nor it seems to most of the
people on google images.

------
lotsofmangos
Reminds me of the lack of old paintings where the moon is out in the day.
There are still some (not very observant) people wondering around who think
the moon only comes out at night. A friend and I spent a while arguing with
someone who swore that the clearly visible moon must be a funny round cloud as
it was daytime.

edit - I would love for someone to point me out a sunlit painting with the
moon visible that predates the 20th century, I haven't yet found one, though
my search has not been exhaustive.

~~~
dalke
Crucifixion paintings can have both sun and moon in them, as in
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness#mediaviewe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness#mediaviewer/File:Meister_des_Rabula-
Evangeliums_002.jpg) , but as it's supposed to symbolize darkness during the
daytime, it strengthens your point, not weakens is.

What about (and this took quite a bit of searching) Van Gogh's "Cypresses"
([http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-
art/49.30](http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/49.30) 1889)? "Road with
Cypresses" ([http://www.wikiart.org/en/vincent-van-gogh/road-with-
cypress...](http://www.wikiart.org/en/vincent-van-gogh/road-with-
cypresses-1890) 1890) has both the sun and the moon in the sky.

~~~
lotsofmangos
For some reason I hadn't thought about checking Van-Gogh, I was looking mostly
through much older stuff. Thanks for that. :)

~~~
dalke
I like your observation, btw. It is interesting that the only counter-examples
I could find were either done by a post-Impressionist in an asylum, or as an
explicit invocation of the supernatural. I would prefer to have found an
example made by a realist.

Alas, internet search technology doesn't yet handle "pre-20th century
paintings showing a daylight moon."

------
pfortuny
Well, I cannot find a real source right now but if you look at the same
problem for horses, the thing goes to the limit (four legs in the air, all
stretched, the back ones to the back, the front ones to the front).

------
ntaso
tl;dr: Forward arm and forward leg are on opposite sides, but many old
pictures show them on the same side.

"Nobody" is a strong word though. I guess most artists nowadays get it right.
At least people in animations/computer games.

Correct pose:
[http://www.angryanimator.com/tut/pic/002_walkcycle/wlk08.gif](http://www.angryanimator.com/tut/pic/002_walkcycle/wlk08.gif)

~~~
ericcholis
I agree, modern artists seem to study the proper form. Take The Flash for
example, a Google Image search shows that even the Golden Age (1930s) artists
got it right

------
catmanjan
Highly recommend trying to mimic the drawings, it feels hilarious!

Right leg forward, right arm forward. Left leg forward, left arm forward

~~~
readerrrr
I tried to do it; walking was possible with a weird sway of the upper body,
while running is impossible.

~~~
jtheory
Running is totally possible! Perhaps it just takes a bit of practice. It's
involves a lot of awkward lurching.

~~~
koorihana
Try not moving the torso at all, and keep your hands in front of your thighs.
Simply flip your palm up and slightly forwards when you want that leg to move
forwards, It's called Namba Aruki in japan.

------
koorihana
Just gonna drop this link here: [http://www.tofugu.com/2012/07/24/namba-aruki-
samurai-walk/](http://www.tofugu.com/2012/07/24/namba-aruki-samurai-walk/) by
moving both sides at the same time, it keeps twisting the torso to a minimum,
you don't tire out as fast. It also helps keep your balance centered.

------
eldude
> But if you were asked to draw a person running, many of you would have the
> resulting stick figure (and let’s be real, you’d draw a stick figure) moving
> their right arm and right leg forward at the same time.

A stick figure running does not have an identifiable left or right side...

------
chiph
I'm surprised by the modern mistakes -- I would have thought that any post-
Muybridge[1] drawing would get it right.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadweard_Muybridge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadweard_Muybridge)

------
wernerb
This reminded me of the epic running scene "World Record" of the Animatrix
film. [0]

The director of the scene Takeshi Koike said the following: "When I first read
the story, one thing that really excited me and that I thought could add
something that no one else could do, was the running in the sprint. I thought
I could draw that in a unique way."

[0] Synopsis:
[http://youtu.be/rYBcz9B6D20?t=2m36s](http://youtu.be/rYBcz9B6D20?t=2m36s)

------
shittyanalogy
There is just no way this is true. I mean there must be millions of examples
of it done the right way from all throughout history. Picking a few awkward
examples without context does not constitute research. I would expect this
paper to get a barely passing grade from a high school teacher.

~~~
tokenadult
Where is your counterexample, especially a counterexample from a time before
when photography was invented, which is what I would expect to see a link to
after a statement like that?

For you and for anyone else who would like to read a really deep, interesting
book about how visual art has developed over the history of humankind (and
about many other issues), I recommend _The Nature of Paleolithic Art_ [1] by
R. Dale Guthrie, a book I enjoyed reading several years ago. Guthrie is a
field biologist and very competent visual artist who specializes in
Pleistocene megafauna like mammoths. He went to most of the oldest sites of
surviving cave art and personally looked at ancient drawings on site as he
studied examples of early art for his book. He devotes pages of thoughtful
discussion to what early human drawings show and what drawing problems early
artists encountered. He specifically mentions the problem of drawing running
human beings and running four-legged animals.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-Paleolithic-Dale-
Guthrie/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-Paleolithic-Dale-
Guthrie/dp/0226311260)

------
andyidsinga
this is very funny. i used to be in the Air Cadets ( in canada ) and when we
were learning to march, if you "thought" too much about it you would do
exactly what the artists error on ...we called it "bear marching" ..it was a
rather hilarious thing snd no doubt would receive a dose of yelling from the
corporal or sergeant running drill.

~~~
willthames
"tick tocking" was what we called it in our sea cadets corp. It is
surprisingly hard to get it right without practice (and then I guess less
conscious thought)

------
JulianMorrison
I always thought the people posed like that in art were leaping, or
gesticulating, or marching in a stylized way. It never looked like running to
me, particularly the old art. Maybe I do notice that kind of thing?

The Utamuro doesn't look wrong, though. Just looks like the guy is pushing her
along and looking backward.

------
klochner
My unscientific poll says otherwise:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=drawing+running&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=drawing+running&tbm=isch)

------
fastball
I think Imperial College London does.

[http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/msklab/facilities/](http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/msklab/facilities/)

------
kyberias
Ministry of Silly Walks Does Not Know What Running Looks Like

------
mhb
Would runners draw people running differently than non-runners?

~~~
eru
Everybody is a runner by the definition of competence required for drawing.

~~~
mhb
Runners might spend more time thinking about running and what they look like
while doing it though.

