You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Dain is the name of one of the four deer that live in the World Tree. Apparently it means "dead one", and it is also a Dwarf's name. The resemblance to the French for "deer" is thus a cool coincidence.
Regarding the 17th century manuscript and proportions, one key difference is that the proportions of human figures in manuscripts like these (i.e. made far outside any of the major centers of production) are often very inconsistent. There is little care for bodily proportions, or indeed anatomy in general, and there is a lot of variation. Just compare the figures in the image posted above to this one: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The thing with VM figures is that yes, proportions are weird, but across hundreds of human figures they are very consistent. There are really only a few clear outliers. So the nymphs have strange proportions, but in a consistent and seemingly deliberate way.
That said, I agree that there is a similar feel to certain aspects of the drawing, like the way animals are drawn. Maybe certain stylistic features are likely to emerge in artists that aren't trained to the same extent we see in "regular" manuscripts? I can't say "aren't trained at all", because I think some aspects of the drawings in both manuscripts are well executed, at least better than what I would be able to do if someone put a quill in my hand.
Dain is the name of one of the four deer that live in the World Tree. Apparently it means "dead one", and it is also a Dwarf's name. The resemblance to the French for "deer" is thus a cool coincidence.
Regarding the 17th century manuscript and proportions, one key difference is that the proportions of human figures in manuscripts like these (i.e. made far outside any of the major centers of production) are often very inconsistent. There is little care for bodily proportions, or indeed anatomy in general, and there is a lot of variation. Just compare the figures in the image posted above to this one: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The thing with VM figures is that yes, proportions are weird, but across hundreds of human figures they are very consistent. There are really only a few clear outliers. So the nymphs have strange proportions, but in a consistent and seemingly deliberate way.
That said, I agree that there is a similar feel to certain aspects of the drawing, like the way animals are drawn. Maybe certain stylistic features are likely to emerge in artists that aren't trained to the same extent we see in "regular" manuscripts? I can't say "aren't trained at all", because I think some aspects of the drawings in both manuscripts are well executed, at least better than what I would be able to do if someone put a quill in my hand.