Roots of plants in f33r, f89r1, f101v2 include depictions of anthropomorphic heads

[Diane]

I describe such figures and faces as 'anthropoform'. It  acknowledges the maker(s) intention that we should  recognise similarity to the human, but avoids presuming more than that.

Marco's example is perhaps less than apt.  A catalogue description isn't trying to provide an ultimate dictum but only allow the page to be recognised if, say, it was stolen or if the person reading couldn't see the original.

In the same way someone might say that a picture of the moon was given "a human face" but the sense is still 'anthropoform' not actually "human" - we all know that the moon hasn't really got a human face.

And in that case, no human being actually has leaves growing from his head, or a serpentine/wormy thing sprouting from his chin.

So it's not a 'human face' in the strict sense and  no-one could be deceived into mistaking it for a living (ensouled) human,  which distinction may have been important for the original maker/s of these images - something to keep in mind, anyway.

[-JKP-]

I suppose we could call it facies hominum  or quasi hominis.

[Koen G]

I'm okay with both humanoid and anthropoform, means abut the same. Though I think the first term is used more often in contexts different than art (robotics, neanderthals...)

[MarcoP]

I'm okay with both humanoid and anthropoform, means abut the same. Though I think the first term is used more often in contexts different than art (robotics, neanderthals...)

I agree. I think the adjective "anthropomorphic" is frequently used in reference with works of arts.

According to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. dictionary, it means “described or thought of as being like human beings in appearance, behavior, etc.” So it should apply to human-like divinities (mentioned by David Jackson), the Moon in human form (mentioned by JKP) and so on.

I could modify the statements accordingly:

E.g.: The roots of the plant in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. include depictions of two anthropomorphic heads.

Would that be acceptable?

[Witch Mountain]

I support this statement, dear Marco!

[-JKP-]

...

I could modify the statements accordingly:

E.g.: The roots of the plant in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. include depictions of two anthropomorphic heads.

Would that be acceptable?

I can agree with that.

[davidjackson]

Works for me, I suggest opening the poll.

[Koen G]

Works for me, I suggest opening the poll.

Can Marco still do that after he policy change?

[MarcoP]

David Jackson has kindly edited the original post according to the suggestions in the comments.
The poll is active: please vote.

If you disagree with one or more of the statements, please leave a comment describing the reasons for your disagreement.

[MarcoP]

Voting will close in a few days.
Please vote and if you disagree with the proposed statements, please remember to specify the reasons of your disagreement.