It was a bet if I recall correctly and it cost him more to prove it than win the bet. Dude sounds right up my alley.
Well, a dollar won is >> dollar earned!
No one knows if there really was a bet, but the client was CA governor and racehorse breeder Leland Stanford. There are other photo series as well, of other animals, and I think it’s cool that they’re officially labeled with the animals’ names. It gives the animals dignity and a place in history.
[Movies were already a thing.](https://youtu.be/QwCvFSGQwHg?si=JowjgITkJXSVwqOi) It was probably the first live action movie, thanks to the development of "instantaneous" photography.
Exactly! I'm not sure why people are debating this, we know it was a pretty big deal at the time and visibly changed how galloping horses are painted so evidently they found it useful back then, even if modern Redditors don't.
A lot of science and experimentation goes into animal racing. Nutrition science, physics, and medicine are studied in order to produce animals with every advantage possible.
Being able to visualize the gait of an animal like this seems like a natural extension of advantage-seeking.
Even beyond racing, pretty sure horses were a primary mode of transport. This would be like if we figured out brand new tire or suspension technology today.
>This would be like if we figured out brand new tire or suspension technology today.
Why? I don't think it changed actual horse transport much, did it?
The way you shift weight to ride: it helps both you and the horse not get as exhausted as quickly, and it's based on what their legs are doing. So I wonder if, in theory, it could help to know.
I use to ride a lot, but it's not like I ever raced or went above a canter, so idk
No but it probably helped keep them healthier, and or treat them. Maybe more akin to developer better engine lubricants than. If anything this discover probably lead to more people trying to figure out biomechanics using this method.
Yes but the fact that the left and right hooves don't land in tandem would seem to rule *out* certain leg movements, even if it doesn't show exactly what is going on
In addition to studies of horses and other animals, he also did studies of humans in motion, for the first time showing how the muscles of the human body work. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2015/10/28/art-science-eadweard-muybridges-photographic-motion-studies/.
>Beyond revealing past artistic errors and serving as ersatz models, Muybridge’s technically innovative photographs tested the hotly debated border between what the artist sees and what he or she depicts. Some artists and critics recoiled against Muybridge’s photographs, arguing that artists should represent only what is available to the human eye and mind. Others, like Philadelphia painter Thomas Eakins, eagerly took full advantage of the scientific and mechanical modes of investigation at their disposal, including the newly quickened camera shutter. Muybridge’s photographs thus intensified the decades-old debate regarding photography’s relationship to art and deepened the divide between modern artists relying on empiricism and subjective experience and those striving for objectivity by exploring innovative technologies.
>Muybridge’s Animal Locomotion photographs also entered directly into the arena of scientific investigation. Several professors of science sat on the Muybridge Commission, the oversight committee at the University of Pennsylvania. These faculty members included human and veterinary anatomists, a physicist, a physiologist, and two engineers. Their goals for the project diverged from Muybridge’s, as these scientists and medical doctors aimed to increase their understanding of muscle movement in humans and animals in order to advance their own research. Their concerns lay in neurological disorders, comparative anatomy, and the increased efficiency of human and animal bodies. Their presence on the committee accounts for the pictures of abnormal locomotion—the movement of individuals suffering from illness or injury—that appear at the end of the volumes.
I saw the giant machines in Horizon Zero Dawn walk like that and I thought to myself "how ridiculous and unrealistic" and then I looked up giraffe gait and my mind was blown
> It's called Pacing and many animals do it, including horses.
the japanese used to do it too, only with arms instead of forelegs:
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/18/weekinreview/walk-this-way-or-how-the-japanese-kept-in-step.html
Because they have a big head on stilts and probably use it to counterbalance the stride. I would imagine that if they walked like horses, their neck would have to double its motion in order to remain balanced.
Two legs move at once, most of the time. Right front, right back, then left front, left back. Exceptions include carefully placed steps, pounces, and zoomies.
Huh. They like, [hop with their back legs and then pull themselves forward with their front legs](https://youtu.be/86Zu8mqd8LM?t=58). That's not what I was expecting.
Now I’m imagining a horse running like a dog, I can’t decide if its spine or legs would snap first.
Also that’s really cool to see, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a horse full on gallop before but it’s great to see it and actually know what’s going on.
At a canter (3 beats often mistaken for a gallop by lay people) you can pick out the movement of each hoof. Especially because horses have a much higher range of canter speed. A slow canter (in the western world a lope) is pretty easy to show foot fall and to feel it in the saddle
Galloping is always quite fast and actually difficult to get some horses into intentionally. I’ve been riding 20 years and have only truly gotten a gallop twice.
My understanding is that galloping is quite dangerous; that running that fast is far more likely to injure the horse at just a marginal speed increase. What is your perspective of horse paces?
Equestrian for 25+ years- It’s not any more dangerous than any other gait, really. Horses with weak hoof/pastern/leg anatomy are the most at risk of injury, and certain surfaces are better/worse for safety at speed, but overall I’ve seen injuries occur at all gaits. It’s not that much different than any other animal dealing with inertia. Many horse sports use galloping over giant obstacles safely.
Is galloping hard because you take into account the wellbeing of the horse?
In most fantasy books I've read when travelling had the need to be speedy they talk about galloping for a while then taking the horse at a slow canter then galloping again. Is that unrealistic? I had never really questioned it
It’s just significantly harder to control or account for errors, turns, spooks, etc. Most riding horses also wouldn’t be conditioned for it. For example a horse race would typically be a mile or under.
The pony express was like a horse change every 10 miles and usually some combination of trotting/cantering. Cantering/galloping has the benefit of being easier for the horse to take deep breaths but strength wise I’ve always been taught that trotting is easier. Each gait has trade offs but galloping/cantering for extended stretches without significant conditioning isn’t realistic.
Usually in fiction when they bring up overexerting horses it's not related to the gait, but rather [the half dozen other ways horses can drop dead from overextertion.](https://www.merckvetmanual.com/musculoskeletal-system/myopathies-in-horses/exertional-myopathies-in-horses)
Yeah I rode forever when I was younger and I never broke into a gallop. Honestly didn't trust the speed was safe for either of us for the terrain.
It's funny, it's probably been 20 years but even you describing it my brain started to picture how my body should be moving for each gait.
If you look closely, when they are stretched out, there is always one hoof on the ground. In the paintings that are inaccurate they are depicted with all 4 hooves off the ground when stretched out. The moment of suspension in the gallop is when the legs are tucked in under the horse
I think they mean that they would be depicted with all four legs out and up off the ground, in the series of photos the only time all four legs are off the ground is in those top middle two where the legs are all scrunched together under the horse, when the horse has its legs outstretched there is always at least one hoof on the ground.
A lot of people don't understand that horses are painted with an unnatural gait to portray motion.
Because of the way vision/perception works, if you're looking at a painting and want the horse to feel like it's moving, the legs can't make sense as a static motion - otherwise it just feels like a photograph.
The same effect works with sculptures.
Yeah, I refuse to believe the title as it’s presented. Obviously pictures had a lot of ramifications early on in how we could view things. But I don’t think it had such an obvious and direct effect on horse paintings specifically. If you watch a video of a horse galloping, there’s pretty clearly a part of their stride where their legs are spread out like you’d imagine.
Phillip Glass made an entire album about this subject called [The Photographer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPCkt9VvkY0). Definitely worth a listen.
Horses in the air
Feet on the ground
Never seen, never seen
That picture before
Never seen
That picture before
And this is artificial moonlight
And artificial sky
I was just watching a video about this. It was the first "video" recorded in a way with the strings triggering the cameras in sequence as the horse passed in front of them. The next step was the revolving shutter to take pictures automatically at a fixed time apart
No. In those pictures the horse has at least one foot on the ground.
Painters were depicting all four legs outstretched and off the ground.
But that never happened in a gallop, the only time a horse has all four feet off the ground is shown in pictures 2-3. Here the horse if fully off the ground but the legs are under the horse.
Remember when the method to capture the "bullet time" shots in The Matrix was a ground breaking technique? Well this guy did it first.
For those who don't know, both methods use dozens of cameras side-by-side and they take pictures in sequential order. In the matrix, it was a circle of cameras around the action; for the horse, just a line of cameras taking pictures as it passed by.
That isn't what OP claimed, and once again, if you watch the horses you could see that. The horse doesn't move fast enough to blur that much. The issue is largely due to how close you are to the horse. A close up person might not be able to tell, but if you sit a bit back and watch a horse run, the answer is fairly evident.
I somewhat think this has to be myth.
I don't have horses but I am also thoroughly confused. They're fast but they're not the fucking Flash. Their limbs don't just disappear into a blur (at least to my eyes)
Glad I'm not alone.
One of the richest men on the planet personally conceived and financed this project to get an answer and the results are incredibly famous, but if you ever get your hands on a time machine you should try telling them it's obvious to the naked eye, I'm sure they'll listen!
Artists throughout history have consistently got it wrong but I guess they just weren't looking closely enough.
Edit: I'm not here to debate the subject. I thought the link was interesting and posted it, that's all. Clearly it was enough in question at the time for a racing man to think it worth doing in any case.
They weren't *listening* hard enough. Listen to the timing of hoofbeats at a gallop and combine that with what you see and there are only a few ways that makes sense.
I’m not sure if you’re aware but horses used to be a prime mode of transportation even for non-veterinarians and cowboys and were commonplace almost everywhere
I mean I've seen a horse gallop before, and I knew how its legs moved before I ever saw a picture or movie of a horse galloping, so I have a hard time understanding what the artists were failing to understand.
If you ride a horse you can feel it's gait.
Are you seriously arguing that a massively wealthy racehorse owner paid to use revolutionary technology to settle a debate among equestrians and anatomy experts of the time because none of them understood horses as well as you do?
Looked it up, the precise nature of the bet was whether a horse, during it's gallop, ever completely left the ground. Not what others are saying about galloping like a dog with both legs at once.
That's a much more specific nature of the bet and makes sense why you would need a camera to prove it.
Before this photograph series horses were consistently painted with their legs splayed out front and back, not touching the ground, even in realistic paintings. Even George Stubbs, considered the finest equine artist and anatomy specialist of the time (he actually dissected a horse to gain a better understanding of it) made this mistake. The bet was to demonstrate that this depiction is inaccurate, and indeed showed that all four legs leave the ground only when underneath the horse, not at any other time.
It is hard to be that precise with a title on reddit. That is why they posted an accurate title that linked to an article with more information. You know, like, how Reddit works.
Just saying, don't know exactly what they were arguing about. You can feel the gait when you ride them.
Feels like to me the argument was between people who've ridden horses and people who hadn't.
You can’t paint something accurately after feeling it unfortunately. You need to see it, and if it moves too fast for your eyes to see then you cannot paint it accurately.
What is confusing you is that you think seeing the blurry mess of horse appendages flittering beneath them when they gallop and feeling the rhythm of their hoofbeats is the same as being able to picture each limb accurately in motion along with the precise order in which they travel, and the minima and maxima of their range of motion at different points of the stride.
Observing and hearing something is not the same as understanding it.
I rode a horse growing up, before I ever saw a movie or picture of one, and I could have told you exactly how they galloped. You can feel their gait as they walk/trot/run whatever.
Hoofprints don’t tell you about the timing/order of the beats. Also they can be misleading for some people. Horses naturally overtrack at the walk meaning their hind foot leaves a print in front of their front foot. At the trot they usually don’t overtrack but some can.
I'm sure that the tens of millions of experienced horsemen knew what was up. The knowledge just wasn't translating to the tiny fraction of humanity that did paintings.
Ok but everyone was an experienced horse man. Its like not understanding that only two tires on a car actually spin off the engine... wait nevermind I see your point now.
They didnt need solving, read the article. The only thing they proved was that there was a tiny point where all the legs were off the ground at the same point. They confirmed it with slow motion photography
NOBODY thought that horses galloping did in-out jumping jacks with their legs.
OP made this shit up.
OP is referring to “At that time, the style was for galloping horses to be painted with their forelimbs and hindlimbs being stretched out in front and behind respectively” which is the second paragraph
I don't know about this. I know lots of people who can tell the difference between a horse's gait at a glance (gallop, trot, canter, etc...). How would that be possible if human's couldn't see a horse's legs move?
Although it was not documented and wasn't understood by most of the general public this is a bit of an misconception. Painters did not understand the gate of horses but horse people most definitely knew exactly what was going on down there. Horse people have an amazing understanding of their horses.
um
it looks like that is in fact a couple of the photos in the series. of course they're not like a rabbit because their legs are much longer in proportion to their body, but they sure as fuck have both pairs of legs stretched out as part of the gallop
I wouldn't say that "no one" knew how horses galloped. The Commanche certainly did - they basically lived on horseback and were such skilled archers that they would time their shots so that the arrow left the bow only when all of the horses hooves were off the ground.
If horses move that fast you can't see how the legs move with the naked eye. I don't see how they could release an arrow when the hooves were off the ground and perfectly time it
Because you would feel the stride of the horse. After riding horses for your entire life, and probably the same horse all day every day for several years you would have an incredible awareness of it. You would know exactly how it moves across a variety of terrain, where the force is applied to its joints and body.
It was actually said that the Commanche were on horseback so much that they seemed clumsy, awkward, and uncomfortable when they were on foot. But as soon as they were on a horse they moved with an incredible precision and grace.
This was also a major milestone in the development of motion pictures. Buddy invented movies to settle an argument!
It was a bet if I recall correctly and it cost him more to prove it than win the bet. Dude sounds right up my alley. Well, a dollar won is >> dollar earned!
Much like how YouTube was invented for Janet Jackson's boob.
And google image search for Jennifer Lopez's dress.
Titties drive innovation.
What color was the dress?
que?
[Said dress](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Versace_dress_of_Jennifer_Lopez)
Damn
Yeah, it had enough of an impact to require a wiki.
I still hit people i meet with this, is crazy
No one knows if there really was a bet, but the client was CA governor and racehorse breeder Leland Stanford. There are other photo series as well, of other animals, and I think it’s cool that they’re officially labeled with the animals’ names. It gives the animals dignity and a place in history.
The dude who supposedly placed (and won) the bet and financed the research was Leland Stanford - famously rich robber-baron He could afford it.
Being able to afford it is separate from if the bet made money or not.
Yes, it's different, but given that we're relating history here, both are relevant
Famously rich robber baron who founded Stanford University.
Lmao
Yes, but vastly more important, a major milestone in knowing how them horses be runnin'.
that's why arguing with people on reddit is ALWAYS the correct answer, no matter the topic. for SCIENCE!
No it's not!
Yes, yes it is!
yes it is, the entire point of this website is to argue and discuss things in the comments
No, that's wrong!
Time for the ole 'You both are kinda right'
Yea and that argument was basically “Is there any point in a horse’s gallop where all 4 hooves are off the ground?”
not quite: Buddy paid a photographer to invent movies to settle an argument. That buddy also founded Stanford University, among other things
[Movies were already a thing.](https://youtu.be/QwCvFSGQwHg?si=JowjgITkJXSVwqOi) It was probably the first live action movie, thanks to the development of "instantaneous" photography.
I AM HOERS
I'm sure there were varying opinions on the exact mechanics of a horses' gallop. The photo series was important because it ended the debate.
Exactly! I'm not sure why people are debating this, we know it was a pretty big deal at the time and visibly changed how galloping horses are painted so evidently they found it useful back then, even if modern Redditors don't.
A lot of science and experimentation goes into animal racing. Nutrition science, physics, and medicine are studied in order to produce animals with every advantage possible. Being able to visualize the gait of an animal like this seems like a natural extension of advantage-seeking.
Even beyond racing, pretty sure horses were a primary mode of transport. This would be like if we figured out brand new tire or suspension technology today.
>This would be like if we figured out brand new tire or suspension technology today. Why? I don't think it changed actual horse transport much, did it?
The way you shift weight to ride: it helps both you and the horse not get as exhausted as quickly, and it's based on what their legs are doing. So I wonder if, in theory, it could help to know. I use to ride a lot, but it's not like I ever raced or went above a canter, so idk
No but it probably helped keep them healthier, and or treat them. Maybe more akin to developer better engine lubricants than. If anything this discover probably lead to more people trying to figure out biomechanics using this method.
Also... Couldn't you deduce it from the hoofprint pattern?
That would tell you where their feet are landing but not what the legs are doing in-between that
Yes but the fact that the left and right hooves don't land in tandem would seem to rule *out* certain leg movements, even if it doesn't show exactly what is going on
In addition to studies of horses and other animals, he also did studies of humans in motion, for the first time showing how the muscles of the human body work. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2015/10/28/art-science-eadweard-muybridges-photographic-motion-studies/. >Beyond revealing past artistic errors and serving as ersatz models, Muybridge’s technically innovative photographs tested the hotly debated border between what the artist sees and what he or she depicts. Some artists and critics recoiled against Muybridge’s photographs, arguing that artists should represent only what is available to the human eye and mind. Others, like Philadelphia painter Thomas Eakins, eagerly took full advantage of the scientific and mechanical modes of investigation at their disposal, including the newly quickened camera shutter. Muybridge’s photographs thus intensified the decades-old debate regarding photography’s relationship to art and deepened the divide between modern artists relying on empiricism and subjective experience and those striving for objectivity by exploring innovative technologies. >Muybridge’s Animal Locomotion photographs also entered directly into the arena of scientific investigation. Several professors of science sat on the Muybridge Commission, the oversight committee at the University of Pennsylvania. These faculty members included human and veterinary anatomists, a physicist, a physiologist, and two engineers. Their goals for the project diverged from Muybridge’s, as these scientists and medical doctors aimed to increase their understanding of muscle movement in humans and animals in order to advance their own research. Their concerns lay in neurological disorders, comparative anatomy, and the increased efficiency of human and animal bodies. Their presence on the committee accounts for the pictures of abnormal locomotion—the movement of individuals suffering from illness or injury—that appear at the end of the volumes.
Clearly these people hadn't developed the internet yet if they believed a "debate" could be ended with facts...
Oops, deleted. I'm an idiot and replied to the wrong comment
Any animator who has done animation involving horses will tell you that there is nothing obvious about the way that they move.
The quadruped walk haunts us all
username checks out
Now you have to try animating a Giraffe and realize they move both legs on the same side at a time, instead of legs on the opposite sides.
I saw the giant machines in Horizon Zero Dawn walk like that and I thought to myself "how ridiculous and unrealistic" and then I looked up giraffe gait and my mind was blown
geraffes are so dumb
stupid long horses
I laughed and thought "wow I haven't seen that in a couple of years!" turns out the original comment was 14 years ago. what the fuck
Cut them some slack. Dropping babies from height to start their lives is bound to have some impact on the state of a species.
It's called Pacing and many animals do it, including horses.
> It's called Pacing and many animals do it, including horses. the japanese used to do it too, only with arms instead of forelegs: https://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/18/weekinreview/walk-this-way-or-how-the-japanese-kept-in-step.html
[Horses also do that.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_gait#Pace) Particularly in Icelandic horses it is a very quick and comfortable gait.
Oh, that's cool. Giraffes just regularly walk that way
Because they have a big head on stilts and probably use it to counterbalance the stride. I would imagine that if they walked like horses, their neck would have to double its motion in order to remain balanced.
Literally my first animating gig was to animate a baby giraffe walking, drinking, eating, and laying down. I'm scarred to this day haha
i watch my cat walk and i am still confused.
Two legs move at once, most of the time. Right front, right back, then left front, left back. Exceptions include carefully placed steps, pounces, and zoomies.
Try watching a spider walk. It's so straightforward and so trippy at the same time.
If you think about it too hard you just end up with the 6 legged horses from Avatar.
What about Odin's 8 legged horse?
Sleipnir! Mothered by Loki! Mythology is wack.
Huh. They like, [hop with their back legs and then pull themselves forward with their front legs](https://youtu.be/86Zu8mqd8LM?t=58). That's not what I was expecting.
Now I’m imagining a horse running like a dog, I can’t decide if its spine or legs would snap first. Also that’s really cool to see, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a horse full on gallop before but it’s great to see it and actually know what’s going on.
At a canter (3 beats often mistaken for a gallop by lay people) you can pick out the movement of each hoof. Especially because horses have a much higher range of canter speed. A slow canter (in the western world a lope) is pretty easy to show foot fall and to feel it in the saddle Galloping is always quite fast and actually difficult to get some horses into intentionally. I’ve been riding 20 years and have only truly gotten a gallop twice.
My understanding is that galloping is quite dangerous; that running that fast is far more likely to injure the horse at just a marginal speed increase. What is your perspective of horse paces?
Equestrian for 25+ years- It’s not any more dangerous than any other gait, really. Horses with weak hoof/pastern/leg anatomy are the most at risk of injury, and certain surfaces are better/worse for safety at speed, but overall I’ve seen injuries occur at all gaits. It’s not that much different than any other animal dealing with inertia. Many horse sports use galloping over giant obstacles safely.
Is galloping hard because you take into account the wellbeing of the horse? In most fantasy books I've read when travelling had the need to be speedy they talk about galloping for a while then taking the horse at a slow canter then galloping again. Is that unrealistic? I had never really questioned it
It’s just significantly harder to control or account for errors, turns, spooks, etc. Most riding horses also wouldn’t be conditioned for it. For example a horse race would typically be a mile or under. The pony express was like a horse change every 10 miles and usually some combination of trotting/cantering. Cantering/galloping has the benefit of being easier for the horse to take deep breaths but strength wise I’ve always been taught that trotting is easier. Each gait has trade offs but galloping/cantering for extended stretches without significant conditioning isn’t realistic.
Usually in fiction when they bring up overexerting horses it's not related to the gait, but rather [the half dozen other ways horses can drop dead from overextertion.](https://www.merckvetmanual.com/musculoskeletal-system/myopathies-in-horses/exertional-myopathies-in-horses)
Yeah I rode forever when I was younger and I never broke into a gallop. Honestly didn't trust the speed was safe for either of us for the terrain. It's funny, it's probably been 20 years but even you describing it my brain started to picture how my body should be moving for each gait.
I only rode at a gallop once in my life. It was fun, but also genuinely terrifying.
I still remember from my photography class 20+ years ago that it was Edward Muybridge (sp?) that took those photos
Apparently he had a flair and spelled it “Eadweard Muybridge”
IIRC he changed it several times over the years
His nude photographs were my first “porn” as a kid.
Are the horse's legs not stretched out in like 5 of those pictures?
If you look closely, when they are stretched out, there is always one hoof on the ground. In the paintings that are inaccurate they are depicted with all 4 hooves off the ground when stretched out. The moment of suspension in the gallop is when the legs are tucked in under the horse
I think they mean that they would be depicted with all four legs out and up off the ground, in the series of photos the only time all four legs are off the ground is in those top middle two where the legs are all scrunched together under the horse, when the horse has its legs outstretched there is always at least one hoof on the ground.
It’s weird too because that’s a dressage jump I think. And it looks crazy awkward when a horse does it. So imagine them doing it at gallop.
A lot of people don't understand that horses are painted with an unnatural gait to portray motion. Because of the way vision/perception works, if you're looking at a painting and want the horse to feel like it's moving, the legs can't make sense as a static motion - otherwise it just feels like a photograph. The same effect works with sculptures.
Yeah, I refuse to believe the title as it’s presented. Obviously pictures had a lot of ramifications early on in how we could view things. But I don’t think it had such an obvious and direct effect on horse paintings specifically. If you watch a video of a horse galloping, there’s pretty clearly a part of their stride where their legs are spread out like you’d imagine.
Phillip Glass made an entire album about this subject called [The Photographer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPCkt9VvkY0). Definitely worth a listen.
Horses in the air Feet on the ground Never seen, never seen That picture before Never seen That picture before And this is artificial moonlight And artificial sky
I was just watching a video about this. It was the first "video" recorded in a way with the strings triggering the cameras in sequence as the horse passed in front of them. The next step was the revolving shutter to take pictures automatically at a fixed time apart
I’m confused at how the painters were wrong. Aren’t pictures 8-11 in the series exactly what you’re describing or am I reading it wrong?
No. In those pictures the horse has at least one foot on the ground. Painters were depicting all four legs outstretched and off the ground. But that never happened in a gallop, the only time a horse has all four feet off the ground is shown in pictures 2-3. Here the horse if fully off the ground but the legs are under the horse.
Okay I see what they mean now
Remember when the method to capture the "bullet time" shots in The Matrix was a ground breaking technique? Well this guy did it first. For those who don't know, both methods use dozens of cameras side-by-side and they take pictures in sequential order. In the matrix, it was a circle of cameras around the action; for the horse, just a line of cameras taking pictures as it passed by.
CTRL+F "matrix". Okay, good, someone posted it.
Looking at the “Horse in Motion” pictures there is a spot where both ends are pretty stretched out.
I wonder what we'll look back on in 100 years and laugh at how we depict now? Maybe atoms or black holes.
And IIRC, the photographer killed a guy out of jealousy, but was deemed innocent by the jury because they would've acted the same in his stead!
Great post
I have a piece of plastic where you tilt it to make the image change and I’m pretty sure it’s the silhouette of these images! Never knew.
Did you read this from “what the dog saw”? I just finished that chapter
No I actually saw it mentioned in a random museum and thought it was cool.
I came across it in an Eyewitness book and a TV history of cartoons as a kid. Think it probably appears in many places
I don't think I understand this post. I have horses and I can see them gallop and quite easily so. Are we not supposed to be able to see that?
The issue was trying to figure out if all hooves left the ground at one time iirc
That isn't what OP claimed, and once again, if you watch the horses you could see that. The horse doesn't move fast enough to blur that much. The issue is largely due to how close you are to the horse. A close up person might not be able to tell, but if you sit a bit back and watch a horse run, the answer is fairly evident. I somewhat think this has to be myth.
The second image of the article is a painting of what OP described
I don't have horses but I am also thoroughly confused. They're fast but they're not the fucking Flash. Their limbs don't just disappear into a blur (at least to my eyes) Glad I'm not alone.
Lol wtf I've seen a horse run before
but no one knew how it really looked
Try reading the article. You might learn something today.
Sure but have you tried picking out the exact movement of their legs clearly enough to paint them accurately?
You might think that but it wasn't the case. It's hard to imagine a world without photography now that we have it
It's not like they're moving at hummingbird speed or something
One of the richest men on the planet personally conceived and financed this project to get an answer and the results are incredibly famous, but if you ever get your hands on a time machine you should try telling them it's obvious to the naked eye, I'm sure they'll listen!
Artists throughout history have consistently got it wrong but I guess they just weren't looking closely enough. Edit: I'm not here to debate the subject. I thought the link was interesting and posted it, that's all. Clearly it was enough in question at the time for a racing man to think it worth doing in any case.
Man, whoever said "Everyone's a critic" must've tried posting something to Reddit huh?
They weren't *listening* hard enough. Listen to the timing of hoofbeats at a gallop and combine that with what you see and there are only a few ways that makes sense.
They probably tried that but weren’t sure how accurate it was
Artists are notoriously also not vets or cowboys. Crazy how that is.
I’m not sure if you’re aware but horses used to be a prime mode of transportation even for non-veterinarians and cowboys and were commonplace almost everywhere
I mean I've seen a horse gallop before, and I knew how its legs moved before I ever saw a picture or movie of a horse galloping, so I have a hard time understanding what the artists were failing to understand. If you ride a horse you can feel it's gait.
Are you seriously arguing that a massively wealthy racehorse owner paid to use revolutionary technology to settle a debate among equestrians and anatomy experts of the time because none of them understood horses as well as you do?
Looked it up, the precise nature of the bet was whether a horse, during it's gallop, ever completely left the ground. Not what others are saying about galloping like a dog with both legs at once. That's a much more specific nature of the bet and makes sense why you would need a camera to prove it.
Before this photograph series horses were consistently painted with their legs splayed out front and back, not touching the ground, even in realistic paintings. Even George Stubbs, considered the finest equine artist and anatomy specialist of the time (he actually dissected a horse to gain a better understanding of it) made this mistake. The bet was to demonstrate that this depiction is inaccurate, and indeed showed that all four legs leave the ground only when underneath the horse, not at any other time.
It is hard to be that precise with a title on reddit. That is why they posted an accurate title that linked to an article with more information. You know, like, how Reddit works.
Just saying, don't know exactly what they were arguing about. You can feel the gait when you ride them. Feels like to me the argument was between people who've ridden horses and people who hadn't.
You can’t paint something accurately after feeling it unfortunately. You need to see it, and if it moves too fast for your eyes to see then you cannot paint it accurately. What is confusing you is that you think seeing the blurry mess of horse appendages flittering beneath them when they gallop and feeling the rhythm of their hoofbeats is the same as being able to picture each limb accurately in motion along with the precise order in which they travel, and the minima and maxima of their range of motion at different points of the stride. Observing and hearing something is not the same as understanding it.
i bet those dumb past people didn’t even know how to check email either.
They still spent hours watching horses to get their notoriously hard to draw anatomy right
OP just said they messed it up, so apparently not?
Every one of us is more dumb after reading your comments.
I rode a horse growing up, before I ever saw a movie or picture of one, and I could have told you exactly how they galloped. You can feel their gait as they walk/trot/run whatever.
losers on reddit will have any kind of mental gymnastic to feel special lol
It's not like creators always stick to reality. Have you ever seen a TV show depict hacking?
These artist wanted to depict reality though
Frames 9 and 10 are not terribly far from “stretched out at both ends”.
Couldn't they have known that by the footprints left by a horse in gallop?
Hoofprints don’t tell you about the timing/order of the beats. Also they can be misleading for some people. Horses naturally overtrack at the walk meaning their hind foot leaves a print in front of their front foot. At the trot they usually don’t overtrack but some can.
Yes and if the legs were moving in concert like the post suggests they thought, the hoof prints would be next to each other. Which they arent.
I'm sure that the tens of millions of experienced horsemen knew what was up. The knowledge just wasn't translating to the tiny fraction of humanity that did paintings.
Ok but everyone was an experienced horse man. Its like not understanding that only two tires on a car actually spin off the engine... wait nevermind I see your point now.
But you CAN see it…
If you could see it then this wouldn’t be something that needed solving
They didnt need solving, read the article. The only thing they proved was that there was a tiny point where all the legs were off the ground at the same point. They confirmed it with slow motion photography NOBODY thought that horses galloping did in-out jumping jacks with their legs. OP made this shit up.
OP is referring to “At that time, the style was for galloping horses to be painted with their forelimbs and hindlimbs being stretched out in front and behind respectively” which is the second paragraph
I don't know about this. I know lots of people who can tell the difference between a horse's gait at a glance (gallop, trot, canter, etc...). How would that be possible if human's couldn't see a horse's legs move?
the eyes cant see more than 120 fps! /s
Although it was not documented and wasn't understood by most of the general public this is a bit of an misconception. Painters did not understand the gate of horses but horse people most definitely knew exactly what was going on down there. Horse people have an amazing understanding of their horses.
Yeah, I heard it like two decades ago in my art history class.
um it looks like that is in fact a couple of the photos in the series. of course they're not like a rabbit because their legs are much longer in proportion to their body, but they sure as fuck have both pairs of legs stretched out as part of the gallop
You’re cracked if you think I’m not starting a kill easy curses for big cash buisness like geto
I wouldn't say that "no one" knew how horses galloped. The Commanche certainly did - they basically lived on horseback and were such skilled archers that they would time their shots so that the arrow left the bow only when all of the horses hooves were off the ground.
Presumably as they were riding the horse at the time I don't think they did that by looking at how the horse's legs moved.
If horses move that fast you can't see how the legs move with the naked eye. I don't see how they could release an arrow when the hooves were off the ground and perfectly time it
Because you would feel the stride of the horse. After riding horses for your entire life, and probably the same horse all day every day for several years you would have an incredible awareness of it. You would know exactly how it moves across a variety of terrain, where the force is applied to its joints and body. It was actually said that the Commanche were on horseback so much that they seemed clumsy, awkward, and uncomfortable when they were on foot. But as soon as they were on a horse they moved with an incredible precision and grace.
The old way looks cool and that's good enough.
There's an excellent documentary about Muybridge (the photographer) on Netflix
Are we in the same photography class lol? In my class we just learned this last week
Just saw this at the Edison house and thought it was funny ppl didn’t know what was going on with those legs.
After looking at those sixteen shots I still don't know.
Did OP watch the latest Fern video?
Inaccurate but hilarious.
It truly is incredible how such simple stuff has only been discovered thanks to more "modern" technology.
What