Colonial and eurocentric typologies emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to classify intelligence, humanity, and the body through racialized and gendered hierarchies to support the power differential, bias, and stereotyping of the dominant culture. Religious, sociopolitical, and cultural influences attempted to visualize the body through the perceived Imago Dei (the image of God), which created a categorical “otherness” for any spectral variation on race, ethnicity, gender identity or expression, and sexual orientation. Often, research regarding race, gender, and anatomical education focuses on the nineteenth- and twentieth-century pseudoscience of eugenics; however, this chapter will explore the colonial, cultural, and sociopolitical influences on constructing the human body through illustration. Specifically, this will be achieved through exploring the standardization of visual norms, the development of medical illustration as a profession, and the current biomedical digitization of the anatomical human form. The illustrated “homo perfectus” emerged to standardize anatomical images; however, it contradicts human diversity and highlights the question of who determines the standard human form that contains the illustrated internal anatomy. Professional medical illustration evolved symbiotically with the medical profession and provided significant visualization of knowledge within the field. Depictions of the anatomical image are no longer solely artistic carbon dust renderings with a clinical aesthetic. As technology such as photogrammetry and stereoscopic images became available, the opportunity to transform 2-dimensional (2D) renderings into 3-dimensional (3D) digitized manipulatable images emerged. These biomedical visualizations are not all created from primary sources obtained through human dissection, imaging, or surgical intervention; instead, they are often rendered de novo using published atlases or textbooks depicting the works of other illustrators. While the end user, often healthcare learners, can enjoy the ease and accessibility of visual aids, the discerning anatomical user can quickly detect the limitations. While the standardization of internal features on digital anatomy models benefits the novice learner, the standardization of the external anatomical features removes humanity, erasing human diversity and variation from anatomy. Lacking access to primary sources (i.e., anatomical dissection) may limit the diversification of images constructed by skilled illustrators. The active and intentional encouragement of collaboration between trained anatomists and illustrators to discuss differing perspectives can significantly contribute to re-centering, reclaiming, and decolonizing the standardized anatomical image.