Furries etc. (split thread)

[sharprm]

(EDIT: SPLIT OFF FROM THIS THREAD IN CRITS/WIPS)

What's the point in improving furry art? And ewww, furries.

*looking traumatized crazily scrubs at his skin repeating, "Still not clean, Still not clean!*

[Nezumi Works]

Don't know if you're aware, dude, but this isn't /b/. If you haven't got anything to say about the quality of the art and give advice to improve it, then keep it to yourself.

[sharprm]

Dude there is plenty I can point out that is wrong - eg. construction of eyes on tallest wolf, the house doesn't follow perspective, composition of two couples is awkward, the depth of the pool must be irregular because of position of hips of characters with different heights etc.

But pointing out what is wrong won't make this piece right.

Google best furry art. It won't be much better than this. Google worst furry art. Not that much worse either. So what's the point?

Show a well drawn furry piece and then i'll believe it could be improved.

[arenhaus]

sharprm - Apparently in your opinion Google is a supreme judge immune to pranks, manipulation of ratings, or simple bias - or your cluelessness. Well, try googling something more specific than "best X art" instead. "Best" is not a good search term, it's too generic and too susceptible to personal opinions expressed in public.

You are judging art by content. Which is, frankly, ridiculous. There is no law of physics or sociology that says specific content leads to bad art. Every creative fandom will have its share of good artists and bad artists and public-lack-of-taste caterers and clueless wannabes. There's horrid anime art and horrid fantasy art and horrid furry art and horrid superhero art and horrid wildlife art and whatever else. Their existence does not mean there are no good artists drawing similar themes.

If eptigo wants to draw animal characters, it's his right whether you like it or not, and we'll help him get better at it, because he asks that.

Please assume a more constructive attitude towards eptigo - or, if you cannot, go spew your conditioned responses in /b/ instead of here.

[Elwell]

What's the point in improving furry art? And ewww, furries.

*looking traumatized crazily scrubs at his skin repeating, "Still not clean, Still not clean!*

No need to be a dick. It's not like you couldn't tell what the thread was about from the title, it's exactly what it says it is.

[sharprm]

Alrighty you guys convinced me I apologize. To make up for it, I just posted on Deviant art how great this forum is for improving furry art.

May concept art be inundated with furry art.

[pepokish]

Show a well drawn furry piece and then i'll believe it could be improved.

Okay. http://goldenwolfen.com/

Anthropomorphism is an ancient form of art, it's nothing new. If there were fewer people relentlessly picking on furry artists for no reason, fewer furry artists would give up on it, and we might see more talent and dedication in the furry community.

Anyway, eptigo, anthro art is tricky in that you need to have a good grasp of human anatomy, as well as a good grasp of animal anatomy. Make studies of all types of people and animals, and never be afraid to use references. All you can do is study and practice, and eventually things will get easier.

[Nezumi Works]

Let me add Heather Bruton, Dingbat, and Kacey Miyagami to that list. There are a lot of places to get inspiration from, and a lot worth striving for. Subject matter isn't the point.

[Bai Fan]

Show a well drawn furry piece and then i'll believe it could be improved.

So tell me... is ignorance bliss or do you even notice it?

[Vermis]

You are judging art by content. Which is, frankly, ridiculous. There is no law of physics or sociology that says specific content leads to bad art.

You haven't seen enough furry art.

Anthropomorphism is an ancient form of art, it's nothing new. If there were fewer people relentlessly picking on furry artists for no reason, fewer furry artists would give up on it, and we might see more talent and dedication in the furry community.

You really haven't seen enough furry art.

You're giving them too much benefit of the doubt for their general artistry and maturity. If the mindset is somehow not familiar here: for all their antagonism sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica and Vivisector.org have a good handle on it. Because CA has seen few instances don't assume they're the exceptions to the rule. The majority of self-proclaimed furry artists and fans don't care too much about improvement or good taste as long as they get fawned over or they can masturbate to it, respectively.

But everyone has a different answer to 'what is furry?' and despite the blurry venn diagrams it isn't necessarily a synonym for anthropomorphism, cartoons or 'funny animals'. There are a few rules of thumb, mostly involving sexually confused (and horrifying) shut-ins that a lot of you probably wouldn't touch with a pole if you were honest. Do you, Pepokish, really think that 3-4,000 year old Egyptian murals are 'furry', or intended as such? Bai Fan: is Blacksad furry if it appeals to the mainstream (and it's more than good enough to), or at the least non-furries? Or is it 'just' anthropomorphic? What's the artist's intent? What's yours? Does it make you want to take it into the bathroom? Would that make it furry, or would it make you furry? Do you all want to see more and better furry art, or more and better anthro art?

Going back to the first quote: funny how quickly the point of the 'message' of art can shift, when it suits. I thought it was supposed to be all up in your face, changing the world and being the voice of the people. But to echo Sharprm, be careful what you wish for if you tick 'see more furry art' for the sake of bloody-minded tolerance and subjectivity (which incidentally describes the furry fandom itself). You can help improve a person's technical skills all you like, but that won't necessarily make the art good when the message and intent is "Here's some tits on a cat. Praise me."

Eptigo's offering and attitude are tame, probably related to his or her denial of being a furry. Technically, it's not the worst I've seen and I don't mind the cartoony style; although the shading's off and it seems a little blunt and chunky, especially the snake character.
But at the end of the day, despite what parts of your brain you try to switch off, it's still a bunch of animals fondling eachother in a hot tub. Furry art doesn't improve much in that regard.

[xerenity]

Okay, seriously... I hate to derail this guys thread, because he just wanted some help, but this is ridiculous.

I happen to like furry art, and I'm not a deranged sicko you people seem to think are the only ones who "get off" on this kind of thing. Mind backing up and thinking about it for a sec? Everyone's not the same. Yeah, there are people who masturbate to people who look like kitty cats and squirrels. So what? You're gonna deny someone the ability to learn cause they're in that group? Fine, go ahead. Some of us weirdos will stick around and help out, because we're not judgmental pricks about the content.

Yeah, I've been to 4chan. I've grown up on the internet. Pretty much. I've seen it all. I still will not deny someone who happens to like something that harms no one. Last I checked, I'm still a perfectly functioning human being who wants to learn and grow and be happy like everyone else.

Art is subjective. I would think that here, in this place, that would be understood.

[Nezumi Works]

Seriously, this whole discussion is stupid, and doesn't belong in the WIP thread. What does this have to do with helping the OP get better at doing the piece they've asked for help on?

Your opinion of what furry is, my opinion on it, the Pope's opinion on it, anyone's opinion on it, IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. Perhaps you mistook this for the Art Discussion Forum, where you might be able to discuss this with someone who cares about your precious opinion.

[Vermis]

You're gonna deny someone the ability to learn cause they're in that group?

No. I'm going to say they like wanking to animals.

Your opinion of what furry is, my opinion on it, the Pope's opinion on it, anyone's opinion on it, IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

It is when the thread deals with furry art, and you're going to tar everything with the same brush.

where you might be able to discuss this with someone who cares about your precious opinion.

Wonderful handwave. So if we moved to art discussion, the button would flip and you'd care about my precious opinion? Let's give it a try.

[Nezumi Works]

So if we moved to art discussion, the button would flip and you'd care about my precious opinion? Let's give it a try.

Nope, still don't care. Guess you win.

Good luck in your future endeavors!

[Arshes Nei]

As stated previously Anthropomorphic art is a very valid form of art and story telling. It's been around a long time.

When you're talking about "Furry art" you're probably talking about artwork that is egocentric where people decide to create characters as themselves to tell a story of themselves. Yeah well whatever. It's no different than the people who decide they're going around with a character that is an elf, marine or sumo wrestler. Yes there is sexual furry art, but as stated in many communities there's about "Rule 34" on many things. Whether it's your favorite Disney, DC or Marvel character.

How would one use furry art to improve? It's already stated that for the basics it's character design for story telling. Create a successful character *other people can relate to* That's the big problem with a lot of furry work because of the egocentric personification. The sexual ones are "how cool does one look while doing Bed Tetris".

Learning anatomy and projecting emotions one can identify with is great. Granted a lot of people just like drawing the character his/her/itself. But that's a problem with a lot of hobby artwork as many don't bother with a background or try to convey something other than "look my character looks cool".

So you improve your art with understanding good character design, learning your foundations and focus on telling a story that an audience can honestly relate to than the knee jerk oh I can just get off on that. It is however possible to do both or draw in more than one emotion

[Ivory_Oasis]

There is place in this world for furry-ness!!

[Nezumi Works]

I'd say this is pretty relevant as well:



These characters were, without question, designed to be sexy, suggestive anthros, and in all cases were aimed at the mainstream, not the furry community. It's hard to dismiss any of them as bad design or bad art simply because of that.

[Jason Rainville]

Vermis I don't really know what you're arguing but;

You can help improve a person's technical skills all you like, but that won't necessarily make the art good when the message and intent is "Here's some tits on a cat. Praise me."

I have no clue about how any given person is going to use my critique. I honestly don't care if they take it to heart and learn something, if they brush it off and keep doing what they're doing, or if they use it as a way to generate better wank material.

I just care about helping people improve their art. Technically, creatively, doesn't matter how. If your point was to say that most furry art is made by sick fucks, okay (I've seen tons of it on ED and believe you) but I can't really see what action you're urging people to take.

As for getting more "furries" here.... ok. Fine. All art's accepted, as long as the atmosphere of critique and progress is maintained I don't care what art I see here. The egocentric ones end up changing or leaving whether their porn has tails or not.

[Nakhon]

I happen to like furry/anthropomorphic art. Partly, because I grew up with it as did most other people I'm sure who were exposed to it at some point through some of the Disney films. Like the 'American Tail' films and the like.

I have to agree with a lot of the people here are saying. Art is subjective, and furry art is no exception. Yes, it can have some weird and disgusting things in it but, don't give it a bad rap just because sexual images outweigh the non-sexual images or the bad art outweighs the good.

I only happen to know of two artist but anyway...

To add to Bai Fan's post.

1st image, is the character Catsby from the Korean manhwa 'The Great Catsby' created by Doha.

2nd image, there is also Reed Waller and Kate Worley (R.I.P.). They both worked on 'Omaha the Cat Dancer' which is an erotic funny animals/furry comic.

To be honest, I've never heard of Reed Waller or his comic until a few years ago. I bought one of his 'collected' book series and I liked it, sure it was erotic and sexual...big deal that's only part of it. I liked it more because it had a good story to go with it.

So, just my two cents on that not all furry art is 'Bad'

[Flake]

I figure whatever weird shit they get, whatever.

[velderia]

Furry isn't a problem. Bad execution is, but that's the whole point of the critique forum, to improve upon your work.

And anything can be poorly sexualized. You can draw an ice cube in a bikini. It could be drawn very well, or poorly rendered and boring.

[DBZMerciter2005]

(EDIT: SPLIT OFF FROM THIS THREAD IN CRITS/WIPS)

What's the point in improving furry art? And ewww, furries.

*looking traumatized crazily scrubs at his skin repeating, "Still not clean, Still not clean!*

You're joking... right? I mean come on, show some respect for other interests, even if you don't like 'em.

Also there's lots of perfectly good furry art. Just because you don't like it and don't find it on google with vague, horrible search words doesn't mean there isn't good furry art out there.

[Kamber Parrk]

I really like animal cartoons. Particularly, I like old school Disney and Warner Brothers stuff.

But, "furries," are, pardon the pun, a different sort of animal.

One intrinsic aspect of of old-school "anthro" is "appeal" or "charm."

It seems to me that most "furry art" is inherently grotesque and unappealing. (Sticking a cat head on a human porn body just yields an odd outcome).

Further, these unappealing Manga-eyed, weasel-faced, cat-eared things, all too often, seem to be exploring their extreme sexual kinks in some sort of over the top orgy cartoons.

I don't think the conventions of this artform can ever be truly viewed as seperate from the fetish interests that, seemingly, lurk just around the corner.

[Nateman742]

I had thought the original thread was very calm and professional, but then I got here It's not the apocalypse because an artist wants to improve. You're not automatically a furry fetishist if you don't chastise furry art every time you see it. Grow up.

Every other artform has a sexual side. If you can think of it, someone somewhere thinks it's sexy. The world is a strange place. Relax.

[pretentieuse]

I'd say this is pretty relevant as well:



These characters were, without question, designed to be sexy, suggestive anthros, and in all cases were aimed at the mainstream, not the furry community. It's hard to dismiss any of them as bad design or bad art simply because of that.

omg CATS DON'T DANCE movie of my childhood, love of my life!

Anyway, on the topic of furry art--indeed, there's a distinct difference between Egyptian portrayals of Anubis and a naked leopard-man fondling himself, but there's plenty of middle-of-the-road stuff that's not appalling or discomfiting. I'm not going to lie, the piece in the critique section freaked me the hell out, but it's on the same level as a lot of stuff that's posted. It just doesn't get as much attention because /b/ and SomethingAwful don't routinely mock it. I was interested in furry art...when I was eleven...but obviously not for the sexual elements, just because I liked animals and people and I liked drawing them combined.

Anyway, as weird as hyper-sexualized furry art is to me, basically all paraphilias are pretty unusual and awkward. However, I get really upset whenever I see people who normally champion sexual freedom and abdicating social norms hating on furries because it's just so hypocritical. As long as no acts of sexual assault occur, it's how they get their rocks off, and we ought not to judge them for that. It's just a horrifically unsatisfying and contradictory argument.

For the record, I believe animals can't condent.

[Amarok]

I don't see why it should concern me what people choose to draw because frankly, it's not hurting anybody. If somebody wants to draw a bunch of naked, muscled catpeople in a tub, OK, yeah, it's a little weird for me, but I can either shrug and say everybody has their own tastes/reasons for drawing or I can be like sharprm and say the equivalent of, "OMG FURRY COOTIES GROSS!" and be rude. Which one is the more adult thing to do...?


I don't want to police what anybody wants to draw or how they want to draw because then it's OK to draw lines wherever you want. I see this as just the same as people who have a prejudice against any and all anime/manga-style art. They're basing their assumptions on huge generalizations and stereotypes without actually taking the time to acknowledge that there's a huge variety of art and styles out there even within that genre and some really good artists. I'm sure the same goes for furry art, and it's not my place--or anybody else's--to judge it.

Kamber's post here is the perfect example of the kind of wide/immature stereotypes people have when they're really not familiar at all with an art style/fandom and they're just going crazy with assumptions. I'd just recommend that everyone try to be a little more mature and stop to think about how you'd like it if you just wanted to improve but you immediately had people hounding on you for your style or your choice of subject matter. You wouldn't like it, right? You wouldn't feel great about getting stomped on, and you'd probably feel pretty unhappy to see people making all kinds of assumptions about you just based on one thing, right?

So why treat somebody else that poorly?

[pretentieuse]

I mean, I wish I could get some of you guys here to stop drawing excessively muscled men and massively-breasted women, but it's really a losing battle. It's the same thing. A majority of art is creating the world we want to live in, and the more people harp on us for what we like, the further we'll push ourselves into that world.

[Nezumi Works]

Harvey Kurtzman's Little Annie Fanny was unabashedly sexual, and yet the artistic quality was top-notch. Even Frank Frazetta worked on it. Aside from that, there's a long tradition of sexualized pinup art, blatantly intended as fantasy/masturbation fodder. But for much (if not most) of it, the quality of the art was and continues to be high. Artists like Petty, Olivia, and even Loomis come to mind. And some of the Japanese sites I've seen, well...good quality art but the subject matter would curl your hair and straighten it out again. Twice.

Fact is, just because something can be sexualized or even is often sexualized (although there's an awful lot that isn't), there's no reason whatever you can't make quality artwork out of it. Saying it's "unnatural" (elves and demons are natural?) is really a weak objection to helping someone who asks for it. As anniebelle rightly points out, even without looking at furry there's loads objectionable right here on CA, and you know what? Adults suck it up and deal with the fact that not everyone has the same biases as they do.

[Arshes Nei]

I really like animal cartoons. Particularly, I like old school Disney and Warner Brothers stuff.

But, "furries," are, pardon the pun, a different sort of animal.

One intrinsic aspect of of old-school "anthro" is "appeal" or "charm."

It seems to me that most "furry art" is inherently grotesque and unappealing. (Sticking a cat head on a human porn body just yields an odd outcome).

Yeah, what in the hell where they thinking when they made Avatar? They stuck feline like heads on naked blue people and gave them tails. Freaks.

Even James Cameron is a fucking furry...obviously by this character designer's account. http://io9.com/5354315/avatar-concep...ts-of-the-navi

He wanted something sexual. That's just totally disturbing.

Sigourney Weaver was smart, she didn't get a feline nose job like the rest of the actors, because that would be totally gross.

Besides you know Jake Sully and Neyteri totally had ponytail sex.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/524391 (NSFW)

[Kamber Parrk]

Vermis I don't really know what you're arguing but;



I have no clue about how any given person is going to use my critique. I honestly don't care if they take it to heart and learn something, if they brush it off and keep doing what they're doing, or if they use it as a way to generate better wank material.

I just care about helping people improve their art. Technically, creatively, doesn't matter how. If your point was to say that most furry art is made by sick fucks, okay (I've seen tons of it on ED and believe you) but I can't really see what action you're urging people to take.

As for getting more "furries" here.... ok. Fine. All art's accepted, as long as the atmosphere of critique and progress is maintained I don't care what art I see here. The egocentric ones end up changing or leaving whether their porn has tails or not.

I basically concur with what Jason Rainville has stated here. I came into this thread after the split to address the general sub-theme of the intrinsic merit of "furry art." Thus, I have no wish to attack the OP per se.

All I'm saying is that I find the conventions of depiction in most(and, I say again, most) "furry art" to lean towards that which is grotesque and intrinsically aesthetically unappealing from the get-go-- even when it is executed by those with a high level of technical skill.

And, again, I would seriously differentiate "furries" from some of the classic Disney and Warner Brothers material that has been posted here!

Finally, I still say that the fetish aspect of "furry art" proper cannot be divorced from the artform itself-- another factor which compromises its general appeal.