# At What Point do Furries stop being Furries?



## OxfordTweed (May 20, 2009)

This is one of those questions where there's no right or wrong answer; I just want to know what y'all think.

But at what point is a character no longer a furry, and something else? What defines a furry to you? Tack your pin on the scale below, and give us your thoughts behind it.



Life Drawings - Drawings of animals as they are naturally (even in the case of made-up hybrids like this example). There's no indication that the subject is any sort of a character, but that doesn't make it any less appealing to look at.
"Anthro" Characters (sometimes referred to as "Feral") - The anatomy is pretty textbook in this case. Looking at the picture, there' no doubt that it's a weasel and a mouse. Minor changes are made to make the animals characters, though. Things like eyebrows and facial expressions, and sometimes accessories like jewellery and glasses.
Animal-Human Characters - They're walking upright, and the arms and legs are human, but much of the body is still animal-like in nature. They have more paw-like hands and feet, and a lot of focus is put into details sign-posting the characters' species. Sometimes present is even a slight curve in the neck from where the spine meets the skull, as it would naturally. Digitigrade Furs can also be put into this category.
Human-Animal Characters - The faces are still very animal in nature, but not much else. Human hands, feet, and even on occasion skull-shape make the characters a bit more versatile for things like dress-up. Human-like hair also shows up at this stage, mostly on just their heads, but sometimes manifests in the form of facial or body hair.
Human-Animal Characters, Mark II - The differences here are subtle, but I think they still deserve to be separate categories. The face starts looking a bit more human, but still has a very animal-like shape to it. Hair on the head is always present, and facial expressions are less exaggerated, and more natural.
Animal-esq Human Characters - The shape of the face is no longer animal-like, aside from still having a muzzle, and animal ears. Placement of the ears is where you'd find them on humans, and the muzzle has shortened to give the character a more human-like appearance.
Humans with Animal Attributes - The characters are very much human at this point. The muzzles are gone, leaving the face almost completely human. Tails and animal ears are still present, and the body is almost always still covered in fur at this point. At first glance, one may not even realise the character isn't human.
"Catgirls" - The head, face, and most of the body is unmistakably human, but animal ears, tails, and sometimes paws are present. (I couldn't find a work-safe version of this example on FA; link leads to dA).


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (May 20, 2009)

Even if I have only been here for a couple of days, I have the feeling this has already been discussed.

First, do you mean a "furry" as furs, fictional characters who appear in art, or as a person, member of furry fandom (or whatever it is called nowadays).
Because if the latter, you may have the wrong section.

EDIT: So I've read more carefully your post, and I think I get your point. For me, anything that has defined animal features will always remain furry art.


----------



## OxfordTweed (May 20, 2009)

For me, I think it's somewhere between points 7 and 8. While I like the style of point 7, there seem to be times when it's like the artist wants to draw something furry, but is stuck in a firm comfort zone. Catgirls just seem a bit like a guilty pleasure thing, for me. It's like porn for the closeted furry who uses the human features to rationalise what they're looking at.


----------



## Stratelier (May 20, 2009)

I consider that scale to be slightly biased, as the _characterization_ of a subject (such things as facial expressions or gestures) is independent of their morphological representation and therefore not a criteria on which to judge.

But that's a small thing and perhaps distracting to the topic at large.


----------



## OxfordTweed (May 20, 2009)

I'm just going off of what I've observed. *shrug*


----------



## heresydarling (May 20, 2009)

A lot of my stuff is in group 7  

I think that group 7 would be the cutoff for me. I've had characters that were essentially "catgirls" (although, in one case, it was an elf-skunk hybrid...don't ask) and I never considered them furry characters. However, I don't think that just because I don't give my characters muzzles, that they're not "furry". I think that I am more comfortable with my characters being more humanized, and I am not entirely sure why. I just like drawing human faces i guess.


----------



## ClosetMonster (May 20, 2009)

Personally, I considered all but group #1 to be furry.  Any time an animal in blended with any physical human characteristics, I feel it to be "furry".

I'd probably draw the line at characters that are completely animal in form, but talk, like the "Lion King" characters.  Those I don't consider "furry".


----------



## Nikolai (May 20, 2009)

All but #1 are furry, I'd say.

However, a lot of groups 2 and 8 may not be necessarily furry-based. Catgirls from anime, and feral from non-furry stories for example.

To me, furry means all but #1. But _real_ furry means 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Particularly 7.


----------



## Shindo (May 20, 2009)

you're a furry if you call your self a furry


----------



## Nikolai (May 20, 2009)

Shindo said:


> you're a furry if you call your self a furry



I think he's talking more about what you consider real furry artwork/characters, not necessarily people themselves who are furry.


----------



## Shindo (May 20, 2009)

Nikolai said:


> I think he's talking more about what you consider real furry artwork/characters, not necessarily people themselves who are furry.


oh  well i consider those all furry


----------



## IceHorse (May 21, 2009)

Me, I consider groups 3-7 as "true" furry. Groups one and two are pure animals to me; group one gets labeled "natural animals" and group two "civilized animals." Catgirls, or group eight, fall into more of an anime/manga category in my mind.

Basically, in my definition, a furry has at least the torso of a human with a body covered in fur.

I'm... _attempting_ to practice my nonexistant drawing skills, and I plan to stick around groups 3-4 when it comes to furry art (though not all of my art will be furry, of course).


----------



## Rehka (May 21, 2009)

To me furry is probably 3-6..ish, maybe some 7. But yeah, 3-6.


----------



## Grimfang (May 21, 2009)

I couldn't draw a line. I think any of the above could be considered "furry". So many years ago, nothing would have been considered "furry". It's sort of a pseudo-classification, and probably holds more of a social bearing than anything necessarily art-related.


----------



## OxfordTweed (May 23, 2009)

Rehka said:


> To me furry is probably 3-6..ish, maybe some 7. But yeah, 3-6.



Any particular reason why?


----------



## Beta Link (May 23, 2009)

Yeah, IMO as well, the line is somewhere between 7 and 8, and the other line right on 3. I prefer 4 and 5, but that's not what's being asked.


----------



## krisCrash (May 23, 2009)

I don't like when people call 8 furry D: but I am just used to being anal about it from moderating art posts elsewhere 


Nikolai said:


> Particularly 7.



I think a lot of people are going to disagree with you on 7.

I'm a big fan of 7, but for example VCL didn't find it furry enough, depending on how well it was drawn "furred" I suppose.


----------



## Sulfide (May 23, 2009)

After your last point.


----------



## OxfordTweed (May 23, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> I don't like when people call 8 furry D: but I am just used to being anal about it from moderating art posts elsewhere
> 
> 
> I think a lot of people are going to disagree with you on 7.
> ...



Lately, I've begun to grow rather fond of 6 and 7 (I still don't really understand 8, to be honest). But I think they allow for a bit more room to play with the character, rather than relying on spots and stripes to differentiate. 

This may also be because I draw a lot of fanart, though, so I'm used to taking photos of people and turning them into cartoons. *shrug*


----------



## Kangamutt (May 23, 2009)

For me, it falls under 3, 4, and 5.


----------



## krisCrash (May 24, 2009)

Zeddish said:


> (I still don't really understand 8, to be honest)



I think I kind of like a lot of them when it isn't just cats, cats, cats. There's a LOT of nekos.

But when someone makes goat guys or bird girls this way... I guess it's just a matter of whether the artist manages to make it interesting.


----------



## ClosetMonster (May 24, 2009)

I'm not arguing against it, but I'm kinda surprised that people aren't considering #8 to be furry.  Basically it's a normal human, with tails, ears, maybe paw gloves added.

Isn't that the way a person who considers themself "a furry" might dress at a convention?  So, a drawing of a person like this is a drawing _of_ a furry, making it furry art.  

Ok, maybe I am arguing it a little.  Lol  Still, there will never be a set-in-stone, defined guideline, so it's up to personal interpretation.


----------



## Rehka (May 24, 2009)

Zeddish said:


> Any particular reason why?



Hmmm... I think, before 3, things are just animals, even if they may have human like tendancies or whatever, to me they need to look humanoid to be furry, and 1 is just... Nice realistic art. But then at the other end of the spectrum, they start getting too humanoid, and to me it starts looking like "lol I'm following a trend, look at me I has ears and a tail ^_^" just seems more anime-ish instead of furry, which I'm not a big fan of >.>


----------



## OxfordTweed (May 25, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> I think I kind of like a lot of them when it isn't just cats, cats, cats. There's a LOT of nekos.
> 
> But when someone makes goat guys or bird girls this way... I guess it's just a matter of whether the artist manages to make it interesting.



Far as nekos go, I've really only seen the "catgirls" or that Inuyasha thing. Then again, I don't really fancy anime and I see nekos as being very firmly in the anime category, so I don't really go out of my way to look for it.


----------



## ShaoShao (Jun 18, 2009)

3-7. 2.5 being Beatrix Potter for me. Blotch's work is a stage more human than that.

8 is extremely common on anime/manga communities and none intend to be furry. The ears and tail are there as accessories most of the time. It usually symbolises a different species, scientific experiments, power or status in their group of OCs. Or is just what they liken them to. I mean, it's common practice to give guys tails and ears to go with their puppydog eyes in manga. Just as it is for porn authors to have animal persona and aliases.

But this depends largely on who you ask. You have furries who go 'all animal related = furry' and non-furs who say the same. For example, I applied for an RP with a character whose race were humans with non-human ears and tails. He mutilated himself to fit in with humans as part of his insecurities. They rejected him on the basis that he was a furry, even without any animal attributes present.


----------



## Azerane (Jun 25, 2009)

I don't class 1 or 2 as furry art. 1 because that's just how animals naturally are. 2 because to me that's what every kid has grown up with in terms of animal stories etc. I personally dislike the term 'feral' it's strange and misplaced to me. I couldn't really form an opinion on the others, maybe not 3 either... as that's kinda just the story book feeling as well. For me, I would say 4, 5 and 6 are closest to furry art.


----------



## krisCrash (Jun 25, 2009)

The term "feral" does especially come off as odd when it's a domesticated animal; horses and cows in particular! They're not that feral x3


----------



## Azerane (Jun 25, 2009)

That's a good point you make, but even with foxes or lions and things, I still find it hard calling them feral. Wild, yes. Feral, no. To me, feral indicates a different state of mind, something more savage and mindless than wild animals which really have to have their wits about them in order to survive. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone, but it makes sense to me. 

Edit: There is actually an exception to that for me actually. A domestic cat is a domestic cat, a wild cat in its native habitat is a wild cat, but for me here where they're introduced, I do call them feral cats. I think it's just something I've been brought up with, and the fact that they're not wild, wild, having originated from domestic cats.


----------



## Stratelier (Jun 25, 2009)

Yes, the term "feral" is specifically used to refer to something that was released _back_ into the wild after having first been domesticated (or at least tamed / "broken").


----------



## Azerane (Jun 25, 2009)

There we go then! There is some sense to my logic!


----------



## 8-bit (Jun 30, 2009)

2-7 are def. furry.  Number 8 on occasion,(like the pic you presented)but the tokyo mew mew kind of catgirls ARE catgirls. That said, those pieces were pretty good.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Jun 30, 2009)

Any animal that walks on two legs and can do the things a human can is a furry to me.


----------



## 8-bit (Jun 30, 2009)

Hmm... good point.  Although some people like CHEESECAKE!! (0.o)


----------



## JVW (Jul 1, 2009)

Personally I enjoy cartoonish representations more than realistic ones. So #s 1 and 2, while certainly cool, are not my thing. When I'm drawing specifically furry I like to shoot for something between 3 and 4. Groups 6 and 7 often creep me out a bit. I don't have a problem with #8.

I want my art to express character and mood so I respond well to art that does the same. I'm not a big fan of realism. The whole reason for doing anthro art, for me, is the expression of sort of symbolic characteristics.


----------



## roland_perteev (Jul 2, 2009)

1 - Not furry.

2 - Furries might draw it more than other artists, but it's not furry-exclusive.

3 - A lot furrier, but still not necessarily furry.  Though it would be nice to think that every single Warner Bros. cartoon ever was made especially for furries...

4 - I'd call this 'furry'

5 - This, too, is furry.

6 - Furry

7 - Furry

8 - Not really furry art in itself - though it could be a picture _of_ a furry...


----------



## Ryugen (Jul 4, 2009)

*F*or me, if the animil-esque parts are physically attached and part of the things body then that's 1 criteria fulfilled. The other is that they have a human level of sentience, or close.

*B*oth of those aren't always clear in every picture on this site, I realise that. Although I'm not sure if 'furry' is an appropriate word when refering to images. When it comes to the fandom, that's more of a reference to everything that defines a member of the fandom who considers themselves a member.

*A*s for art, one would think that an appropriate word would be anthropomorphic, or anthro for short. In this instance, all but number 1 fit in the anthro catagory.

*A*lthough this is just an opinion


----------



## Squeak (Jul 6, 2009)

Taking furry to mean anthropomorphic animal then 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 are all furry (not 8, that is a disease). Personally I perfer 2, 4 and 5. 3 falls into the uncanny valley for me.


----------



## Ednawalker (Oct 15, 2011)

*1. Life Drawings)* Not a furry

*2. "Anthro" Characters (Sometimes Referred to as "Feral"))* Not a Furry

*3. Animal-Human Characters)* Not a Furry

*4. Human-Animal Characters)* Furry

*5. Human-Animal Characters, Mark II)* Furry

*6. Animal-esque Human Characters)* Furry

*7. Humans With Animal Attributes)* Furry

*8. "Catgirls")* Not a Furry

Personally, I prefer 1, 2, and 3 as I like to remain faithful to the species body type when I draw animal characters.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 15, 2011)

Closed for Necro


----------

