# What is the "generic furry art style?"



## perkele (Jul 18, 2021)

Usually, I can tell when a picture is made by a furry. But I don't know how. So, I'm outsourcing the matter to you.

What makes a picture say to you: "a furry must have drawn this animal, because it has some inimitable quality only furry art can have." 

For example, this image of the Legoshi character from Beastars looks very furry to me:



			https://preview.redd.it/ohmqmw4ti9w51.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=7d5a6be8d7d4347a0cedfbc4f611239006121c19
		


In the official artwork, the same character looks like this:



			https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/scale_large/6/67663/7308610-18.jpg
		


I can tell immediately which one was made by a furry artist.


----------



## TyraWadman (Jul 18, 2021)

When you see a feral with bandages or striped sleeves on their legs.

When the colour palettes of their OCS are the brightest red/blue/greens (etc)

The first one you linked reminds me of the older Disney animations. You know the ones where the female is introduced and the camera has to zoom in on their flowy eyelashes? That kinda vibe. 

I personally wouldn't assume they're a furry right away, but possibly disney-inspired.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 18, 2021)

There's a number of "basic furry" artstyles

One of the more notable ones is the "CalArts goes X-rated"

There are other things a lot of furries seem to do like the "DreamWorks face on every male character, ahegao on every female character", "this character's penis moonlights as a utility pole", "boobs are actually antigravity devices", and "ackshually the tail is not an extension of the spine and the spine is just a suggestion"


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jul 18, 2021)

Iunno; I don’t think there’s a universal furry style so much as traits that tend to crop up in certain subsets of the community. Sometimes these are regional subcommunities (browsing a furry art site you can often make a pretty confident guess an artist is Russian just based on style, for instance), sometimes an age group (did they grow up with Disney’s 2D animation?), sometimes something else.

That said, the perception that an artist needs to have One Style is something that crops up a fair deal, and with people getting influenced by fellow artists (whether deliberately or subconsciously) I’m sure there’s certain traits that have gotten relatively wide spread.

(Also worth noting that the animated Beastars, which the art could well be based off rather than the comic I assume you posted a cover from, doesn’t have quite as extreme a stylized look.)



O.D.D. said:


> "boobs are actually antigravity devices"


To be fair that one’s been with half of mainstream comics for decades.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 18, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> To be fair that one’s been with half of mainstream comics for decades.


Same with the spine thing to some extent (hi Liefeld)


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jul 18, 2021)

O.D.D. said:


> Same with the spine thing to some extent (hi Liefeld)


Gotta get those T&A shots!

(Someone should draw art of e.g. ferrets and similar pulling off that iconic spine-breaking pose. Seeing as ferrets kind of embody the idea of “spine is just a suggestion.”)


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jul 18, 2021)

thisfursonadoesnotexist.com will give you a nice sample of it, as well as possibly a brain tumor


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 18, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> Gotta get those T&A shots!
> 
> (Someone should draw art of e.g. ferrets and similar pulling off that iconic spine-breaking pose. Seeing as ferrets kind of embody the idea of “spine is just a suggestion.”)


Want to say Hardiman did a piss-take on that in one of his comics


----------



## LameFox (Jul 19, 2021)

I think people who draw anthropomorphic creatures just because they like them tend to make them look a bit softer and more pleasing—as opposed to when they want to create a monster, or RPG race, or symbolically represent some part of human nature. It's not a rule exactly as some will be into those rougher appearances but it seems common enough to stand out.


----------



## Tendo64 (Jul 19, 2021)

Minus the cursed messed up anatomy, this artbreeder image contains the art style that's the first thing I think of when I think "furry art style"


----------



## Lyrule (Jul 19, 2021)

Hmmmmmmm......... My answer might be seen as a little complex, but either way. d:

I was told a bit ago that artists since they often reference each others works, as well as be inspired from each other, artists tend to incorporate another's art style into theirs while developing and improving their techniques. This could explain why there's a generic "style" along with why we have artists that favor The Lion King, Warrior Cats, Zootopia, Stevens Universe, Adventure Time or even anime art styles in their styles. Especially for newer artists, it's often easier to pick something you like and try and learn art that way.

Art in itself is complex, but it's made easier when we can all reference each other I suppose.


----------



## Stray Cat Terry (Jul 19, 2021)

I personally focus on the components:

*Does the chest/neck tuft exist?

Does the ear fluff(especially inner ones) exist?*

(When the angle and postures allow the showcase of the inner/under part of the hand/feet/paw,)
*Do the paw pads exist?*

These three are basically what help me define whether the art--or further, the artist--is Furry. One is already enough to ensure, but as the more of them applies, the more certain they are Furry.


Spoiler



I was once a non-Fur yet a creature enthusiast. Regarding my past researches ain't outdated, most of the creature artists didn't really mind about the abovementioned three at the same time. Even if then, the characters were not anthropomorphic.

That being said, _"Is(Are) the featured character(s) anthropomorphic animals?"_ is too much of a primary--this alone is never ensuring that the art/artist is a Furry(needs support of the abovementioned ones) but is mandatory.(One is not a Furry unless it's anthropomorphic.)

And by the term 'anthropomorphic', unlike the universal standards, I specifically mean "Those who are capable of standing on two feet and interacting physically-wise like humans."



And... there's this one ultimate masterkey......
*Are such characters under NSFW actions?*
-> 99% a Furry art, and most likely a Furry artist. (However, they could be a commissioned/requested non-Furry artist. I have three pals like this, non Fur.)

Naww~ why 99%?


Spoiler



Because there are actually those(but rare) who state their art is non-Furry yet applies to all the standards I mentioned(yup, of course also NSFW)
And..._that_ is what people should call bestiality if the artist tell us it's a creature/animal, _and_ if it's + human.

Commonly saying, that's up to the artists if they'd like to refuse that their art is Furry. But I think they just wanna get away with "common negative Furry accusations" while drawing...Well, Furry!

+
But oh, please don't get me wrong--there are many decent artists on creature art-side as well, unlike what's been mentioned negatively! Ow<☆



These are just my opinions. If you think I'm wrong, yes I am! If you think I'm right, yes I am!

That's all, folks! ÙwÚ


P.s.
Easier way: *Just ask them!* ÒwÓ


----------



## perkele (Jul 19, 2021)

LameFox said:


> I think people who draw anthropomorphic creatures just because they like them tend to make them look a bit softer and more pleasing


That's a good way of putting it. Most have an idealized, symmetrical look. Without any blemishes or unattractive features, like one of those Japanimation characters. Furry website avatars are in the act of taking the perfect selfie.


Tendo64 said:


> Minus the cursed messed up anatomy, this artbreeder image contains the art style that's the first thing I think of when I think "furry art style"


You may have found the single furriest image of all time. Congratulations, you get a fabulous prize* for so embodiblising the I just made a typo but backspace doesn't work on the phone interface.

Heavy eyeshadow, long eyelashes, unnaturally-coloured humanlike hair, bedroom eyes, some kind of tchotchke on her forehead—anyone with this image in their possession is 100% guaranteed to be in the furry fandom.


Stray Cat Terry said:


> (When the angle and postures allow the showcase of the inner/under part of the hand/feet/paw,)
> *Do the paw pads exist?*


Never thought about the paw pads, but you're right—most of the time, non-furry-fandom characters have normal human hands and feet. The furry style usually gives digitigrade legs too, I've noticed, where the legs look like the knees are screwed on backwards.


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Jul 21, 2021)

I felt like I wanted to disagree with the artbreeder image, but the more I looked for other examples, that more I realized that was pretty damn close to even what I was thinking. About the only thing I'd argue that makes it more classically furry is cell shading/cartoony coloring and not the soft tones there. 

Something else to add is, when the characters are wearing clothing, the classic outfit is rave rat. Paints with too many straps, bright colors, etc. Maybe I'm just dating myself, but if they're dressed like a Final Fantasy character, it's furry art.


----------



## Simo (Jul 22, 2021)

There does seem to be a certain 'sameness' to a lot of furry art: I've often thought there could be a much greater variety...it's almost like 'furry' is becoming a brand or commodity of sorts, the longer the fandom has gone on.


----------



## LameFox (Jul 22, 2021)

Simo said:


> There does seem to be a certain 'sameness' to a lot of furry art: I've often thought there could be a much greater variety...it's almost like 'furry' is becoming a brand or commodity of sorts, the longer the fandom has gone on.


I suspect a lot of that is just that furries are a smaller section of artists. There are a lot of styles out there you're not especially likely to stumble across randomly, but if you don't also narrow them down by content (e.g. furries) there might still be enough people making that sort of art that you can at least look them up somewhat effectively. If you look for people making less common art with less common content as well, though, then it can be such a small population it's hard to find.

Other than that I think furry art largely follows the same trends as online digital art in general. Even the tendency to mimic the art styles from certain movies or games isn't really unusual, although furries will of course choose different ones.


----------



## TheCynicalViet (Jul 23, 2021)

I don't think there's a universal base style for furry but there's certainly a lot of similar features that pop up between artists who have no relation to eachother. Sort of like an artistic convergent evolution. I suppose you could derive a "true" generic style of you created a drawing method that accounted for every single global similarity.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 23, 2021)

TheCynicalViet said:


> I don't think there's a universal base style for furry but there's certainly a lot of similar features that pop up between artists who have no relation to eachother. Sort of like an artistic convergent evolution. I suppose you could derive a "true" generic style of you created a drawing method that accounted for every single global similarity.


There are blatant style copycats and sometimes their motives are following the artistic zeitgeist, sometimes something else.


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Jul 23, 2021)

I can't think of anything I'd call generic in the furry art world.

Well, actually, I do notice a lot of artists will add fur (floof is the better term) to the head, neck, and tail, while the rest of the body is smooth as if almost like skin.

I don't mean that in a bad way, It can always look nice, but I think it's a common trend. Artists should draw any way they like, even if it is a popular style.


----------



## RailRide (Jul 24, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> Iunno; I don’t think there’s a universal furry style so much as traits that tend to crop up in certain subsets of the community. Sometimes these are regional subcommunities (browsing a furry art site you can often make a pretty confident guess an artist is Russian just based on style, for instance),


And I thought I was the only one who noticed this 

I'll frequently run across an exquisitely rendered piece and backtrack to the artist's homepage and sure enough, Cyrillic text abounds.

---PCJ


----------



## KippLink (Jul 25, 2021)

Well i always thought that generic furry art just meant mediocre skill like not overly pro and not bad either but something that is just OK


----------



## perkele (Aug 5, 2021)

Ziggy Schlacht said:


> I felt like I wanted to disagree with the artbreeder image, but the more I looked for other examples, that more I realized that was pretty damn close to even what I was thinking. About the only thing I'd argue that makes it more classically furry is cell shading/cartoony coloring and not the soft tones there.
> 
> Something else to add is, when the characters are wearing clothing, the classic outfit is rave rat. Paints with too many straps, bright colors, etc. Maybe I'm just dating myself, but if they're dressed like a Final Fantasy character, it's furry art.


Now that you mention it, the colors on the Artbreeder image remind me of somewhat older art (by the standards of some youngins here.) I wouldn't be surprised to see it colored on a Bamboo tablet for someone's Furcadia avatar.

And oh my gosh. Those rave pants were everywhere in the '00s, well after people stopped having raves. Nobody knows why they had  to wear giant pants made entitely out of belts, replete with extra belts on their belts so that their belts wouldn't fall off.

Bonus points for conspicuous headphones and a rainbow-colored doohickey that never come off.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Aug 6, 2021)

perkele said:


> Usually, I can tell when a picture is made by a furry. But I don't know how. So, I'm outsourcing the matter to you.
> 
> What makes a picture say to you: "a furry must have drawn this animal, because it has some inimitable quality only furry art can have."


Eh... that's a bit easy for me..... I generally look at the quality of the art; and - if it looks like it was made with some enthusiasm then - I generally get a hint that it was made by one of us in the community.

If it looks like it was done in a bit of a rush, or... if there were details (of the particular piece) that weren't paid attention to, (especially around the character) - then... it's a probably a good guess on my part - to assume that it wasn't.


----------



## Kyrick (Aug 12, 2021)

perkele said:


> And oh my gosh. Those rave pants were everywhere in the '00s, well after people stopped having raves. Nobody knows why they had  to wear giant pants made entitely out of belts, replete with extra belts on their belts so that their belts wouldn't fall off.
> 
> Bonus points for conspicuous headphones and a rainbow-colored doohickey that never come off.


To be fair (maybe because I'm an oldskool raver) i've always pictured scalies wearing one of two outfits/costumes. 

1: Fantasy based / ancient clothing. Thinking of Egyptian attire.​​2: Neo/Cyberpunk rave clothing. Highly stylized and saturated colours.​


----------



## BadRoy (Nov 12, 2021)

Tendo64 said:


> Minus the cursed messed up anatomy, this artbreeder image contains the art style that's the first thing I think of when I think "furry art style"


This is the archetypal furry piece for me. Especially that vaguely suggestive, sultry attitude that is ubiquitous in the fandom. But how do you mean "cursed, messed up anatomy?"

I feel the goal in furry art, broadly, is rendering the 'cartoony' as 'realistically' as possible. It's fair to say the number of furries who go for the hardcore realism angle is relatively low. Think of Zootopia, for example. When you draw the outlines the characters are cartoony: Big heads, chunky paws, etc. But when they're rendered in detail the characters look like they could exist in the real world with their messy fluff and pebbly noses. Many furry artists, myself included, operate the same way. My snake has big hand-claws that, thanks to cartoon logic, bend like fingers and I render them as realistically as I can. Furries seem to prioritize making cartoons look as real as possible. I do, anyway.

That aside there are a few furry red flags that you see all the time...
*Paws*: To normie artists paws are just another part of the character, but furries never miss an opportunity to show off paw pads whenever possible. If you ever see awkward posing that focuses on a character's paw pads you can be pretty sure there's a thirsty furry behind it.

*Conspicuous abs*: If you see a male character with distinctly sexy musculature and posing, probably furry. 

*Dreamworks Face*: As mentioned above this is the default for generic furry art. This expression on an anthro automatically makes me think furry. 

*"Shark Teeth Grin"*: You know, any species drawn with that big, jigsaw toothed smile. Obviously some normie artists will use this as a stylistic choice, but furries really like it because edgy and cool.


----------



## Tendo64 (Nov 14, 2021)

BadRoy said:


> But how do you mean "cursed, messed up anatomy?"


I'm not sure if the paragraph after this was meant to be elaborating on this question and was to say you interpreted me saying that as "it's unrealistic" or not, but I was just referring to the fact that it's an AI-generated image, so you'll see weird mounds of flesh and hair in places they shouldn't be the longer you look at it


----------

