# "My art's furry but I'm not"



## Judas (Jun 6, 2007)

So, clearly I draw art that is considered "furry" but I don't necessarily consider myself one (unless the term simply refers to someone drawing anthropomorphic themed art). Sort of like I could be a "Trekkie" in terms of watching every Star Trek episode without gluing on Vulcan ears, going to cons, and mastering Klingon. 

Point in case, an artist can be a fan of anthro art without involvement/interest in fur suiting, belief in an animal soul, wanting to be an animal, ect. and everyones' favourite hot topic,  bestiality. 

I'll leave this open ended. Simply discuss or post your own experiences.


----------



## Leahtaur (Jun 6, 2007)

Couldn't have said it better myself. I draw it and I may even draw myself as a bunny, but I sure don't want to be one myself. Or think I am one. Or think I was meant to be one.


----------



## Kiniel (Jun 6, 2007)

Even though I was the one who created the "rant" thread to try and establish a hard-and-fast definition, I think I might go ahead and be mildly hypocritical.

I think sometimes we get way too hung up the details of terminology.  I mean, we all have some common ground that ropes us into the fandom, so perhaps it is unwise (of myself) to bother with "who's 'furry' and who isn't, technically."

*Shrug*


----------



## Leahtaur (Jun 6, 2007)

Actually I'll have to contradict myself a bit as well -- I agree with you, we are way too hung up on one little word. 

Maybe our common ground is that we all like animals to varying degrees, from liking dogs and cats to being zoophiles, therians, etc. (Not lumping zoophiles in with therians of course, those are just the options that are at the other end of the scale.)


----------



## DarkMeW (Jun 6, 2007)

Well you'll always have some sort of vocal (usually) minority that insists that every one that likes any art that they declare as furry art has to be a furry. It's nothing to be concerned about. What is pulled into the furry fandom tends to be just a collection of unrelated things with a common theme.

It's nice to have an group that a specific theme of artwork is usually taken well and encouraged. It doesn't mean you have to be part of that group, just that you know how to market your art towards people that might like it more.


----------



## Xipoid (Jun 6, 2007)

Arguing semantics never accomplishes anything, and labeling is just stereotyping with a nicer name.


Though I will say if you feel shame being called "furry" or even associated as "furry", you might want to reconsider why you are here. People outside the fandom are going to call you a furry whether you like it or not, and telling a bunch of furries about how "not furry" you are doesn't seem like a really bright idea. I always thought that if you want to declare your non-furriness you should probably tell non-furs that.


----------



## sunshyne (Jun 6, 2007)

I'll still use the word "furry" to describe myself, but I'm a lot like you - I don't wear fursuits, I would never in a million years become a real-life fur, and am perfectly comfortable as my human self. The problem with "furry" is that it instantly conjures up images of hardcore fursuit yiff at some shady convention, and that is mostly media-induced. The word can just as easily mean exactly what you are: just a person who admires and/or creates anthromorphic art of some type...


----------



## Judas (Jun 6, 2007)

Xipoid said:
			
		

> Arguing semantics never accomplishes anything, and labeling is just stereotyping with a nicer name.
> 
> 
> Though I will say if you feel shame being called "furry" or even associated as "furry", you might want to reconsider why you are here. People outside the fandom are going to call you a furry whether you like it or not, and telling a bunch of furries about how "not furry" you are doesn't seem like a really bright idea. I always thought that if you want to declare your non-furriness you should probably tell non-furs that.



I have in the past outright avoided the fandom after being hassled by "furries" for being "not furry enough" Apparently to the point of not even needing common courtesy and respect... Though I understand this was from very specific people who were the minority and probably not doing a lot of good for the fandom. I actually have no issue being called furry or associated with it for the most part, I just wanted to start some rhetoric on the subject and hear other people's thoughts.

I used quotations in the post subject to try and make it appear less literal. More along the lines of irony. May not have worded my post the best though =P


----------



## Ray Kicio (Jun 6, 2007)

I consider myself a furr but I don't draw and I rarely write about furrs. I have an furr representation of myself and that is what I believe makes me a furry. I tend to RP as a furr though?

Then again, I don't believe that being a furr is all that big of a thing.


----------



## Muzz (Jun 6, 2007)

Its difficult really as I know a lot of people who say they're a fur, and some say they aren't. I don't know what to call myself, furry or not, either way I don't particually care to be honest. I draw anthro's, I have a weird fetish, I have a strange animal combination that 'represents' me in the furry community and I occassionally (once in a blue moon) go to London Fur meets, only to hang with close friends, have a drink and talk about non-relaited fur things. The rest of the meet attendeeeee's are usually walking around with furry ears on, something I'd never do.

And while I AM interested in fursuits, i don't think I'd ever fork out a fuckton of money to get one made, because I can't think of any situations that I'd wear it in, other than a con or something, which I'd probably never go to.

Eh.


----------



## Unbrokenkarma (Jun 6, 2007)

Dare I say it, it seems to be getting that a furry would wanna hide the fact *on a furry forum* Seems to be alot of furry hate going around atm, well, a rise lately anyway.

*Watch's from the sidelines as this gets ugly*


----------



## Leahtaur (Jun 6, 2007)

Muzz said:
			
		

> And while I AM interested in fursuits, i don't think I'd ever fork out a fuckton of money to get one made, because I can't think of any situations that I'd wear it in, other than a con or something, which I'd probably never go to.



I've always wondered where people actually WEAR the damn things. Even if you go to half a dozen cons in a year, that's an awful lot of money ($1000+ for a nice suit) to wear for a short amount of time. And even the well-built ones need maintenance. Not ragging on those who choose to purchase fursuits (I think I might purchase a bunny tail and ears if I find someone who makes them), but that money could buy a lot of commissions, prints, or even *gasp* practical RL things.

But then again, I'm poor. XD


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Jun 6, 2007)

I define 'furry' as;

1. People self-identifying as furries.
2. Material made specifically for an audience of those people.

Anything else is not furry. 

Cartoons featuring characters furries like are certainly mainstream and not furry. They where made for as large an audience as possible, and not aimed at the furries. 

And people not identifying as furry, simply aren't furries.

'Furry' is not like a sexual orientation or a race. Its a subculture. So no matter how much you may like alot of things considered furries, you may still not like the subculture and thus not identify with it. Similar as to how one can be homosexual, but feel no real affinity with any particular gay subcultures and thus not identify as a member of those.

I say my definition is very solid and logical.


----------



## Be4tl3boi (Jun 6, 2007)

I cannot believe this. Everyone seems to have completely forgotten the ORIGINAL definition of the word "Furry".
Anyone who likes or creates anthro animal artwork is called a furry, whether it be comics, internet or TV shows, people that enjoy this form of art are called furries and that term has broadened so much now that people are saying they're NOT furry when they clearly are.
It's not a label, it's just a name to sum up a large group of people, rather than saying "people who like anthromorphic animal artwork". It's the same as any other name out there such as "florist" or "Carpenter".

The creators of Disney's Robin Hood, clearly furries (unless they were placed there and asked to draw anthros even though they really hated it and didn't care.)
This doesn't mean they liked fursuits and whatnot, but look at the thought, effort and creativity that went into those characters!!!


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Jun 6, 2007)

Original definition by whom? Mark Merlino?

Disney's movies where made for a mainstream audience. Particularly aimed at families with young children, but meant for everyone. They had no furry purpose. And Robin Hood in fact predates the entire furry fandom entirely.

Furry is a fandom. Furries are members of that fandom. But not the only ones on the planet who might like the concept of an anthro. Some like that, but choose not to be part of the fandom.

And things not created for that fandom as audience are not furry. They are for whatever they where created for. (Mainstream in case of Disney movies.)


----------



## caguaswolf (Jun 6, 2007)

i could draw but i dunno im too lazy >.<

but in any case its like you americans say it 

" i cant draw for shit "


----------



## themocaw (Jun 6, 2007)

Hang the "Original Definition," Disney's animators may have done Robin Hood, but they sure as hell didn't go around using words like "yiff" and "spooge" and they sure as hell didn't think of themselves as "furry," more like, "yep, just another day at the office working on this movie, wow it was a clever idea to make Robin Hood a fox, kudos to the character designer for that."

Annoys me just as much as people who go "ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE FURRIES" instead of realizing that the point of having animal heads on their Gods was to demonstrate just how inhuman they were, instead of being fap material for overweight priests.

EDIT: one more thing: if liking furry artwork and such makes one a fur, then my friend Jonathan, who watched and liked Cowboy Bebop but hates all other anime, is an otaku.  Try telling him that


----------



## Jelly (Jun 6, 2007)

I just assumed that people that saw things like Robin Hood and felt some sort of unusual affinity (apparently from enjoying it more, finding it more aesthetically pleasing to finding some quasi-spiritual link) with that over an equally impressive human cartoon were "furry fans. ("furry" in this case meaning "anthropomorphics")" Hence, "furry fandom (and furries to shorten, and the fact that many take on anthropomorphic personas)?"

Original definiton, I thought?

Edit: Response: The difference being Cowboy Bebop is one piece of anime (a style/culture of animation), but if he just generally liked all anime, and possibly favored it over other styles of animation by virtue of it being anime, with a number of favorites and a little knowledge on the side - he might just be...dundundun...an otaku?

I see what'chr sayin' though. Just sayin' s'all.

/a little more off-topic
Uh, so, why is it that a number of people were morbidly offended by the Sex2K episode (before I knew what furries were)? If it's a general consensus amongst furries that "furry" denotes fetishistic fans?

[I've been awake for 30-something hours. Just a little background into why I may be incomprehensible.]


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Jun 6, 2007)

Actually otaku is japanese for a fan who is obsessive. (With strong implications of social ineptitude, which in Japan is an arch-sin!)

You could love anime, but still not be obsessive about it. And then you wouldn't be defined as an otaku.

Of course American anime fans just translate it as 'anime fan' so I guess its sort of a 'nom de gueux'.

(Which is from my own countries history. When the Netherlands where occupied by Spain, the resistance asked for aid from France, but they French send them away, callim them beggars (gueux). They adopted the name as the name for the resistance. (Geuzen) So basically the resistance was called 'the beggars')


Of course, being an anime fan doesn't mean you're part of the associated anime fandom, just as how liking anthro art doesn't make you part of the furry fandom. I mean if you actively avoid them as some do, then how can you be included in it?


----------



## Sugandya (Jun 6, 2007)

To the OP: I agree with your point simply for the fact I fall under it in some ways, too.  I enjoy making and looking at anthro art, but I probably won't be visiting a furry convention anytime soon.


----------



## Jelly (Jun 6, 2007)

There seems to be some mistake that the fandom is really organized. I mean, I have friends who absolutely loathe FA and avoid it like the plague. Likewise, I have furry friends who don't acknowledge the art of fellow furry fans.

Things like FA are the closest thing to a fandom organization. Even then, people here tend to have little cliques that have completely different viewpoints than others. I've seen a number of furry fans on here who like drawing furry art, but don't acknowledge it as being part of the fandom (or themselves for that matter). It seems that there is a clear seperation of the two. I like human art (to varying degrees - it is easier to have frowny-face points on a lopsided human head than a lopsided non-existent-in-reality head), but admittedly enjoy anthropomorphic art a bit more (hardly obsessive) and i has fursona kekeke. I don't really understand if furries have to be engrossed in fandom-worship to really be furries. I don't know. I guess I'm trying to see what I look like in the eyes of others. I mean, I consider the way I am to be a furry...just because that's how it was defined to me. It's part of my identity, and I have a number of friends on varying levels of that identity who share this view.
[Ugh, someone tell me if I'm making sense.]

Also, thanks for the Otaku etymology. The only things I know about Otaku is  "baka, baka" and something about "sodezka (does that mean "I'm hungry?")."


----------



## themocaw (Jun 6, 2007)

I'm aware that Otaku means "obsessive fan," and that in America it's usually used to refer to anime fans who do stuff like use wapanese in everyday conversation and wear naruto headbands as hats (Narutards are another story).  Which was my point: Jon enjoys watching some anime.  Show him Cowboy Bebop or Berserk, and he'll watch it.  But he won't go to conventions, wont' dress up, and speaks good ol' American English, and it would be unfair to lump him in with a desu-spouting fantard like myself.  That's about the same as claiming people who liked Robin Hood or Tailspin but have no idea what the word "yiff" or "scritch" means and have no intention of wearing or getting near a fursuit ever should be lumped in with the rest of us freaks.  Which people seem to get.

For better or for worse, the actions of furries (not all furries, just enough of them) have associated the term with the kind of behavior I've described, which is why so many sane people try to dissociate themselves from the term.


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Jun 6, 2007)

Also some people don't like labels and don't see an interest as a defining trait of their personality. Its not who they are, its just a small part of the whole. And some people aren't overtly social, in that gatherings of people tax their reserves and patience easily over prolonged exposure, so they don't want to go to crowded conventions and such things.

Such people can still like anthro art. But they wouldn't consider themselves furries. And if they don't, then who is anyone to tell them that they are wrong? And that they are, what they say they are not? They chose not to take the label or associate much with the fandom.

I think its ridiculous to label people as 'furries' if they don't think of themselves as such. And its also silly to label something as 'furry' if it wasn't made for, or aimed at, furries at all in anyway. And furries are such a teeny-weeny slice of the market that nothing a big company makes'll be aimed at them. No money in it compared to broader audiences. A few thousand people is chickenfeed in the corporate world. Their after the millions.

So I maintain that furry is either someone who says they are one. Or material made for people who say they are furries as a primary audience.

Anything else is not. Sometimes someone hopping around in a fursuit is just the mascot for a sportsteam y'know.


----------



## Bloodangel (Jun 6, 2007)

To OP: Fair enough. Thats cool.

And thus the topic died, only to resurrect next week, and the week after, and the next, until the stars them selves died, and all that remained was a small laptop, drifting on the endless void of space, with the thread of "What IS a furry" on its screen, forever.......


----------



## Cygnus421 (Jun 6, 2007)

the term "Furry" referrs to the people who draw the art as well, so it's not a matter of weather or not you consider yourself "Furry" it has to do with how furry you are.


----------



## Alex Cross (Jun 7, 2007)

I know non-furry artists who draw furry art and it's not a big deal, I mean, some artists have a niche for a certain style but that doesn't mean that they identify themselves with that particular style, that's all.


----------



## Hakar (Jun 7, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> I'm aware that Otaku means "obsessive fan," and that in America it's usually used to refer to anime fans who do stuff like use wapanese in everyday conversation and wear naruto headbands as hats (Narutards are another story).Â Â Which was my point: Jon enjoys watching some anime.Â Â Show him Cowboy Bebop or Berserk, and he'll watch it.Â Â But he won't go to conventions, wont' dress up, and speaks good ol' American English, and it would be unfair to lump him in with a desu-spouting fantard like myself.



But would it be unfair to say he might be an anime-fan?


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Jun 7, 2007)

I he only likes Cowboy Bebop?

Pff, lots of people who normally hate anime, DO like Cowboy Bebop. Its much better then the average anime. So just liking Cowboy Bebop doesn't make someone an anime fan per se.

There's also people who don't like most anime's (And I'd happily agree that way to many anime's often combine hyperviolence, ham-fisted dramatics, long pretentious monologues and philosophical discussions and insane hyperactive disney-sidekick-on-crack like comedy in ways that go together as well as chocolate sauce on a hamburger. But I also acknowledge that not all of them do this.) But who acknowledges there's a few gems in the bunch that are really worth watching. Are they anime fans? I think they're just being fair to the medium.


Also, I don't think being furry is like being say... homosexual. Just like being homosexual doesn't mean an individual neccesarily considers themselves parts of any gay subculture. (They might not even like or feel at ease at them.) You can like your own sex, but say be a loner. Or you could like your own sex but have a dislike of public extravagance which some other people who like their own sex have. Two such people could both be homosexuals. But they wouldn't be part of the same subculture. And a loner wouldn't be part of any subculture at all.

It seems to me that some furries are eager to lump in stuff that wasn't made for them or by people like them, but that they just like. And people that don't want to be part of their group in with 'furry'. But thats a misconception. I say stick to the people who indicate they want to be part of it all, and respect the others decision not to be. Trust me, you won't make them 'see the light.' Proselytazion is annoying when people come to your door to ask you to be part of their cult. So what makes you think people like it when you try to convince them they are part of your subculture even when they've stated they don't want to be? If they change their mind they'll do it on their own.


----------



## themocaw (Jun 7, 2007)

It would be VERY unfair to call Jon an anime fan.  He doesn't like anime.  He likes certain types of movies and TV shows.  A couple of them happened to be animated in Japan: Cowboy Bebop for one, Princess Mononoke for another.  Unlike an anime fan like, say, myself, he doesn't browse anime magazines, he doesn't search sites finding out about new shows, he doeesn't go to anime clubs to watch and chat about shows with other people.  About the only contact he has with anime is when people like me say, "Hey, check this out, you might like it."  We did drag him to a con one time, he didn't have much fun.  [/b]



			
				TheSkunkCat said:
			
		

> Also, I don't think being furry is like being say... homosexual. Just like being homosexual doesn't mean an individual neccesarily considers themselves parts of any gay subculture. (They might not even like or feel at ease at them.) You can like your own sex, but say be a loner. Or you could like your own sex but have a dislike of public extravagance which some other people who like their own sex have. Two such people could both be homosexuals. But they wouldn't be part of the same subculture. And a loner wouldn't be part of any subculture at all.
> 
> *It seems to me that some furries are eager to lump in stuff that wasn't made for them or by people like them, but that they just like. And people that don't want to be part of their group in with 'furry'. But thats a misconception. I say stick to the people who indicate they want to be part of it all, and respect the others decision not to be. Trust me, you won't make them 'see the light.' Proselytazion is annoying when people come to your door to ask you to be part of their cult. So what makes you think people like it when you try to convince them they are part of your subculture even when they've stated they don't want to be? If they change their mind they'll do it on their own.*


Quoted for the motherloving TRUTH.  PREACH it.


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Jun 7, 2007)

Thanks.

And well lets put it in one of these logic tests.

Various people like anthro's.
All furries like anthro's.
Everyone who likes anthro's is a furry.

The correct answer to this logic test is FALSE.

And to those who'd dispute that. Lets simplify the same test.

In a box of triangles and squares some of these shapes are red.
All triangles are red.
All red shapes are triangles.

Also false. There could be red squares in there as well.


----------



## Jelly (Jun 7, 2007)

I believe I was trying to say that if you had a good amount of knowledge of anime, and had a number of favorites, and preferred anime over other animation styles could you be considered an anime fan. That in turn was supposed to lead to would you be a furry fan (assuming you replaced anime with anthropomorphics)? The extended point I was hoping someone would come to is that your choice of who is what is completely arbitrary. For instance, I have a friend that if he saw anything furry in someone else's things he would say "you're a furry." Whereas a number of people on here have said that you can like furries, possibly even draw yourself as one and not be a furry.

However, this topic (expectantly) devolved into a jerk-off fest with "let's see who can pee the fucking hardest and furthest, and thus they are wise."

Also, I love how cultural phenomena instantly turn into Intro Logic argument tests. That's so classy, I should be shitting whale-bone pipes.


----------



## Rilvor (Jun 7, 2007)

jellyhurwit said:
			
		

> I believe I was trying to say that if you had a good amount of knowledge of anime, and had a number of favorites, and preferred anime over other animation styles could you be considered an anime fan. That in turn was supposed to lead to would you be a furry fan (assuming you replaced anime with anthropomorphics)? The extended point I was hoping someone would come to is that your choice of who is what is completely arbitrary. For instance, I have a friend that if he saw anything furry in someone else's things he would say "you're a furry." Whereas a number of people on here have said that you can like furries, possibly even draw yourself as one and not be a furry.
> 
> However, this topic (expectantly) devolved into a jerk-off fest with "let's see who can pee the fucking hardest and furthest, and thus they are wise."
> 
> Also, I love how cultural phenomena instantly turn into Intro Logic argument tests. *That's so classy, I should be shitting whale-bone pipes.*



I find the bolded quote immensely amusing, and will be stealing that one for later use XD


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Jun 7, 2007)

Pissing contest? Pff... Whats the matter, losing the argument? Or is your time to precious? 

Anyway, one more time!   

Furry is a FANDOM, not something you ARE. Its the result of some guys getting together and founding a club around their common interests. And furries are members of what that club evolved/devolved into. You can love anthro's, draw anthro's, have an anthro character and even wear a friggin' fursuit. But you can still want to distance yourself from the fandom for a number of possible reasons, and thus not consider yourself a part of it. These traits are NOT mutually exclusive.

In addition as amazing as it might be to people who base their entire life around furry. For some people its just a casual interest. And not something they define themselves as. An exclusively on-line thing that has nothing to do with their real lives at all. And no impact on it whatsoever.

Plus, furdom has one HELL of a buttload of stigma's. There's the zoophile/plushophile/shitting dicknipple/etc. ones already. And furdom also seems to be angling for a pedophile stigma as well. Considering how furry sites who allow adult art unanimously seem to have decided to embrace ALL adult art, no exceptions whatsoever. Considering that to many furry is synonymous with all those things. Even people who do just about every furry thing, and have a few fetishes of their own, might still want to distance themselves far away from the selection of humanities absolute bottomfeeders which have ALSO claimed the furry name for themselves.

Now some might consider that last argument a blow below the belt, but damned if its not true. The stigma's are also a very good reason why people might not want to be 'furries'.


Furry should stop pretending its something like a race or sexual orientation. Its a fandom, and people who disagree can hold their breath till their blue, but it'll still be a fandom, and it'll never be anything else. And the only reason it hasn't fragmented into a thousand fandoms already is out of convenience (Creating your own sites and such is costly and may not work.), sheep mentality. (Anyone trying to bring change must be evil! For they revolt against the worshipped people hosting their beloved site.) And also a strong either/or mentality. (Like how either there can be NO adult stuff, or ALL adult stuff must be accepted.)

So instead, we don't get a group of similar fandoms (in which case there'd STILL be people outside of all of them, and much to some all-inclusive people's chagrin, still liking anthro's) But we get all the arguments.


Now for the record, aside from the pedophiles, I personally don't actually HATE anyone. But I do think furdom could stand a little streamlining. Of course both those things make me completely evil to some furries. Reasons for my views and feelings be damned. Which is another reason some people might not want to be furries! Criticism of furdom, no matter how valid, is often taken about as well as heresy is in Islam in some taliban ruled place on the arse of the world. Which makes you glad people can't throw stones over the net.

And then there's also those furries who assume that if you're not with them, you must be against them, or furries who take disagreement as a devastating personal assault. (Bet there's some right now reading this and gritting their teeth at the perceived, yet non-existent, slap in the face this supposedly is.)


Anyway I think I hammered the point thoroughly home by now. And I probably did before. But sometimes I just wanna do a good hammering. Its fun! Y'all should try it. You can dislike me for it, but you know what you can't honestly do?

Tell me I'm wrong. Cause on this, I ain't.


----------



## Jelly (Jun 8, 2007)

My point about the pissing contest was that you do think this happens to be an argument. I got a little unnerved by the fact that I was just aimlessly saying something and you took it to mean I was heading down a very SRS and IMPRTNT point - I'm just trying to figure this whole thing out. I didn't really want people looking to score some ego-points jumping down my throat. Personally, I think there's such hostility in this whole absolutely unimportant subject that even jumping into the goofy topic leaves you horribly angry and quick to judge positions.

Our point seems to be essentially the same, people choose to identify or not. 

Arbitrary judgement is dolled out to those that feature some artwork or similar things.

Still, to be fair, I don't think there's an evil conspiracy to make furry mainstream; I have furry friends who simply aren't pornographically inclined to the whole fandom, this is how we identify because people had identified one of us as such, it was an interest, and then this was passed on to those of us who also shared the traits. That was pretty much it.

I also stand by my statement on Intro Logic being applied to cultural phenomena.


----------



## The Sonic God (Jun 8, 2007)

I'm furry, through and through, but I suck as an artist. I don't consider myself one anyway.

I'm also a trekkie... yes, I own a Starfleet uniform... but I only wear it on Hallowe'en.


----------



## themocaw (Jun 8, 2007)

The Sonic God said:
			
		

> I'm furry, through and through, but I suck as an artist. I don't consider myself one anyway.
> 
> I'm also a trekkie... yes, I own a Starfleet uniform... but I only wear it on Hallowe'en.



I hope you don't mind me saying this, but simply adding the apostrophe to "Halloween" puts you on my annoying "sharp-tongued insult" to-do list.  Nothing personal, just a pet peeve of mine, because it makes me think we need to add a !Kung-style click or something between those two e's.

Anyway, I think I've said all I need to in this thread and will shut up unless hilarity ensues


----------



## Bokracroc (Jun 9, 2007)

IM FURRY BUT MY ART'S NOT


.......

Doesn't work does it?


----------



## Ray Kicio (Jun 9, 2007)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> IM FURRY BUT MY ART'S NOT
> 
> 
> .......
> ...




If they consider themself a fur but don't draw furry art or write furry stuff? I would have to say that it does work.


----------



## Hakar (Jun 9, 2007)

Yeah. Works fine for me. too.


----------



## Bokracroc (Jun 9, 2007)

Vornesoul said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stereotype says you're one or not. And the Furry stereotype seems on the spot 60% of the time.


----------



## v-deus (Jun 10, 2007)

I think the age-old idea of portraying an anthropomorphic subject in art has the capacity to be really cool. And I've liked the idea ever since I was little. Soâ€¦ I eventually went for it. I do very little anthro, but I do enough to actually _be_ on FA.

I don't consider myself to be a furry. I would only ever attend a con to sell art. I'm a bit scared of the rest.


----------



## Oni (Jun 10, 2007)

You just need to meet some normal people which can escort you around a convention. :wink:


----------



## RailRide (Jun 10, 2007)

I don't self-identify as a furry. I do draw the art (largely because I've been doing so long before I knew there was a fandom connected to the subject matter).

 I do attend some conventions (I'm posting from one now, although it's not specifically a 'furry' con), but those are mainly social events with lots of art/commissions on sale like a glorified comic-book show, (in fact, most of the socialization I've encountered rarely mentions "furry" subjects much beyond comparing art collections) so I don't see how conventioneering  became ranked as an 'obsessive' activity. 

...

Or maybe there's my answer--I've actually been to a few.

---PCJ


----------



## Satoshi (Jun 11, 2007)

Yeaah, see that's what Sato falls into :3 I'm not a furry. I'm not a hardcore scary Otaku. Sure I would love to go check out a furry-con and meet friends I've made on this site :'D Sure I do wanna go to an anime-con and chat with people who like the same anime I like in real life. Or even wanna wear pandacat ears and tail xD <333

Yeah I'm an artist who draws both furry and anime style. So I don't think it should label me as one :0 Perhaps an artist who likes to experiment with different styles and such.

Sato's not saying she dislikes people in the fandom ; w; A while back I was one of the few who thought furries we're godawful. But now I've gotten to know a few :'D And think they're a funny group of people <3

So yup. :3 <33


----------



## Monkeykitten (Jun 11, 2007)

That's true, you can draw anthro art and not be a furry. I still don't really know if I consider myself a furry. >w< It really all depends on one's personal definition for the word, yes. Some would argue that merely drawing furry art makes you a furry, but I'm not so sure.

However, I do see people that draw furry art, wear fursuits, and attend all the furry conventions they can get their hands on that still claim to not be furries. I don't really understand that... maybe someone like that could explain to me how they can do all that and still avoid the title "furry."


----------



## Altera (Jun 13, 2007)

Agreed.
it's a sore point with me that people keep asking me what my furry fetish or whatever is. If people were to browse my gallery, even piece of anthro/furry/porn art is a commission. Every single one.
For my own enjoyment i draw people or nature scenes, yet I get told I'm in denial about the whole furry thing.

My avatar is a marsupial-satry. Simple because I like mythology, my state emblem is a tasmanian tiger, it's a different type of avatar. I hate the word persona/fursona. avatar - online representive]however, i am well aware that i am human, i have no interests in animals beyond the general "aaw cute". I don't dress up or want to, I don't even desire to look at furry art beyond admiring the art and learning from it.
The whole area/concept/idea of furry/anthro for me does not appeal.
[the money does, as does the act of drawing.]

...
Majority of my art is fanart/doujinshi on DA for the few anime i like anyway.

so annoying though :| I am not in denial. i am simply not a furry and have no desire to be one. It is possible to not care.

Sorry for the tangent, but some of the emails I get are downright rude and even with my little disclaimer people expect me to be "into" anthro/furry type stuff when I'm not. Just not. i like human females. i don't even like hairy humans. I like clean, real-life, human females with human anatomy and skin. No ears, tails, paws, fur etc. Bit of leather is okay, but that's about as far on the animal scale as I want to go.


----------



## RailRide (Jun 14, 2007)

Altera said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> it's a sore point with me that people keep asking me what my furry fetish or whatever is. If people were to browse my gallery, even piece of anthro/furry/porn art is a commission. Every single one.
> For my own enjoyment i draw people or nature scenes, yet I get told I'm in denial about the whole furry thing.



Perhaps a bigger disclaimer is in order 

Plus folks seem to have trouble reading descriptions on these artsites for some reason.

The porn will tend to attract more attention, and with more attention comes more types who can't take a clue/hint (you know, the types who call anything with an animal/animal character "furry" even though the material is obviously not made with a fannish audience in mind). Curiously enough, your profile states you have no taste for pornographic subject matter, but the majority of commissions in your gallery are 'adult'. Maybe those who are picking on you have noticed this and think they are calling you out on the other stuff you've stated you're not into. 

Doesn't make them any less deserving of a cluebat, but it seems to go with the territory.

---PCJ


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 14, 2007)

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/144459/


----------



## Summercat (Jun 14, 2007)

Arshes, you do bring up a few good points in the journal. But I don't think the whole "If you aint a furry what are you doing here" thing really applies.

But for everyone, here's my viewpoint:

IF you like anthro art, or
IF you like games that involve anthros, or
IF you like stories that involve anthros, or
IF you have an anthro persona or online avatar, or
IF you go to a furry convention, or
IF you hang out with groups of furrys, then:

You CAN and WILL be considered by someone to be a Furry
And thus you can CLAIM the title of 'Furry'.

I don't see how it's not like being gay and not being part of the gay culture, though - I am most certainly interested in members of my own gender, and I don't have any interest in that culture. The same way that I'm a TOS Star Trek fan, but I would not dress up as a klingon or a vulcan or a starfleet officer and go to a Star Trek convention as such - In fact, I've no real desire to go to a Star Trek convention, and I'm known as the Trekkie in my group of IRL friends.

But here's the thing:

If you fall under ANY of the catagories (And maybe one or two I missed?) that I listed above, I can and will call you a furry, regardless of how you feel about it. 

Now, that said, I'd never speak for you nor force you to admit it - who am I to tell you what you say you are? You can call yourself a furry if you please, if you don't please.

And speaking of please, please note that nowhere in there did I state porn, or yiff. I most certainly do NOT think that's the entirety of the fandom, or even a huge majority. In fact, I suspect it might be smaller than most people think...


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 14, 2007)

Except you pidgenholed someone into something they're much greater than. A person who is a furry is one who considers themselves one. The term has too much of a wide range definition ironically that is for something of narrow focus for someone to appreciate being "typecast"

Also your application may scare away other artists willing to give a shot at drawing in this genre.

The other thing is the history of FA was directly related to Sheezyart's dumping of Porn and felt FA despite it being furry friendly as an alternative of a porn dump too.

The application of furry means you're pretty much only into that, one day I'm a Trekkie because I went to a con, but the next day I'm a furry? Which term applies? "Hi furry otaku trekkie"

Do you see how stupid it gets? That's why your terms are more about narrow focus, when people have lives beyond that. Narrow focus definitions should be reserved for those who think that way.


----------



## Litre (Jun 14, 2007)

I might like interior decorating and the colourguard but that doesn't make me gay.

so.


----------



## wut (Jun 14, 2007)

I like playing violent video games. I must be a sociopath.

Stupid jumps in faux logic are fun.


----------



## Summercat (Jun 14, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> *snip excellent but missed point*



Except that I'm not 'limiting' anyone to that exact definition. They still have the right to call themselves whatever they please, while I still have the right to call them whatever. 

I don't feel that what I said above has a furry shaped mold that I'm forcing everyone to fit into.

That, and I don't feel that 'furry' is exclusive to anything else. Like I said, I'm a Trekkie. I'm also a military scifi fan. I am also a recovering otaku, and approaching hardcore gamer - these others traits or labels may or may not have anything to do with me being furry.

I think you may be thinking that I believe that if someone is a furry, they are only that.

I believe that if they have one of those traits, they can be called 'furry' in addition to anything else.

//EDITADDITION//

Heh, forgot to add in a point to the above:

While I do claim the right to call someone anything, I do reserve the equal and sometimes greater right of that someone to tell me to go to hell. ^_^ When I call someone something, I don't expect them to immediatly agree and change their self-perception.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 14, 2007)

I think you missed the point, what you're calling them is something they don't appreciate. No matter how you fit your definition, in order to interact with people you need to respect that.

The definition because it is a fandom use, should be applied to self and not someone else who says they're not. So you missed the point by doing something that is applied against the other person's will you backfire your intentions. I accept there are people who are not otaku, or hardcore trekkies. It's no big.

Furry is a self described term in use for another person. Furry is also used to describe the artwork.


----------



## Summercat (Jun 14, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I think you missed the point, what you're calling them is something they don't appreciate. No matter how you fit your definition, in order to interact with people you need to respect that.
> 
> The definition because it is a fandom use, should be applied to self and not someone else who says they're not. So you missed the point by doing something that is applied against the other person's will you backfire your intentions. I accept there are people who are not otaku, or hardcore trekkies. It's no big.
> 
> Furry is a self described term in use for another person. Furry is also used to describe the artwork.



Fair enough, but so far what I described above has worked for me. I fully give them the right to tell me to go to hell. It's not like I go, stand up, point at them, and shout out "YOU ARE A FURRY SIR!".

There is, I guess, an issue with what a furry is within the fandom. Like I said, I'm inclusionist, and I don't really see 'furry' as part and parcel of the fandom, the same way that a Trekkie doesn't have to be part of the Star Trek fandom.

Now, being a member of the fandom is a different story. ^^


----------



## Hakar (Jun 15, 2007)

"IF you go to a furry convention, or
IF you hang out with groups of furrys, then:"

Now, I have no problem with your other examples, but how does not being a furry prevent you from doing either of these?


----------



## Summercat (Jun 15, 2007)

Hakar said:
			
		

> "IF you go to a furry convention, or
> IF you hang out with groups of furrys, then:"
> 
> Now, I have no problem with your other examples, but how does not being a furry prevent you from doing either of these?



That's the thing. IF any of these occur, you can be called a furry.

This is >>MY<< criteria on assesing people, and my interpretation.

As I said above, there's the Go2Hell clause I stick in. But I think I'll restate what I was trying to get across, anyhow:

I am stating my opinion of you. I do not expect you to automatically change to what I percieve you as.

You have an opinion of yourself. That's more important than what my opini-

GRRR, this makes it clear as mud!

1. I have the right to call anyone anything, based upon anyone reason.
2. You have the right to call yourself anything, based on anyone reason.

There is no conflict.

THERE. ARARAGH! 

Anger directed at myself for being about as clear as mud.


----------



## Altera (Jun 15, 2007)

RailRide said:
			
		

> Altera said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I worked out very quickly that there is a LOT of money* to be made in the furry community, especially porn. I don't dislike [most] yiff/anthro or whatever, but I don't like it either. i especially don't like the idea of being involved in such things or having them applied to me [eeeew, no] :3 As far as I'm concerned, a picture is a picture and for me it makes common sense that if porn pays more I should do porn :3 

People don't think I can draw such things without being attracted though :C It's annoying because the whole reason I take most anthro/porn commissions is the whole apathetic view on them. it's like drawing a square. I'm focussed on the drawing part, not the actual content.
so hard to explain :C
I like the physical act of drawing?**

[not to say I don't giggle madly when I draw a penis or whatever. The fact i can draw such things makes me laugh like mad. Just...because. Kinda like the word butt. "you said butt, haha" only it's "i'm drawing penis, haha"]

[size=x-small]*People collect/hoard things. I collect/hoard money. Leave me my eccentricies!
**and many other details like getting better, trying to show emotion, perspective, anatomy, colour, backgrounds and all related things to the aspect of drawing, but outside of drawing i'm not interested? [/size]


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 15, 2007)

Summercat said:
			
		

> This is >>MY<< criteria on assesing people, and my interpretation.



I had to snip the rest but I have to ask a question, why is this labeling more prevalent with furry related stuff than any other hobby?

If someone draws a furry character there is an assumption they're a furry. Not that they may be an artist or furry artist even.

If someone draws any other kind of character...like say an anime one they don't assume "otaku" or hardcore fan, but they may ask if it's from "those Japanese cartoon shows" or series. It does happen, but not as badly as furry.


----------



## Summercat (Jun 15, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Summercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but I don't equate being furry to being hardcore otaku. I'm not saying that if you fit one of the catagories I mentioned above, that you automatically fit the others.

I don't attach any stigma or anything to the label (I really don't like that word in this context, title, perhaps?) of 'Furry'. 

Other people might, and do. I'll admit that. But I most certainly do not.


----------



## RailRide (Jun 15, 2007)

Altera said:
			
		

> I worked out very quickly that there is a LOT of money* to be made in the furry community, especially porn. I don't dislike [most] yiff/anthro or whatever, but I don't like it either. i especially don't like the idea of being involved in such things or having them applied to me [eeeew, no] :3 As far as I'm concerned, a picture is a picture and for me it makes common sense that if porn pays more I should do porn :3
> 
> _People don't think I can draw such things without being attracted though :C It's annoying because the whole reason I take most anthro/porn commissions is the whole apathetic view on them. it's like drawing a square. I'm focussed on the drawing part, not the actual content._
> so hard to explain :C
> I like the physical act of drawing



(emphasis mine)
Sounds like an excellent addition to your profile.

And I'm in agreement with **, in my case I add to that storytelling and developing characters folks can become interested in and talk about in a most geeky manner.

---PCJ


----------



## Tycho (Apr 26, 2008)

*Re: "My art's furry but I'm not"*



Bokracroc said:


> IM FURRY BUT MY ART'S NOT
> 
> 
> .......
> ...



Works for Phillip M. Jackson, aka JollyJack.  http://jollyjack.deviantart.com/


----------



## AethWolf (Apr 27, 2008)

*Re: "My art's furry but I'm not"*

I think some of the argument comes from an inability of both sides to agree on a definition of what it is to be a furry.  Some have a definition of furry that includes fursuiting/con going/whatever, while others use a more broad definition centered around the enjoyment of anthropomorphic animals in various media (I fall into that second category).  There also seems to be a bit of a split between those who see "furry" as a label and those who see it as a descriptor (again, I fall into the second category).

In my world view, people who enjoy anthropomorphic animals in whatever media are furries.  Someone who enjoys them but says they're not furry would be akin to someone who regularly watches, say, Star Trek saying that they're not a Star Trek fan (assuming the watching is done by their own choice).  "Furry" is merely being used as a description of their tastes, much like one would use "soft" to describe how a kitten's fur feels.

I think it's all just a matter of how one defines and uses "furry".


----------



## Beastcub (Apr 27, 2008)

*Re: "My art's furry but I'm not"*



AethWolf said:


> I think some of the argument comes from an inability of both sides to agree on a definition of what it is to be a furry.  Some have a definition of furry that includes fursuiting/con going/whatever, while others use a more broad definition centered around the enjoyment of anthropomorphic animals in various media (I fall into that second category).  There also seems to be a bit of a split between those who see "furry" as a label and those who see it as a descriptor (again, I fall into the second category).
> 
> In my world view, people who enjoy anthropomorphic animals in whatever media are furries.  Someone who enjoys them but says they're not furry would be akin to someone who regularly watches, say, Star Trek saying that they're not a Star Trek fan (assuming the watching is done by their own choice).  "Furry" is merely being used as a description of their tastes, much like one would use "soft" to describe how a kitten's fur feels.
> 
> I think it's all just a matter of how one defines and uses "furry".



i agree with this idea


----------



## Arc (Apr 27, 2008)

*Re: "My art's furry but I'm not"*



AethWolf said:


> I think some of the argument comes from an inability of both sides to agree on a definition of what it is to be a furry.  Some have a definition of furry that includes fursuiting/con going/whatever, while others use a more broad definition centered around the enjoyment of anthropomorphic animals in various media (I fall into that second category).  There also seems to be a bit of a split between those who see "furry" as a label and those who see it as a descriptor (again, I fall into the second category).
> 
> In my world view, people who enjoy anthropomorphic animals in whatever media are furries.  Someone who enjoys them but says they're not furry would be akin to someone who regularly watches, say, Star Trek saying that they're not a Star Trek fan (assuming the watching is done by their own choice).  "Furry" is merely being used as a description of their tastes, much like one would use "soft" to describe how a kitten's fur feels.
> 
> I think it's all just a matter of how one defines and uses "furry".


I totally agree with this too.

Btw: 
I really could say: "I am furry, but my art is not"
On my DA account I only have photos I made.
And not even photos of animals...closeups of small electronical things.
So it's a bit paradoxical that I have only anthro-art in my favourites there.
I don't like photo art (I even think that my own art is boring) at all, but it's the only art thing I can do.(My drawing skills are way beyond poor).


----------



## RailRide (Apr 27, 2008)

*Re: "My art's furry but I'm not"*

First post on the new forum:

I think a lot of this angst could be avoided if the active phrase was "furry _fan_" rather than just "furry". 

Seems like a minor thing, but phrased that way, it sounds more like it's just one interest of many, rather than the sole definition of one's being, which is where a lot of this dispute is stemming from--that is,  making one look far more invested in this entity than they are or care to be.

---PCJ


----------



## WOLFIE DA FOX (Apr 27, 2008)

*Re: "My art's furry but I'm not"*

YOU DON'T DRAW FURRY YOU DRAW ANTHRO


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Apr 27, 2008)

*Re: "My art's furry but I'm not"*



Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Works for Phillip M. Jackson, aka JollyJack.  http://jollyjack.deviantart.com/


Sounds pretty close to the issue with the chickenscratches I try to pass of as art as well. D:

EDIT: Failed to quote, what. >:|


----------



## codewolf (Apr 27, 2008)

*Re: "My art's furry but I'm not"*

only just spotted the necromancy going on here...not cool


----------

