# Are non-furries better at drawing anthro art than furries?



## CannonFodder (Jul 12, 2013)

*Are non-furries better at drawing anthro art than furries ON AVERAGE?*

What I mean by that is are artists who are not active members of the furry fandom better at drawing anthroporphics' more anatomically accurately?


The short version is I left the furry fandom over a year ago, but I've been noticing something about furry artists compared to non-furries drawing anthro art.  Hold on I don't hate anthro art, but what I've noticed is that even the best furry artists tend to have some severe screw ups when it comes anatomy.  By that I mean unintentionally exaggerating a pose or such in a way that makes it look at those the character just broke something, aka "You're spin doesn't don't bend that far".

I'm not saying that ditching the furry fandom automatically makes someone insanely good at anthro art, but from what I've seen of people who draw anthro art that are not active members of the furry fandom there seems to be less blarringly obvious anatomy mistakes.  Not that every artist out there that isn't a active member of the furry fandom is a god of an artist, rather enough to after a while you tend to see a very obvious trend of furries giving their characters digit paws for bears, broken backs, bones that twist in ways not possible.

I'm not shitting on furries, it just seems that when compare furry artists to non-furry artists drawing anthro it just seems as though the best of best of the best of furry artists when compared to outside of the furry fandom is at best above average skill wise.


. . . Wait I'm forgetting something . . Oh wait I made this thread, that means it's missing the CF signature directly combative statement that is based in a illogical fallacy that ignores the better points of others for the sake of continuing the discussion and regurgitation the points of others or such.   How about this then, "I laugh whenever I hear a furry say they're leaving to go pro"


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 12, 2013)

Furries tend to idealize the anthro in their head to appeal to their inner furry. Non-furry artists just try to draw it as accurately as possible, so their art tends to be more anatomically correct. Not better, per se. But in terms of realism? Yes.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 12, 2013)

I can't say I've viewed a statistically significant amount of furry art by furries and non furries in order to discern a difference. 

Several hypotheses occur, including
-furries are, on average, young and perhaps less experienced
-people who are furries are more likely to participate in art than many other people, so the number of inexperienced artists is greater
-the net number of furries is low, so the probability of producing a statistical outlying artist is diminished

however since I'm not sure the claim is even true, these hypotheses may as well be bullshitting.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 12, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> Furries tend to idealize the anthro in their head to appeal to their inner furry. Non-furry artists just try to draw it as accurately as possible, so their art tends to be more anatomically correct. Not better, per se. But in terms of realism? Yes.


Yeah, but there's a difference between hyperidealism and ignoring anatomy.  by that I mean is look at ancient greek hyperidealistic marble carvings.  Hyperidealism uses anatomy as a basis for going beyond normal anatomy, and doesn't ignore anatomy, so much as exaggerate it and use the hyperidealism to show emotion and action instead.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 12, 2013)

Are you going to post any well known examples for us to decide whether your OP has any gravity?


----------



## Seekrit (Jul 12, 2013)

Being associated with a fandom has nothing to do with artistic skill. There are some fantastic artists on FA, there are some awful ones.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 12, 2013)

http://108fineart.com/paul-reid/

Holy shit guys


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 12, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Are you going to post any well known examples for us to decide whether your OP has any gravity?


Okay, I'll just say it out then.
Wolfy-nail, zaush, blotch, fisk, zen, meesh, twinkle-sez, nek0gami, demicoueur, h0rs3, tanidareal . . some time later . . ajna, merystic and pretty much the vast majority of furry artists  I've seen are okay artists, not great, just okay.  By that I mean is that I have yet to ever see a artist who is greater than a 8/10 skill wise on the single premise that I do not feel as though many of the furry artists would not stand up objectively skill wise in a art competition or if they tried to get a job as a illustrator they would not be at the point where they had enough skills to get the job.

Actually there was a furry that tried to get a job at bioware as a illustrator(I don't remember her name for some reason, the one with the blue dog fursona and draws professor layton fanart all the time).   Simply put she didn't get the job.  I don't mean it as a "furries suck and should never draw" so much as "I don't think most furry artists would be actually able to get jobs as professional illustrators and if they do chances are it would not be for a major company".


Fallowfox said:


> http://108fineart.com/paul-reid/
> 
> Holy shit guys


Name any artists on fa that you can think of that can draw that well.


----------



## Seekrit (Jul 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Name any artists on fa that you can think of that can draw that well.



Your question is invalid. This_ thread_ is invalid.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 12, 2013)

Furries aren't that great of artists for a couple of reasons. Furries and by extension art sites like FA tend to be really bad when it comes to dealing with, and dishing out valid criticism and as a result, they create a counter-productive art environment. This means art starts to become stagnant. Secondly seemingly every furry draws shit the same way, partially due to the natural attachment many furries have to western cartoons. This means everything tends to look the same.


----------



## Kalmor (Jul 12, 2013)

http://www.furaffinity.net/full/10222355/ http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9071313/

'nuff said.

Pastry has a good point though, I hardly see any crits on FA submissions.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 12, 2013)

Raptros said:


> http://www.furaffinity.net/full/10222355/ http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9071313/
> 
> 'nuff said.
> 
> Pastry has a good point though, I hardly see any crits on FA submissions.


FA needs a anonymous critique function.


----------



## Zuranis (Jul 12, 2013)

I wouldn't say so, 'cause there's slightly more anatomy to learn if you want to draw anthro animals. And there's the obvious digitigrade-feet trap that many new anthro artist (furry or non-furry) can fall into - you know the one I mean, where the animal looks like it would just fall flat on its face if it takes one step.
I know I'm contradicting myself here, but Seekrit makes a good point.

Plus if we all had a penny for shite furry art we've seen over the years well...


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> FA needs a anonymous critique function.



And then within a week the forums are flooded with people complaining about "trolls" being mean to them.


----------



## Kazooie (Jul 12, 2013)

I'd say that the furry community can be pretty insular, lacks critique, and often artists get caught up with one single character/species/style and stick to it... Forever... Pushing yourself to discover/try out new things, and to find ways to improve one's current work are both very important for growth imo.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 12, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> And then within a week the forums are flooded with people complaining about "trolls" being mean to them.


Admit it, you would have fun in the threads.


Zuranis said:


> Plus if we all had a penny for shite furry art we've seen over the years well...


I'd be able to buy a Yager and fight a Kaju.


----------



## Recel (Jul 12, 2013)

Zuranis said:


> Plus if we all had a penny for shite furry art we've seen over the years well...



I'm at a great advantage, as I make them! 

Muhahaha, money printing, here I come! :V


----------



## Icky (Jul 12, 2013)

Yeah, I stopped taking this thread seriously when you started using the word "better" in relation to art.

In other words, after the title.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Admit it, you would have fun in the threads.



You're goddamn right.


----------



## Machine (Jul 12, 2013)

Yes, because all furries draw is penis.


----------



## Sar (Jul 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> FA needs a anonymous critique function.


That is actually a really good point, maybe even make it private to the artist/critic? 
I hardly see anyone give critique (or ever constructive critique) on FA ever. 
It would just nice to see a few furs suggest improvements. Critique does help you improve at your hobby.



Zuranis said:


> Plus if we all had a penny for shite furry art we've seen over the years well...



I could buy Greece.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 12, 2013)

Sarukai said:


> That is actually a really good point, maybe even make it private to the artist/critic?
> I hardly see anyone give critique (or ever constructive critique) on FA ever.
> It would just nice to see a few furs suggest improvements. Critique does help you improve at your hobby.


It wouldn't be that hard to do.  Hell Neer could probably do it himself.  Just rip most of the code from how the comment function and have it in a different table above the comments and remove people's abilities to comment on it.


Sarukai said:


> I could buy Greece.


I'd rather own a mecha and fight giant aliens than own a country.


----------



## UnburntDaenerys (Jul 12, 2013)

http://www.furaffinity.net/full/11063963/
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/10478061/
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/8691656/

Professional illustrator.

http://www.furaffinity.net/full/10016463/
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/10402929/

Furry artist.

http://www.furaffinity.net/full/9196356/
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/10823072/

Furry artist.

http://www.furaffinity.net/full/10066539/
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/10110869/

Freelance illustrator.

http://www.furaffinity.net/full/10460487/

Furry artist.

Look beyond the standard porn peddlers and you can find some really good stuff.


----------



## Sar (Jul 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> It wouldn't be that hard to do.  Hell Neer could probably do it himself.  Just rip most of the code from how the comment function and have it in a different table above the comments and remove people's abilities to comment on it.



That's exactly what I was thinking; I could do that in an hour at most. My other idea was make it something in between comments and notes in terms of it's functionality (Priority issues, Etc.) - but that could take a little longer to set up.



> I'd rather own a mecha and fight giant aliens than own a country.


Would you like to be the Ambassador to other civilizations for SarukaiLand?


----------



## Judge Spear (Jul 12, 2013)

Machine said:


> Yes, because all furries draw is penis.



You got a problem with that...? Cuz we can go outside, it don't make me no difference. >.>


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 12, 2013)

Sarukai said:


> That's exactly what I was thinking; I could do that in an hour at most. My other idea was make it something in between comments and notes in terms of it's functionality (Priority issues, Etc.) - but that could take a little longer to set up.


Yeah, but remember how "well" the note system first worked when it first came out?


Sarukai said:


> Would you like to be the Ambassador to other civilizations for SarukaiLand?


I was referencing Pacific Rim which came out today.


----------



## Sar (Jul 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Yeah, but remember how "well" the note system first worked when it first came out?


There was seriously a worse note system? D:



> I was referencing Pacific Rim which came out today.


Bah, never knew. Was it a good movie?


----------



## Toshabi (Jul 12, 2013)

But don't anthropomorphic beings have 100 foot long cocks and titties the size of wrecking balls? I'm so confused.


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Jul 12, 2013)

It's debatable


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 12, 2013)

Sarukai said:


> There was seriously a worse note system? D:


The note system when it first came out was more broken than window someone threw porceline at.


Sarukai said:


> Bah, never knew. Was it a good movie?


HELL YEAH IT WAS!


----------



## Joey (Jul 12, 2013)

I'd have to say yes/probably just because non-furries haven't been tainted by the fandom.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 12, 2013)

UnburntDaenerys said:


> http://www.furaffinity.net/full/11063963/
> http://www.furaffinity.net/full/10478061/
> http://www.furaffinity.net/full/8691656/
> 
> ...



I think the topic just got answered. Damn those are some sweet arts ya got thar.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Okay, I'll just say it out then.
> Wolfy-nail, zaush, blotch, fisk, zen, meesh, twinkle-sez, nek0gami, demicoueur, h0rs3, tanidareal . . some time later . . ajna, merystic and pretty much the vast majority of furry artists  I've seen are okay artists, not great, just okay.  By that I mean is that I have yet to ever see a artist who is greater than a 8/10 skill wise on the single premise that I do not feel as though many of the furry artists would not stand up objectively skill wise in a art competition or if they tried to get a job as a illustrator they would not be at the point where they had enough skills to get the job.
> 
> Actually there was a furry that tried to get a job at bioware as a illustrator(I don't remember her name for some reason, the one with the blue dog fursona and draws professor layton fanart all the time).   Simply put she didn't get the job.  I don't mean it as a "furries suck and should never draw" so much as "I don't think most furry artists would be actually able to get jobs as professional illustrators and if they do chances are it would not be for a major company".
> ...


http://www.furaffinity.net/full/9416052/
Ryan Wardlow [piece chosen for similarity to paul reid's subject matter]

It must be said though that, I selected a university trained well established artist with multiple scholarships. He's not exactly representative of the average. 
Nor is Ryan Wardlow and I'm not sure if he's a furry anyway, only that he's on FA. 

But I think it's probably important to keep in mind that the numbers of students churned through the university system is gargantuan and if only 0.5%* of them are furries, then it is unlikely that the greatest artist of all will be in their number, just as it would be any 0.5% selected by any other non-causal variable, such as those with heterochromia. Heterochromic artists might weep and deplore the fact that all the greats are monochromes- that it's surely their different coloured eyes that are making them inferior, but it was statistically unlikely that any of the 50 or so house-hold name artists anybody can think up would have heterochromia anyway. 



*Randomly selected small number.

[and furthermore, lest we forget, publishing bias]


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 12, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> http://www.furaffinity.net/full/9416052/
> Ryan Wardlow [piece chosen for similarity to paul reid's subject matter]
> 
> It must be said though that, I selected a university trained well established artist with multiple scholarships. He's not exactly representative of the average.
> ...


There's a difference between averages and peaks.  Yes Ryan is a amazing artist, BUT he's not the average.  Very few furries draw as well as Ryan.  The problem is that you're writting off furries in general being able to draw as well as him.  It's like a car lot, just cause there's one lambourghini doesn't mean every car in the lot is a lambourhini.

There's a difference between,
"Are non-furries better at anthropomorphic anatomy than furries on average?" and "Are non-furries better at anthropomorphic anatomy than furries?".
Yes I know I made a typo in the title.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> There's a difference between averages and peaks.  Yes Ryan is a amazing artist, BUT he's not the average.  Very few furries draw as well as Ryan.  The problem is that you're writting off furries in general being able to draw as well as him.  It's like a car lot, just cause there's one lambourghini doesn't mean every car in the lot is a lambourhini.
> 
> There's a difference between,
> "Are non-furries better at anthropomorphic anatomy than furries on average?" and "Are non-furries better at anthropomorphic anatomy than furries?".
> Yes I know I made a typo in the title.



I openly stated that ryan and paul were both statistical outliers. 

Did you like...read any of my comment?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 12, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I openly stated that ryan and paul were both statistical outliers.
> 
> Did you like...read any of my comment?


How the hell did we manage to argue while agreeing with each other's points?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 12, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> How the hell did we manage to argue while agreeing with each other's points?



Well you asked me to name an artist as good as paul and then said it was a cherry-picking fallacy when I went ahead and named one.


----------



## SirRob (Jul 12, 2013)

This thread is silly. Even if you bring up examples, they won't mean anything because they won't represent the fandom as a whole. And if you compare the best of both sides, then that's not really fair, 'cause one group's way more limited than the other.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 12, 2013)

I'd say the average drawing ability of furries is slightly better than the average drawing ability of people overall. There are always shit drawers, good drawers, and epic drawers. But in a place like the fandom, ANYONE can post art, unlike the real world where most people suck and don't show others their art.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 12, 2013)

Do cartoon animals even need 100% correct anatomy? 
Does anthromorphic anything need correct anatomy if it looks good? 
Actually why is this even a question? Cause when I browse through art sites I don't expect everything to reach some ridiculous standard I might have because I believe nothing but the best art can be seen by my royal eyes. 
Sure it's an interesting point but can you really judge an entire fan base just like that? 
Is it *fair* to do that? 

I know that's not what yall are implying and I'm taking it to an extreme but every time I see this thread pops up it just _really_ bugs me.


----------



## Hewge (Jul 12, 2013)

Actually, loads of furry artists can draw extremely well, anthro or not.
They just don't want to draw non-furry art, or don't like spending 20 hours painting something amazing.

Simple answer: A lot of artists have the skills(furry or not), but just don't want to.
Most people are just in the fandom for fun, after all.

Dumb question, by the way.


----------



## Heliophobic (Jul 12, 2013)

I... really haven't noticed this.

If there even is a difference, it's definitely not that big of one.


----------



## Willow (Jul 12, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> I'd say the average drawing ability of furries is slightly better than the average drawing ability of people overall. There are always shit drawers, good drawers, and epic drawers. But in a place like the fandom, ANYONE can post art, unlike the real world where most people suck and don't show others their art.


It's not that the drawing ability of furries is better than most people simply because they're furry though. Which is basically what you're implying. 
The only difference between furries and "normal people" is that the majority of furries are here because they like drawing and because they like drawing they naturally want to improve. 

In this case. Correlation does not imply causation. 

Being a furry inherently has nothing to do with your ability to draw.


----------



## Azure (Jul 13, 2013)

this is a really stupid thread


----------



## Zerig (Jul 13, 2013)

Azure said:


> this is a really stupid thread



You don't need to come into the thread to know that

you could just look at who the OP is


----------



## Azure (Jul 13, 2013)

Zerig said:


> You don't need to come into the thread to know that
> 
> you could just look at who the OP is


well thats exactly what i did, i certainly didnt read a single jot of the discourse contained within, its all pointless because the question itself is bloody pointless

hey guys, do you think that non-auto mechanics are better at changing oil than real actual auto mechanics

this is important guys

im totally not asking this question just to buff my postcount

not at all


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 13, 2013)

I'm so fucking disappointed in this thread. 

Art is always relative and who gives a flying fuck about whose art-cock is bigger? 

Utterly pointless.


----------



## Taralack (Jul 13, 2013)

This thread is such a loaded question... and you're never going to get a solid answer from anyone.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 13, 2013)

Hewge said:


> Actually, loads of furry artists can draw extremely well, anthro or not.
> They just don't want to draw non-furry art, or don't like spending 20 hours painting something amazing.
> 
> Simple answer: A lot of artists have the skills(furry or not), but just don't want to.
> ...


Then how come we always see people commenting on how bad of art they see on the mainsite and such?  We even have a stickied thread about bad costumes, which are a form of art.  That's like going, "Wow this is total shit" and then going, "Actually it was pretty good".  How can someone constantly spew that they think something is total shit and how much they think something is a abomination to mankind and then say it was good? *pops onto news about xboxone and what people are saying* Oh wait, nvm question answered.


----------



## Hewge (Jul 13, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Then how come we always see people commenting on how bad of art they see on the mainsite and such?  We even have a stickied thread about bad costumes, which are a form of art.  That's like going, "Wow this is total shit" and then going, "Actually it was pretty good".  How can someone constantly spew that they think something is total shit and then say it was good? *pops onto news about xboxone and what people are saying* Oh wait, nvm question answered.



Not sure if you know this or not, but most people on the FA mainsite are young, or just brand new artists.

One does not go from *this, *To *this*, in a matter of weeks.

It takes years.
And years.

And more years.

So yeah. Since most people on FA are very young, or brand new artists... It's not going to be great at first.

Also; you should probably stop talking as if bad art does not exist outside of the fandom... Being a furry doesn't make you automatically worse at anything.


----------



## Icky (Jul 13, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Then how come we always see people commenting on how bad of art they see on the mainsite and such?  We even have a stickied thread about bad costumes, which are a form of art.  That's like going, "Wow this is total shit" and then going, "Actually it was pretty good".  How can someone constantly spew that they think something is total shit and how much they think something is a abomination to mankind and then say it was good? *pops onto news about xboxone and what people are saying* Oh wait, nvm question answered.



You do know that not all furfag art is the same, right? You can say that some of it is good while SIMULTANEOUSLY laughing at how bad some of the rest of it is. Most of us here aren't too thick in the head to realize that there are different proficiency levels of furry and non-furry artists.

Goddamn, I forgot this was how you usually continued an argument, CF. I am somehow disappointed and unsurprised that you haven't learned anything about making coherent points while I was away. :T


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 13, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Then how come we always see people commenting on how bad of art they see on the mainsite and such?  We even have a stickied thread about bad costumes, which are a form of art.  That's like going, "Wow this is total shit" and then going, "Actually it was pretty good".  How can someone constantly spew that they think something is total shit and then say it was good? *pops onto news about xboxone and what people are saying* Oh wait, nvm question answered.



Because we're a bunch negative assholes who derive satisfaction from mocking others even if we're personally not likely to do any better. 

You shouldn't mistake a handful of sour threads as representative. 

That's the same sort of mechanism which makes some people view all modern art as pretentious nonsense; because their assessment of it is limited to the irate rantings of news paper columns rather than from visiting exhibitions, galleries and websites.

Some people think that modern art is all this:





when a lot of it is this:


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 13, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Because we're a bunch negative assholes who derive satisfaction from mocking others even if we're personally not likely to do any better.
> 
> You shouldn't mistake a handful of sour threads as representative.


Idunno.  It just seems a little bit strange that people as cynical as me towards the fandom would continue to enjoy it.  Like I dislike the vast majority of the art, the vast majority of the music, the vast majority of the stories, the vast majority of the costumes, the vast majority of the fans, the vast majority of the animations, the vast majority of the games, the vast majority of the poems, the vast majority of the pretty much everything.  It's like someone saying to me that getting slapped 99 times in the face in a row everytime you click a button just to not get slapped 1 time and then get slapped 99 times in a row in a continous cycle is somehow worth it just to not get slapped in the face that 1 time out of 99.

If someone asks me what my experience all those years as a furry was in a single sentence it would be that.  Getting slapped in the face 99% of the time you click a button, and then that 1% you don't get slapped someone telling you it's worth getting slapped in the face 99% of the time just for 1% of the time you don't get slapped.


----------



## Aulendra (Jul 13, 2013)

Professional artists learn how to draw through study, gesture sketches, anatomy training, and most.importantly figure drawing. Furries, however, tend to just copy either the style or anatomy of theirfavorite cartons/anime, comics or other artists. 

The result is many furry artists having a distinctive style but without the fundamental training in anatomy to back it up. Cart before the horse.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jul 13, 2013)

Man...all the serious replies have been taken. :<
99%? Really? That sounds like an inflated number.



Aulendra said:


> Professional artists learn how to draw through study, gesture sketches, anatomy training, and most.importantly figure drawing. Furries, however, tend to just copy either the style or anatomy of theirfavorite cartons/anime, comics or other artists.
> 
> The result is many furry artists having a distinctive style but without the fundamental training in anatomy to back it up. Cart before the horse.



Don't generalize. I may not be that good, but I sure as dick in the back door know I'm not copying some motherfucker's style or choose not to figure study.


----------



## Gnarl (Jul 13, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Don't generalize. I may not be that good, but I sure as dick in the back door know I'm not copying some motherfucker's style or choose not to figure study.



I agree don't generalize! I spent 13 years in college. Two studio masters degrees. And i am not that young! 
And anyone who is willing to take a chance on putting their work out there, even if some don't think it is good, well I assure you they are a lot better than those who just talk and won't do! Then smile you got a lot of peoples uh furrs to post!


----------



## Aulendra (Jul 13, 2013)

Wow. I was not saying that you had to have 5 master's in 3 different artistic fields and a bachelor's in architecture before daring to try and pick up a pencil. 

The question was if there was a difference in quality and why across the board, and the reason why is simple. You need to have a decent.grasp at humans before being able to draw convincing, anatomically correct anthros. Same goes for Anime or even traditional Bugs Bunny style cartoons. You don't need a degree for that, only the ability to train yourself to grow as an artist.


----------



## Heliophobic (Jul 13, 2013)

Aulendra said:


> Furries, however, tend to just copy either the style or anatomy of theirfavorite cartons/anime, comics or other artists.








This was done by a furry.


----------



## Aulendra (Jul 13, 2013)

And people bristle at the mere suggestion that improving their ability outside of the fandom will assist with their ability to draw whatever they'd want to inside of it. Case closed?


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 13, 2013)

Can't we all agree that only a select few draw/paint/whatever well anyways? And since the fandom is only like 0.025% of the world, us having great artists is going to be rare. Same as good artists in any other fandom. Yeesh.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 13, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Idunno.  It just seems a little bit strange that people as cynical as me towards the fandom would continue to enjoy it.  Like I dislike the vast majority of the art, the vast majority of the music, the vast majority of the stories, the vast majority of the costumes, the vast majority of the fans, the vast majority of the animations, the vast majority of the games, the vast majority of the poems, the vast majority of the pretty much everything.  It's like someone saying to me that getting slapped 99 times in the face in a row everytime you click a button just to not get slapped 1 time and then get slapped 99 times in a row in a continous cycle is somehow worth it just to not get slapped in the face that 1 time out of 99.
> 
> If someone asks me what my experience all those years as a furry was in a single sentence it would be that.  Getting slapped in the face 99% of the time you click a button, and then that 1% you don't get slapped someone telling you it's worth getting slapped in the face 99% of the time just for 1% of the time you don't get slapped.


You could just.... You know... Not look at furry art. 
Just leave if you think we're that shit. 

I am very sorry that every person that posts drawings is not up to your standards. 

You basically just called everyone here a piece of shit with no skills. 


You can have your ridiculously insulting, blanketed, opinions. 
You can think that you're entitled to see only the best works of art. 
But for the love of god keep it to yourself. I, as well as others, do not wish to hear you generalize our fandom in such a negative way. Its not fair to pit up furry artists that do art because they love it against professional artists of our era.

People that legitimately think that they can generalize an entire fandom, especially negatively, are scum. 
But to do that on that fandom's largest forum? That is grossly stupid. What makes you think that calling 99% of anything is shit justifiable? Then to do it in front of said thing? It makes you look like a grade A douche bag. A pretentious fuck.


----------



## Willow (Jul 13, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Then how come we always see people commenting on how bad of art they see on the mainsite and such?  We even have a stickied thread about bad costumes, which are a form of art.  That's like going, "Wow this is total shit" and then going, "Actually it was pretty good".  How can someone constantly spew that they think something is total shit and how much they think something is a abomination to mankind and then say it was good?


Not gonna lie but if it were me, I'd rather have a group of people honestly tell me the suit I made was terrible as opposed to a bunch of people afraid of hurt feelings tell me it's really great. And this is of course what leads to people being led on to believe they're great and ready to take on commissions until someone has nerve enough to tell them honestly that their stuff isn't as good as everyone says it is. I mean, just because most people are in it for fun doesn't necessarily mean we don't want to see a bunch of crap looking stuff. 

 No one here claims they're an expert on making suits either, except the people who make suits of course.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 13, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Idunno.  It just seems a little bit strange that people as cynical as me towards the fandom would continue to enjoy it.  Like I dislike the vast majority of the art, the vast majority of the music, the vast majority of the stories, the vast majority of the costumes, the vast majority of the fans, the vast majority of the animations, the vast majority of the games, the vast majority of the poems, the vast majority of the pretty much everything.  It's like someone saying to me that getting slapped 99 times in the face in a row everytime you click a button just to not get slapped 1 time and then get slapped 99 times in a row in a continous cycle is somehow worth it just to not get slapped in the face that 1 time out of 99.
> 
> If someone asks me what my experience all those years as a furry was in a single sentence it would be that.  Getting slapped in the face 99% of the time you click a button, and then that 1% you don't get slapped someone telling you it's worth getting slapped in the face 99% of the time just for 1% of the time you don't get slapped.



No one gives a damn, CF. 

I don't know what rocks your boat but if you find "99%" of the fandom's art to be unpleasing...that really is your own problem. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 13, 2013)

ITT:
.            CannonFodder tells us we are all horrible, horrible artists who will never live up to his standards. 

We must pray to him. CannonFodder the art critic god! Despite never being good in his eyes we must still hope! Hope that he will accept us! 


This thread is bad and should feel bad. Same for OP.


----------



## Zabrina (Jul 13, 2013)

Good art. Using my pencils, it's a work of fiction.


----------



## Taralack (Jul 13, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> I dislike the vast majority of the art, the vast majority of the music, the vast majority of the stories, the vast majority of the costumes, the vast majority of the fans, the vast majority of the animations, the vast majority of the games, the vast majority of the poems, the vast majority of the pretty much everything.  It's like someone saying to me that getting slapped 99 times in the face in a row everytime you click a button just to not get slapped 1 time and then get slapped 99 times in a row in a continous cycle is somehow worth it just to not get slapped in the face that 1 time out of 99.
> 
> If someone asks me what my experience all those years as a furry was in a single sentence it would be that.  Getting slapped in the face 99% of the time you click a button, and then that 1% you don't get slapped someone telling you it's worth getting slapped in the face 99% of the time just for 1% of the time you don't get slapped.



If that's truly the case, then I have to question your decision to remain on these forums... I mean most people's avatars even on FAF - which is already a very "typical" furry unfriendly place - are generic furry cartoon stuff. Do you feel that sting of mediocrity every time you open a thread on FAF? When you look at someone's sig? 

It's actually kinda funny CF, but I never would have pegged you as someone who saw themselves as so high-and-mighty. :\


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jul 13, 2013)

so you hate generic cartoon animal stuff

but you sperge out when MLP is involved

okay


----------



## Calemeyr (Jul 13, 2013)

What it comes down to is what people see the fandom as when they make art for it. As creativity first, fandom second, you can get a lot of gorgeous artwork, with consistent anatomy, shading, and use of color. It's a real shame that a lot of great artists on FA are overshadowed by cookiecutter porn artists. When people see the fandom as any other fandom, with obsession over fursona fanart, and commissions of fanart of fursonas, it all comes down to a circlejerk. It's the same thing as making horrible fanfics instead of writing your own stories, or making uninspired Naruto fanart. There has to be more to the art in the furry fandom than an obsession with (sometimes highly explicit) fursona art. And there is. That's not to say all fursona art is bad, but it just gets tiring after a while.

Overall, furries would be better since there are highly skilled, specialized anthro artists in the fandom. On average, anout the same, because, besides the skilled artists, fandoms attract fanboys. Just look through Deviantart to get a picture. A lot of good art, but a lot of crap too. It all averages out to average.

So yeah, the obsession with fursonas kinda averages out all the inspired anthro art.


----------



## Acton (Jul 13, 2013)

Most furries are amateur without  any formal education in art, like leaning how to draw, use of color or shading, perspective etc..
To me the big problem is  furries tend to get themselves  into a  cliched rut like cartoon badge art or fantasy.  ( ex, cartoon smile, big eyes, twenty something raver, baby furs (never potty trained), or gay (not being gay but composition of the dawning same snuggle pose)). One time I got  criticism on a dragon I drew with normal eyes, I wanted to avoid the cliched big eyes.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 13, 2013)

I just keep passing by this thread and every time it sends me into a mini rage. 
Fuck this thread >:[


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 13, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> I just keep passing by this thread and every time it sends me into a mini rage.
> Fuck this thread >:[



Don't blame you. There could have been a decent conversation about the restraints I feel exist in the furry fandom (as well as every other fandom) that keep decent artists from excelling, and encourage mediocrity and how we gould minimize their impact helping to create more artists like the ones people are constantly posting about. Instead we get this clusterfuck. I should have known to be honest.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 13, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> I just keep passing by this thread and every time it sends me into a mini rage.
> Fuck this thread >:[



Yeah, we'll  make our OWN thread. With blackjack, and hookers!


----------



## Kord (Jul 13, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I can't say I've viewed a statistically significant amount of furry art by furries and non furries in order to discern a difference.
> 
> Several hypotheses occur, including
> -furries are, on average, young and perhaps less experienced
> ...



I'm in agreement with this. Sometimes statistics have a brighter presence in a subjective argument concerning consensus on art.


----------



## Azure (Jul 13, 2013)

i think that we can all argree

that cannonfodders thread posting abilities should be taken away

forever

lets start a petition


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 13, 2013)

Azure said:


> i think that we can all argree
> 
> that cannonfodders thread posting abilities should be taken away
> 
> ...



I concur with this statement.


----------



## Seekrit (Jul 13, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> I concur with this statement.



Indeed, BURN THE CANNONFODDER

...I think I've said that before.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jul 13, 2013)

Acton said:


> Most furries are amateur without  any formal education in art



hi a lot of really good artists never went to art school and are better than many people who did


----------



## Zerig (Jul 13, 2013)

Azure said:


> i think that we can all argree
> 
> that cannonfodders thread posting abilities should be taken away
> 
> ...



I went on change.org to make one, but you need an account an shit

someone else can do it, I don't want my email flooded with "make animalfucking legal" and other hippie petitions

and I'm too lazy anyway



Gibby said:


> hi a lot of really good artists never went to art school and are better than many people who did



You know who else didn't get into art school? Hitler.

you don't want to be like Hitler, do you?


----------



## Seekrit (Jul 13, 2013)

Gibby said:


> hi a lot of really good artists never went to art school and are better than many people who did



But talent only comes with formal art education, the art schools said so!


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 13, 2013)

Zerig said:


> I went on change.org to make one, but you need an account an shit
> 
> someone else can do it, I don't want my email flooded with "make animalfucking legal" and other hippie petitions
> 
> and I'm too lazy anyway


Hey if we're successful enough we can potentially say we were the first furfags to ever drag a sitting president into online furry drama!


----------



## Zerig (Jul 13, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Hey if we're successful enough we can potentially say we were the first furfags to ever drag a sitting president into online furry drama!



Now I know why Obama got that Nobel Peace Prize.

Somehow they looked into the future and saw this happening. His finest hour.


----------



## Heliophobic (Jul 13, 2013)

Azure said:


> i think that we can all argree
> 
> that cannonfodders thread posting abilities should be taken away
> 
> ...



That would be grand.


----------



## Gnarl (Jul 13, 2013)

Seekrit said:


> But talent only comes with formal art education, the art schools said so!



Most so called art schools are full of hog wash! they just want your money! So they give you a piece of paper that says you know what your doing.. bull PUCKY! 
I used to think art had died after the Art Neuveau period until I saw the works of Norman Rockwell, or Frank Frazetta or even Boris Valejo! then I realized that only reason that Andy W. Fool was called art was because he had better publicity and more money. He was a con artist who got a bunch of ignorant fools to give him large sums for bunch of .......
I cherish this and other sites like it! this is the real ART! This is the stuff that comes from the heart and not from what we are paid to do! From the simplest line art to the most complex painting it is all art. 
The critics base what is art on the idea of something called significant form. that means that if someone has an emotional reaction to it, well under thier terms it is good ART! Look back in history and you will find that more than 80% of the greats were paid to paint what was porn in thier time. I am not sure about Michelangelo, putting breasts on little boys and calling them women? 
He did do pretty good with the chapel thing though. Don't listen to any onle else only what is in your heart, paint, draw, write and live what you feel! Get the training if you desire it but don't for god's sake let them take your expression or your subject from you! LONG LIVE FURRY ART! 
By the way the earliest furry painting I have ever seen was dated 1424!


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 13, 2013)

Zerig said:


> Now I know why Obama got that Nobel Peace Prize.
> 
> Somehow they looked into the future and saw this happening. His finest hour.



This will be his Gettysburg Address, *the* defining moment of his entire presidency. We will be *gods*...or at least footnotes in some history textbook.


----------



## Seekrit (Jul 13, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> This will be his Gettysburg Address, *the* defining moment of his entire presidency. We will be *gods*...or at least footnotes in some history textbook.



"It is unknown if the use of a dragon dildo on President Obama during the Furry Incident of 2013 (old calendar) is evidence of the existence of dragons" - _History of the American Empire, Vol. III_


----------



## JCobalt (Jul 14, 2013)

I don't really know what "better" means in this case.  Sure I've seen drawings on here that are technical, detailed and beautiful, but I've also seen very simplistic work on here that garners just as much of a reaction as the "better" pieces.  I find a lot of the "technical" stuff to sometimes be rather shallow and uninteresting outside of its incredible quality.  It's not a bad thing, but it is what it is.  The greats like Michelangelo and Picasso are great because at the time they created their work, they were doing something different and evocative of the period in which they came, and they did it with incredible quality and intelligence behind them.

I think a lot of people do art on here for commission work, practice, or just for fun, so a lot of the work here is casual or at least not as thought out as contemporary art tends to be now.  I don't browse FA looking for the next Richard Serra or Andy Warhol because it's not really an environment that fosters non-representational art, or even contemporary art that bears a strong emotional or political charge.  If you go down that road, you had better prepare yourself to get very little press on those pieces on FA.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of art on FA that is neither technically well made nor thought provoking, but every gold nugget lies in a pile of dirt.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 14, 2013)

Whatever people say about him, I still can't bring myself to like picasso, or believe all his work was executed with incredible quality. 







You can argue about intellectual meanings for...a long time, but no this isn't 'incredibly technical quality': It's technically basic.

Not that picasso never produced technically proficient pieces, just many popular pieces are actually very poorly painted. I'm sure people can invent deep reasons for artists painting like that 'the sloppy nature confers an unstable and delicate emotional ambiance that is appropriate for Picasso leaving the woes of his blue period,' but it's still technically unimpressive.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jul 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Whatever people say about him, I still can't bring myself to like picasso, or believe all his work was executed with incredible quality.
> 
> You can argue about intellectual meanings for...a long time, but no this isn't 'incredibly technical quality':
> 
> ...



I studied him. The only piece I felt had meaning once I looked into it was Guernica. VERY sad backstory.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 14, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> I studied him. The only piece I felt had meaning once I looked into it was Guernica. VERY sad backstory.



Well there's also the death of Casagemas, which has a sad story, although it's a tragically ugly painting in my view. 
I don't know the story for guernica though; pm me?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Whatever people say about him, I still can't bring myself to like picasso, or believe all his work was executed with incredible quality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Personally I like van gogh better though.  The painting he did before taking his life, or the sunflower one may often most people favorite's of his works, but for me the one of several people eating a potato dinner is probably my favorite due to it being about what's taking place and how it's from my favorite time of his paintings.  Starry night is amazing in that most often times when someone draws the sky they JUST draw the sky and that if they draw a cloud they JUST draw the cloud without imagining that it's actually moving and don't capture the movement; or how if someone draws stars they JUST draw the stars instead of realizing that a star is a sun light years away that is constantly burning at millions of degrees, with gas bursting and churning and exploding all at once spraying the universe with it's light and with it's warmth.  Van Gogh may not have known that the stars at night were like our sun, but he did understand that they were not dead in the sky and that almost everything is in constant motion.  Like if someone were to draw water moving past someone's hands you don't JUST draw the water, you draw the motion of the water and how it's moving towards the hands, running into the hand and being forced by gravity to change direction then continuing on it's downwards decent towards the ground, hitting the floor and then spreading out getting the floor wet.

I love contour drawings for this reason, simply because if you try to outline a person while they are running it's not going to work and that rather if you draw the motion itself in one stroke then you can capture it on paper.


----------



## Seekrit (Jul 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Whatever people say about him, I still can't bring myself to like picasso, or believe all his work was executed with incredible quality.



Picasso was shit






That is only a small example of how shit. You can argue subjectivity all you want but I will never like Picasso.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 14, 2013)

Seekrit said:


> Picasso was shit
> 
> *snip*
> 
> That is only a small example of how shit. You can argue subjectivity all you want but I will never like Picasso.



Amazing how someone can paint like this and then turn around and paint like this. It's not his fault. Everyone hated him and he was severely depressed. His paintings got worse and worse. Eventually, he comitted suicide, and OH LOOK, suddenly people appreciated him when he was dead. Tells you something about the true nature of humans, doesn't it?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 14, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Personally I like van gogh better though.  The painting he did before taking his life, or the sunflower one may often most people favorite's of his works, but for me the one of several people eating a potato dinner is probably my favorite due to it being about what's taking place and how it's from my favorite time of his paintings.  Starry night is amazing in that most often times when someone draws the sky they JUST draw the sky and that if they draw a cloud they JUST draw the cloud without imagining that it's actually moving and don't capture the movement; or how if someone draws stars they JUST draw the stars instead of realizing that a star is a sun light years away that is constantly burning at millions of degrees, with gas bursting and churning and exploding all at once spraying the universe with it's light and with it's warmth.  Van Gogh may not have known that the stars at night were like our sun, but he did understand that they were not dead in the sky and that almost everything is in constant motion.  Like if someone were to draw water moving past someone's hands you don't JUST draw the water, you draw the motion of the water and how it's moving towards the hands, running into the hand and being forced by gravity to change direction then continuing on it's downwards decent towards the ground, hitting the floor and then spreading out getting the floor wet.
> 
> I love contour drawings for this reason, simply because if you try to outline a person while they are running it's not going to work and that rather if you draw the motion itself in one stroke then you can capture it on paper.



Yes I have to say many of van gogh's paintings are lovely. The sunflowers I've always viewed as a bit dull. That's probably because I've seen them too much. 

Subjective interpretation and meaning aside, van gogh's paintings are still enjoyable just to look at and I think that's often missing in the more publicised and famous pieces of art today. I get the feeling some artists might regard producing pretty things as a shallow career, but creating repugnant or boring ciphers is just indulging snobs.




MochiElZorro said:


> Amazing how someone can paint like this and then turn around and paint like this.  It's not his fault. Everyone hated him and he was severely depressed.  His paintings got worse and worse. Eventually, he comitted *suicide*, and  OH LOOK, suddenly people appreciated him when he was dead. Tells you  something about the true nature of humans, doesn't it?



that's not picasso. He died aged 91. Perhaps you're confusing him with gogh's story.


----------



## TrishaCat (Jul 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> http://108fineart.com/paul-reid/
> 
> Holy shit guys


I actually think that looks hideous and ridiculous and is putting animal heads on human bodies for no good reason. The human body that it shows also has way too pale skin.
Its altogether very un-aesthetically pleasing. 

Don't get me wrong; it's well drawn. Its just that it also looks really ugly.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 14, 2013)

> That's not picasso. He died aged 91. Perhaps you're confusing him with gogh's story.



They are the same guy. Also they wrote Ode to Joy and wrote Romeo and Juliet. Picasso VanGogh was a mysterious man. :V

But seriously, I can't even remember who CURRENT artists are. Forget ancient ones. (Now that I think of it, which guy wrote Ode to Joy? Chopin? lol idk)


----------



## TrishaCat (Jul 14, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> There's a difference between averages and peaks.  Yes Ryan is a amazing artist, BUT he's not the average.  Very few furries draw as well as Ryan.  The problem is that you're writting off furries in general being able to draw as well as him.  It's like a car lot, just cause there's one lambourghini doesn't mean every car in the lot is a lambourhini.
> 
> There's a difference between,
> "Are non-furries better at anthropomorphic anatomy than furries on average?" and "Are non-furries better at anthropomorphic anatomy than furries?".
> Yes I know I made a typo in the title.


In this case I'll say that probably on average furries can draw better anthro then non furries. Not every non furry draws a Lamborghini. (I don't mean this in a literal sense. I mean Lamborghini as in "Absolutely amazing art") In fact most don't.

That said, I need to see more anthro from your everyday non furries to make a definite decision.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 14, 2013)

Hold on, I forgot to point out yet another ridiculous thing from this thread. What is a "furry artists"? Because they associate with this fandom some how they are owned by the fandom? I hate hate hate when this fandom claims art like it's theirs. There is no" furry" artist, art is art, they're all artists.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 14, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Hold on, I forgot to point out yet another ridiculous thing from this thread. What is a "furry artists"? Because they associate with this fandom some how they are owned by the fandom? I hate hate hate when this fandom claims art like it's theirs. There is no" furry" artist, art is art, they're all artists.



I'd imagine a furry artist is one who refuses to draw things unrelated to the fandom or anthros. Everyone else is normal artistas.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 14, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> I'd imagine a furry artist is one who refuses to draw things unrelated to the fandom or anthros. Everyone else is normal artistas.



But he (or she) would still be an artist. He isn't a special snowflake that's different from the rest of the art world.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 14, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> But he (or she) would still be an artist. He isn't a special snowflake that's different from the rest of the art world.



But we already seperate people into groups! Like Impressionists and Surrealists. They're treated like snowflakes. Why not weird furry artists?


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 14, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> But we already seperate people into groups! Like Impressionists and Surrealists. They're treated like snowflakes. Why not weird furry artists?


Because you can have artists that draw furries in an impressionistic or Surrealist way.  :I furry is a fandom, not a genre.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 15, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Because you can have artists that draw furries in an impressionistic or Surrealist way.  :I furry is a fandom, not a genre.



True... But that's like saying genres cannot overlap. Look at some of the movies and games today. Action/Adventure/Comedy/Slice-of-Life, Rpg/Fps/Rts, etc. A painting can be in multiple categories too, just like any other artform. Or is that kind of art a special snowflake?


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 15, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> True... But that's like saying genres cannot overlap. Look at some of the movies and games today. Action/Adventure/Comedy/Slice-of-Life, Rpg/Fps/Rts, etc. A painting can be in multiple categories too, just like any other artform. Or is that kind of art a special snowflake?



Give me an example of overlapping genres in an art piece.


----------



## Calemeyr (Jul 15, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Give me an example of overlapping genres in an art piece.


The comedy/fantasy showing that the US constitution is essentially a companion piece to the Bible, and the founding fathers were like Jesus's apostles.

This painting: http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/Zo...onUnderGod_files/one_nation_under_God_002.jpg


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 15, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Give me an example of overlapping genres in an art piece.



A surreal impressionist painting.
Unfortuneately, most painting genres are named after the movement instead of the content. So they don't overlap as much as content-based genres. (That was harder to find than it should've been.)


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 15, 2013)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> The comedy/fantasy showing that the US constitution is essentially a companion piece to the Bible, and the founding fathers were like Jesus's apostles.
> 
> This painting: http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/Zo...onUnderGod_files/one_nation_under_God_002.jpg


Let me rephrase it to what I actually meant. 

Show me an example of a piece of art being multiple art styles. 
Example of art style : Impressionist.

never mind :


MochiElZorro said:


> A surreal impressionist painting.
> Unfortuneately, most painting genres are named after the movement instead of the content. So they don't overlap as much as content-based genres. (That was harder to find than it should've been.)



Ok fine :I 

still doesn't mean Furry is it's own art style. 
Furry is to generalized, to vague.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 15, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> never mind :
> 
> 
> Ok fine :I
> ...



"Furryism: A small, usually unnoticed movement of art beginning in the twentieth century in which the subject of the piece is consistantly anthropomorphic, typically bipedal animals. Art in this movement varies in theme and style from artist to artist. One can typically find such pieces on the internet on sites like FurAffinity, SoFurry, and Furrybooru."


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 15, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> "Furryism: A small, usually unnoticed movement of art beginning in the twentieth century in which the subject of the piece is consistantly anthropomorphic, typically bipedal animals. Art in this movement varies in theme and style from artist to artist. One can typically find such pieces on the internet on sites like FurAffinity, SoFurry, and Furrybooru."



Yes. That would be a subject, not a style. 
Drawing about something =/= the way you draw it.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 15, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Yes. That would be a subject, not a style.
> Drawing about something =/= the way you draw it.



Hm... Touche. How did this start again? *looks back a page* Ah. Furry artist. Right.

So if furry is the subject as we both say, then "furry artist" means an artist who uses the subject of furries in his/her art in a fashion consistently or frequently enough to label them as such.


----------



## Willow (Jul 15, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> "Furryism: A small, usually unnoticed movement of art beginning in the twentieth century in which the subject of the piece is consistantly anthropomorphic, typically bipedal animals. Art in this movement varies in theme and style from artist to artist. One can typically find such pieces on the internet on sites like FurAffinity, SoFurry, and Furrybooru."


The problem with this is that anthropomorphism has been around since ancient times. Most religions/civilizations has myths about half animal half human deities and monsters. And I think if people suddenly went around calling things like Minotaurs a part of furry artwork I might vomit. 



MochiElZorro said:


> So if furry is the subject as we both say, then "furry artist" means an artist who uses the subject of furries in his/her art in a fashion consistently or frequently enough to label them as such.


Usually furry artists are more into drawing original content. Or original characters created by other people within the group.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 15, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> Hm... Touche. How did this start again? *looks back a page* Ah. Furry artist. Right.
> 
> So if furry is the subject as we both say, then "furry artist" means an artist who uses the subject of furries in his/her art in a fashion consistently or frequently enough to label them as such.



Then we're back to my point of, regardless of subject, art is art.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 15, 2013)

Willow said:


> The problem with this is that anthropomorphism has been around since ancient times. Most religions/civilizations has myths about half animal half human deities and monsters. And I think if people suddenly went around calling things like Minotaurs a part of furry artwork I might vomit.



That's mostly zoomorphism... and some people count such things as furry WITHIN the fandom anyways. So no change there.



> Usually furry artists are more into drawing original content. Or original characters created by other people within the group.



Originality... I saw it once or twice. But mostly I see cheap ripoffs... maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.



Falaffel said:


> Then we're back to my point of, regardless of subject, art is art.



Welcome to the Redundancy Department of Redundancy Department. Tautology is tautology.


----------



## Willow (Jul 15, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> That's mostly zoomorphism... and some people count such things as furry WITHIN the fandom anyways. So no change there.


The people who count mythical creatures as furry are usually the ones who try to make everything about furries. Of course if you have a bull man character, that's a bit different from the mythical minotaur. 



> Originality... I saw it once or twice. But mostly I see cheap ripoffs... maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.


Wow, I've never heard that joke before. That's not even what I was talking about either. I mean original as in this character doesn't belong to a corporation or a business. It's not a mascot. It's just a character some person drew.


----------



## JCobalt (Jul 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Whatever people say about him, I still can't bring myself to like picasso, or believe all his work was executed with incredible quality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Picasso and other 'cubist/futurist' artists painted the way they did because they didn't think art needed to be about what was at the time accepted as art, which is why they are viewed as innovation in the arts.  I'm not even going to talk about the technical skills involved because it was just an example anyway.  I mean, again, the whole "good/bad" art thing stopped being an issue when Duchamp put that toilet on a pedestal and called it art almost 100 years ago.  

What contemporary art being produced would you say is repugnant?


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 15, 2013)

Willow said:


> The people who count mythical creatures as furry are usually the ones who try to make everything about furries. Of course if you have a bull man character, that's a bit different from the mythical minotaur.
> 
> 
> Wow, I've never heard that joke before. That's not even what I was talking about either. I mean original as in this character doesn't belong to a corporation or a business. It's not a mascot. It's just a character some person drew.



Sorry. It's the middle of the night here and I have a headache. When it's this late, I tend to be a bit... well, grumpy and stuff... About everything.


----------



## Taralack (Jul 15, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> I'd imagine a furry artist is one who refuses to draw things unrelated to the fandom or anthros. Everyone else is normal artistas.



Sorry to break it to you, but an artist is never going to improve if they "refuse" to work on simple things like life drawing simply because it does not involve an anthro. :T


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 15, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Hold on, I forgot to point out yet another ridiculous thing from this thread. What is a "furry artists"? Because they associate with this fandom some how they are owned by the fandom? I hate hate hate when this fandom claims art like it's theirs. There is no" furry" artist, art is art, they're all artists.


The question does not feature the term 'furry artist'.



JCobalt said:


> Picasso and other 'cubist/futurist' artists  painted the way they did because they didn't think art needed to be  about what was at the time accepted as art, which is why they are viewed  as innovation in the arts.  I'm not even going to talk about the  technical skills involved because it was just an example anyway.  I  mean, again, the whole "good/bad" art thing stopped being an issue when  Duchamp put that toilet on a pedestal and called it art almost 100 years  ago.
> 
> What contemporary art being produced would you say is repugnant?



I understand technical quality was not always the intention of innovative artists, but that's a little beside the point. 






Personally I don't like Damien Hirst's dot paintings. They're as neutral as wall paper and he doesn't even paint them himself; he pays others to do so for him.





I'm not a fan of the Chapman brothers' drawings over the top of Goya prints. They're not ugly, they're just simply not very interesting. The only interesting thing about them is that they drew over the top of another famous artist's work. 

[by now a large trend for stealing or piggybacking on other people's work and fame should be apparent]





Much of the work produced by stuckists is also tragically poor in my view. Despite the fact their manifesto is all about opposing the YBA and working hard on paintings they rarely produce anything that actually matches their emphasis on painting, diligence and craftsmanship above the celebrity. 

I'm aware these groups and individuals do not represent contemporary art, far from it, but they hold a celebrity status. One that means a large amount of the news and publicity about art is focused on people like them, which is exceedingly boring because- never mind the technical quality- the intellectual capacity is the same as a group of squabbling children trying to pull each others' hair out.

 It gives people who aren't exposed to much art the impression that all modern art is like that- so it repels a lot of people's interests and furthers the stereotype of artists being flouncy useless people rather than experts in their craft.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jul 15, 2013)

Meh, I just make butts. :I


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 15, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Meh, I just make butts. :I



Don't forget boobies D:


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Jul 15, 2013)

It all depends on the skill level. A good artist can whip out a great anthro figure easily just as easily as someone who mostly draws anthro.


----------



## Namba (Jul 15, 2013)

I think the tragic mistake most "furry artists" (in quotes due to the sheer stupidity if the term) make is they focus on JUST making anthro characters and shit like that. They don't learn anything about perspective, lighting, composition, color; what they do learn is limited to the application of these techniques to just furry characters. Ask them to draw a human character and they can't do so to save their life. Ask for a landscape portrait and the term is foreign to them. You can tell the difference between someone well-versed in art as a whole, and someone who wants to boost their rank on Popufur.com.


----------



## Willow (Jul 15, 2013)

Namba said:


> I think the tragic mistake most "furry artists" (in quotes due to the sheer stupidity if the term) make is they focus on JUST making anthro characters and shit like that. They don't learn anything about perspective, lighting, composition, color; what they do learn is limited to the application of these techniques to just furry characters. Ask them to draw a human character and they can't do so to save their life. Ask for a landscape portrait and the term is foreign to them. You can tell the difference between someone well-versed in art as a whole, and someone who wants to boost their rank on Popufur.com.


Be that as it may, some artists are also really young. Like I know that there are a bunch of talented 14 and 15 year olds on the site but for the most part, they're just starting out. 

So it may not always just be that they can't do any of these things simply because they mainly draw anthros, it's just that they don't really know much about the subject because they haven't learned much about it yet. Certainly you can learn how to use color, lighting, composition, and perspective in due time but a lot of them are doing good to just draw a dog.


----------



## TeezyBird (Jul 15, 2013)

I don't think it's really fair to compare furry artists as a whole to professional illustrators. The vast majority of furry artists are amateur artists who just start out drawing for fun and wind up getting kinda serious about but never go to art school or take  grueling life drawing classes, etc. Not to mention the kinda 'internet art world' the furry art community exists within is quite different than the 'real art world' that professional illustrators exist within.
It would be more fair to compare furry artists to, say, DeviantArt anime artists or Homestuck fan artists on Tumblr. The overall quality of work is pretty evenly matched between these groups.


----------



## Calemeyr (Jul 15, 2013)

Namba said:


> I think the tragic mistake most "furry artists" (in quotes due to the sheer stupidity if the term) make is they focus on JUST making anthro characters and shit like that. They don't learn anything about perspective, lighting, composition, color; what they do learn is limited to the application of these techniques to just furry characters. Ask them to draw a human character and they can't do so to save their life. Ask for a landscape portrait and the term is foreign to them. You can tell the difference between someone well-versed in art as a whole, and someone who wants to boost their rank on Popufur.com.


There's just too much fursona art here. It's as if a group of painters only learned how to paint still lifes of fruit, and refuse to paint anything else. Maybe the whole "fursona" thing is another trying-to-become popufur thing as well?
I'm pretty sure when the fandom started out, people weren't obsessed over fursonas or Sonic recolors. But now, it seems to make up the vast majority of art I've seen on FA. Maybe the fandom is too niche for it's own good. I don't know. What I do know is that furries need to stop being so obsessed with the fandom and only consumig anything remotely attached to the fandom. They'd get a better breadth of art skills that way.


----------



## Zabrina (Jul 15, 2013)

Sonic recolors. So tragically hilarious.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Jul 15, 2013)

Zabrina said:


> Sonic recolors. So tragically hilarious.



Welcome to "recolour my fave toon and call it original" land. Population: Way more than it should be. X3


----------



## JCobalt (Jul 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm aware these groups and individuals do not represent contemporary art, far from it, but they hold a celebrity status. One that means a large amount of the news and publicity about art is focused on people like them, which is exceedingly boring because- never mind the technical quality- the intellectual capacity is the same as a group of squabbling children trying to pull each others' hair out.
> 
> It gives people who aren't exposed to much art the impression that all modern art is like that- so it repels a lot of people's interests and furthers the stereotype of artists being flouncy useless people rather than experts in their craft.



Much like how people who aren't exposed to the Fur Fandom much get the impression that they are all raving lunatics because the only ones that get press are the whackadoos?

Famous contemporaries like Chuck Close beg to differ on this front, as his work is both technical, realistic, and abstract. http://www.pacegallery.com/artists/80/chuck-close

Richard Serra, while not quite as well known, takes minimalist sculpture and utilizes manipulation of space. Pictures of his work don't really do justice, as you really need to be in his piece to feel it.

It's good to be able to know as an artist what you feel is bullshit, but I also don't agree with someone dismissing an entire era of art as unimportant because they don't like it for one reason or another.  I don't much like Andy Warhol or his work, but I at least understand why his work was important.  The most important thing about being an artist in present day is keeping an open mind and at the very least understanding why art is the way it is now.  Maybe famous Contemporary art is uninspired because certain people dismiss the art form and ignore it, so that artists that CAN manage to get lucky and get away with schlock are able to do so unopposed.  

Which really brings me to a question: You've stated a lot of artists you don't like, but what kind of artists _do_ you like?


Also, I see a lot of people complaining about the lack of 'real art' here on FA.  I'd hate to tell you this, but FA is a wasteland for fostering anything progressive or subversive enough to be considered art.  People aren't really here for art.  Illustration, maybe, but not art. 

However, it is useful, (only just so) for networking with other people holding the same interests.


----------



## mapdark (Jul 15, 2013)

*Re: Are non-furries better at drawing anthro art than furries ON AVERAGE?*

I think,  CannonFodder , that you are approaching this problem at the wrong angle .

Personally , I don't think that it is that people who leave the furry fandom get better because of it or that people who aren't in the fandom are better. Or even that good artists leave the fandom because they are good.

I think it's very possible that VERY GOOD furry artists often end up in professional jobs and see a relation to the fandom as something that could (and most likely would) hurt them professionally. Thus they cut off all ties in order to have it explode in their face at some point. (People who are slightly older will remember a similar thing happen to a prominent artist of the late 90s early 2000s)

That perception is worsened by the fact that furry artists OUTSIDE of the fandom will only get attention if they are really good or professionals ;  meanwhile inside the fandom , it's very easy to get the spotlight unto yourself. And the fandom IS FULL OF AMATEURS. 

I mean , you could argue the same thing about amateur mangakas.


----------



## RTDragon (Jul 15, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Don't blame you. There could have been a decent conversation about the restraints I feel exist in the furry fandom (as well as every other fandom) that keep decent artists from excelling, and encourage mediocrity and how we gould minimize their impact helping to create more artists like the ones people are constantly posting about. Instead we get this clusterfuck. I should have known to be honest.



It would have been a lot better if this was posted in the palette town section of the forums with someone who knows what they are talking about.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 15, 2013)

JCobalt said:


> Much like how people who aren't exposed to the Fur Fandom much get the impression that they are all raving lunatics because the only ones that get press are the whackadoos?
> 
> Famous contemporaries like Chuck Close beg to differ on this front, as his work is both technical, realistic, and abstract. http://www.pacegallery.com/artists/80/chuck-close
> 
> ...



It's not an art era. I was voicing my dissatisfaction with individuals and movements, mostly the wave surrounding yba. 
I _do_ like Chuck Close, Syd Mead, H R Giger, Lucian Freud, Jenny Saville, Raqib Shaw, Paula Rego etc [many more who are not famous]. Whilst those I mentioned are all famous examples, they never the less usually don't hold the same gravity and sensationalism in the news, probably because they're not quite as 'out there' and because they don't sue each other for half a million pounds over sharpening each others' pencils. 

I don't feel motivated to pretend to appreciate Damien Hirst's or even most of Marcel Duchamp's work because that's exactly what it would be; pretending. I appreciate only that they've changed the art scene a considerable deal, but it's people pretending to like things because they're told they are intellectually refined and innovative that puts money in those artists' pockets. Theirs is a profession of intellectual snobbery rather than crafting, which is embodied by the notion of 'ready-mades'. 

As for fa being a hub for illustration rather than art, that surely is contorting the definition of art. FA's a home for figurative anthro art just like you'd expect. The idea things have to be progressive or subversive to be considered real art is silly. The people who think that can visit a public toilet and enjoy the 'art' affixed to the walls if furry sites fail to nourish their massive throbbing intellects.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jul 15, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Don't forget boobies D:



And zee hips! \:3/
That's most important!


----------



## JCobalt (Jul 15, 2013)

I did read it all, I swear, I just didn't want to crowd up the page, and your opinion is respectable: the high art scene is one I neither want to be involved in as an artist or an investor.  It's fun to see what kind of stuff people can come up with sometimes, but I haven't seen a lot of ones that hold a lot of gravity as far as subject matter is concerned.  I respect Duchamp's work because he contorted the preconceived definition of art, and he was a pretty big troll.

I should have been more clear about what I meant, as the definition of art is shaky and really not worth discussing: FA isn't good for artists.  It has a weak benefit of drumming up business for them, but as a community, I see little help for artists to expand their ideas, especially ones based in concepts rather than forms. 

 In fact, most of the time the front page posts I see are just pictures labeled "I'm Taking Commissions."

It's question time because you have been giving me a really enjoyable discussion and I like you: What do you look for in a piece you can deem as a strong piece of art?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 15, 2013)

JCobalt said:


> I did read it all, I swear, I just didn't want to crowd up the page, and your opinion is respectable: the high art scene is one I neither want to be involved in as an artist or an investor.  It's fun to see what kind of stuff people can come up with sometimes, but I haven't seen a lot of ones that hold a lot of gravity as far as subject matter is concerned.  I respect Duchamp's work because he contorted the preconceived definition of art, and he was a pretty big troll.
> 
> I should have been more clear about what I meant, as the definition of art is shaky and really not worth discussing: FA isn't good for artists.  It has a weak benefit of drumming up business for them, but as a community, I see little help for artists to expand their ideas, especially ones based in concepts rather than forms.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure whether duchamp came before or after cave paintings were considered 'perhaps not art'. It would be a shame if urinals were perceived as art before they were.

Online art galleries aimed at a specific subject are more of a viewers' market in my view. If people want to expand, and can only do so by having a wider audience, they can register on multiple websites for a variety of different subjects they'd like to entertain. 

In a piece of visual art, I am personally impressed by things that took effort and skill to craft. If it needs a plaque to be art, or it needs to be placed in a gallery, then these qualities are often not evident. 
If artists want to enrich their craft with concept, sincerity is the most important thing in my view. A lot of the precious and curious things in life are not emotionally profound. If artists try to make all their pieces about very heavy topics like death then the end results are the same kind of derivative songs that teenagers writing about true love produce.
That's why I view sincerity as essential for a strong piece, because pretending to be profound is a turn off. 

What about you?


----------



## JCobalt (Jul 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not sure whether duchamp came before or after cave paintings were considered 'perhaps not art'. It would be a shame if urinals were perceived as art before they were.
> 
> Online art galleries aimed at a specific subject are more of a viewers' market in my view. If people want to expand, and can only do so by having a wider audience, they can register on multiple websites for a variety of different subjects they'd like to entertain.
> 
> ...



Sincerity is important, as you can often tell when a piece is done sincerely, because it is done with care.  Jackson Pollack's work may have been a mess, but it was a mess that came from something.

I'm impressed by scale and usage of space in art.  As a sculptor by trade, I get a good feeling when I see a piece placed in a space it fits in.  It doesn't matter to me how detailed or what it represents.  Large, encompassing pieces are good, but only if they look like they belong in the space they are placed in.  As for two-dimensional work, I am a big fan of repetition and graphic media.  I studied printmaking for a few years and really got a handle on how, even though printing replicates a design, it does so in a way so that each print has it's own little differences.  I suppose I get that from a love of graphic novels and board games.


----------



## Tiller (Jul 22, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> And then within a week the forums are flooded with people complaining about "trolls" being mean to them.



And then the site would crash. :V


----------



## benignBiotic (Jul 23, 2013)

This has probably been said already, but perhaps there are more artists outside the fandom who go through proper art training and education. Not to say many furries don't go through that, but it's common knowledge that the majority of furries are young and, no matter how much latent talent they have, they are bound to make perspective or anatomy mistakes that education and training would help them avoid.

For instance the anthro-animal-centric comics I read are drawn by older people who have been drawing for 15 + years. Ignoring latent skill "15 years of learning and working in art" is very different from "Mostly self-taught with 3 years experience."

But what do I know about art? (Not much)


----------

