FA+
Shop
My furry photoshoot problem
16 years ago
General
Do you know there's a trend in furry art, since like, the very beginning, really, to draw characters standing and posing in the middle of the frame as if they're being photographed for a magazine?
At the very most, they've got some cute pose, they're not looking at the camera, or there's more than one character in the frame, but it still looks for all intents and purposes like a studio photo.
Do you know why I think that is?
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
All the characters from our favorite cartoons and movies get marketed back to us in this format, and when they're out of the usual context of motion pictures, we see them as posing bodies in white voids. Thing is, these are merchandising clipart, intentionally vague so as to be easily repurposed, clipped out and used on products and advertisement. Their poses don't really mean much, but they give the figure a more interesting silhouette from pose to pose.
Look, we're furries. We're gifted in the fandom world in that we're no longer defined as fans of specific media or of a specific country's cultural exports. But we're still steeped in the visual language of cartoon and comic book marketing because that's where we came from. Our language of figure hasn't gone very far beyond the world of advertising!
If you pause actual cartoons, you'll find there are a lot of weird poses and expressions. Hell, if you pause ANY moving image in which there's a person, their facial expression will be weird, and their pose will be off-balance. They're intensely aware of their environment. They're actually in the process of carrying out some task! They look interested in something other than putting their physical appearance on display for you.
Wouldn't it be great to shift that paradigm?
EDIT: Probably not, actually. I do wanna shine some light on this though, because I think it's interesting. ^^
At the very most, they've got some cute pose, they're not looking at the camera, or there's more than one character in the frame, but it still looks for all intents and purposes like a studio photo.
Do you know why I think that is?
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
All the characters from our favorite cartoons and movies get marketed back to us in this format, and when they're out of the usual context of motion pictures, we see them as posing bodies in white voids. Thing is, these are merchandising clipart, intentionally vague so as to be easily repurposed, clipped out and used on products and advertisement. Their poses don't really mean much, but they give the figure a more interesting silhouette from pose to pose.
Look, we're furries. We're gifted in the fandom world in that we're no longer defined as fans of specific media or of a specific country's cultural exports. But we're still steeped in the visual language of cartoon and comic book marketing because that's where we came from. Our language of figure hasn't gone very far beyond the world of advertising!
If you pause actual cartoons, you'll find there are a lot of weird poses and expressions. Hell, if you pause ANY moving image in which there's a person, their facial expression will be weird, and their pose will be off-balance. They're intensely aware of their environment. They're actually in the process of carrying out some task! They look interested in something other than putting their physical appearance on display for you.
Wouldn't it be great to shift that paradigm?
EDIT: Probably not, actually. I do wanna shine some light on this though, because I think it's interesting. ^^
It's easy to draw.
You don't need to worry about a bakcground, or a solid and logic situation.
Also: your new icon made me clean my 3D glasses. xD
Of course, this isn't anything against this particular artist, and I only chose the pic because it wasn't stereotypical and also it was on the main page... this pic by the same artist is a lot more interesting IMHO and it doesn't have much of a background! It stimulates the sense of touch, it's warm, and the characters look like they have more than three neurons.
And for being usable in multiple situations... what do you mean? What's the "it" that's usable in multiple situations, and what are the situations?
Sorry for the elaboration request, I'm hideously specific when it comes to these sorts of things. -.-
And in multiple situations, I see these pictures used for things like icons and in-game sprays.
The "it" refers to the "standing and posing in the middle of the frame as if they're being photographed for a magazine" Pictures people draw or have drawn for them.
Natch, far be it from me to actually do anything about it, people can draw anyway they want, so long as it's fun. I'm getting my weird politics mixed up in this, that's why I call it MY furry photoshoot problem rather than THE furry photoshoot problem. ^^
I usually try to draw my character in some situation, doing something as part of a scene. But I must admit I have been lazy too. Since I draw comics, it's too boring and takes to much time to keep drawing the same background again and again in each frame, so once I establish the setting of the story I stop drawing the background for a few frames.
What i'm saying is is that there are some good furry artists that are not necessary the best artist. They lack the vision and composition mind set to make an image a piece of art sit in a gallery, even if it's about dog cocks. I don't think it's fair to compare artistic photography to how fursonas are draw.
But the media furry is inspired by (cartoons, comics, video games) often presents these characters out of context, not really doing much, more icons and avatars for marketing products than anything else. That's what we SEE, and I think that's the first style we try to emulate.
"We seem to have an abundance of 'furry illustrators', but few 'furry artists'."
That is to say, few people making the next step by including some kind of meaning in the work. Describing an emotional state or, to use your example, showing what the character is like as a person. Portraiture, I guess.
Not that I can take the moral high ground on this one m'self; as a photogra-fur (ahah..hah..), trying to transcend from merely taking a photo of something to describing something with a photo is something I'm trying to do more of.
the studio portrait /does/ show off the 'details' of the characters - coloration, markings, proportions, choice of clothes (or lack thereof) - the sort of things you'd need to replicate or recognize them
but the polaroid shows the characters' /character/, the way they interact with one another and their environment
perhaps a good way to practice /not/ posing characters would be to -for example- go for a walk around town, snapping random pictures of people, then go home and furrify them. Even if you /don't/ draw every brick of the building the skater's jumping off of, for instance, he's still interacting with it - a simple line behind him would give a sense of space...
does that make sense?
But at the same time you can't always expect an environment to help define a character. Sometimes it's just a gesture or fleeting emotion that they are trying to capture.
There is also a motivation that sets images apart. Mickey is a brand. You see 3 circle that way and you think Mickey or Disney. same w/ if you see sonic. They don't tell you about them at all, but just say this is a mouse / hedgehog for you to give us money for and worship. Then you have art that is directed for emotional appeals to the character and tries to connect w/ a deeper level
Also, if all it takes is a stock pose or expression to define your character, you aren't doing your job.
i was at a lecture discussing the differences between classical french and italian ways of drawing. french drawing was more contour based focusing on the primary contour and italian drawing was more of a gradual build up of tones where you work on the whole image at the same time.
animation and comics usually have strong linear elements and for the most part evolved out of the french style of drawing. this is ignoring eastern influences but thats another story.
i think using the conceptual end of the italian method; working on the drawing as a whole and putting an equal amount of thought (not necessarily time) into every part of the drawing, would benefit allot of people who struggle with the white backgrounds.
Comics continued this trend because, in part, of necessity (with an exception in Winsor McCay, i think), and taken to an extreme in animation. These last two are where furries have gotten most of their inspiration - "Funny Animals" being prevalent in these media.
of course, that's just my opinion
Actually, it's not just that, but it's actually pretty HARD to look directly down the lens of a camera in costume. It takes a LOT of practice of just standing there, posing, and having a person taking a picture, and then looking at the picture, making an adjustment, and repeat.
Moreover, the detail of the costume's head gets lost, too, as, for some reason, a head-on shot totally devours the dimension of the costume.
Some people can also feel a bit scared because of having something stare directly INTO THEIR SOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUL.... just kidding ;) But there sometimes can be a bit of uneasiness to the viewer if that happens.
Let's not forget the whole 'fly on the wall' treatment. Photographers and journalists like going for the 'realism' or 'behind the scenes' look, watching said costume in action, instead of trying to interact with the suit directly, but, instead trying to get pictures of the hugs, the high fives, and the scaring of little children (RAAR).
Lastly, It's really hard to come up with a decent, meaningful pose with a head-on shot. I think I only got away with it because I was associated with a sports team(s), where we could get away with phrases like "We're Number One", or, "We're Coming for You Next" to define the pose.
That being said, there's always that 'sidelines shot' where the camera hangs in front of the costume and the costume has to ham it up for the camera.... and that seems to go on FOR_EV_ER.....
AWK-WAAAAAAAAarrrrrrrrrd.