The great thing about the fandom is it's openness to ideas.

It's also the greatest flaw, but eh.

In the end, it's better in my mind to have a wider range of preference; it means there's more stuff out there you can enjoy.

I think it is a case of perspective.

I mean, there are many horrible, horrible 'anthro' creations on here, and it doesn't even have to be because it's a certain species. I don't think I really have to elaborate exactly what is done to some of these characters to make them horrible.

So, with FA being so much more exposed to all these off-kilter portrayal of species, the range of what's considered an 'acceptable' anthro species widen.

In short, if I had just stuck to dA and nothing but, then yeah, okay. Some species, like pigs or elephants, may come off to me as not appealing in terms of art.

But because I HAVE been here on FA awhile, and have seen good examples of these characters versus the thousands of abomination this site has, I can appreciate a pig or elephant anthro.

But then again... I really likes Miss Piggy from the muppets, so really I don't mind anthro-piggies as long as they're drawn right. So yeah, I think it's just perspective and exposure.

In almost 90% of all cases with different species of anthros, I tend to lean on your running theory. I've seen different artists portray the same species but one does it perfectly for me, while the other does not. I think it depends on the artist and what you are looking for/expecting to see. I like/prefer when artists such as yourself make a clear distinction of what a human looks like, and what an anthromorphic creature looks like. I borderline hate it when people say "Look! These are all the species I can draw!", yet the all look the same in the face with just different ears, appendages, and coat colors. I love it when an artist can take an animal, create an anthromorphic version and stay true to the source. For me, I'm usually not picky when people try different species. It all depends on what is appealing to the eye, I guess.

Because my running theory usually has been "you never consider how it could possibly look good until someone portrays it just right".

Pretty much this for me. I have found that there are several artists that are able to portray certain characters in ways that I could not imagine liking at all. The opposite is also true, where some creatures/types of characters I like are made in a style or perspective that just does not agree with me.

Also, you can't seriously expect to get a clear answer for what is "normal" here, or anywhere really! XD

there are a lot of different species of animals that both worked and didn't work for anthro-izing. I feel that there is dislike of species because some furry fans have a set idea of who and what is acceptable and what is not. Avians get a lot of disliking and at the same time lots of love because it comes down to the artist and way its done. Personally, I'm all for wings on the arms instead of arms and wings on the back. But there is a lot of good back wing birds out there and shouldn't discourage people from liking the character. But the same applies to all. though I do find the idea of anthro-izing bugs and invetabriats very difficult and challenging to a lot of artist.

I don't find that being in the fandom has made me see things as less or more bizarre, I entered the fandom with an understanding of
what I felt comfortable with and what I considered acceptable but those things haven't changed in the 3 years I've been FA nor
have they really changed since my love of the fur was first kindled 10 years ago. Then again I may have misunderstood what you were asking o3o
and if so you should just ignore me

I think a lot of it has to do with, generally, Disney and Warner Brothers setting "the standard" for Anthro characters 70 years ago.
(And of course, the Anime influence over the past 20 years or so as well now)

Even if NOBODY want's to admit to it, they all have this "idealized" version of "how something should look" in the back of their mind.

A lot also depends on the situation the characters are placed in. For example, Housepets. It's a comic situation. They're on two legs, and they're cute. Does it distract from the story line? Not at all.

On the other hand, one of the strips that I read regularly, the characters are, for the most part, real animals that apparently have evolved to sentient two legged versions. It's VERY easy to get sucked into their lives in the story and not even realize "they be critters" instead of us. That his characters don't look "Furry" is one of the most striking aspects of the strip.

You sir, are correct in your running theory. I've seen both good and bad anthropomorphic portrayals. I have to admit that I greatly prefer furred mammals over other species, but I definitely appreciate good art, no matter the subject. (Avians, Scalies, and others included.)

Some of the artists I watch fall into the category where their characters all have pretty much similar faces and bodies, but with different ears, tails, etc. You are not only outstanding at expressing a species particular features in anthro-form, you are also a master of expression, and I enjoy your work all the more because of it!

My opinion on the matter is that any animal, real or imagined, can look good as an anthro and by extension any human can look fine with non-human traits. It has nothing at all to do with the creatures used and everything to do with how the artist depicts the character.

I could say all day that "I dislike _____ when anthro" but that's not going to be anything other than my personal preference focused through the lens of my experiences.

I think that maybe the reason that we find some animals more unattractive as anthros is because they're harder to impose on human faces- Take for example large cats. If we take a human and merely discolour the skin to match their fur pattern, we automatically can be like "oh that human looks like a tiger".

This kinda isn't the case with certain things like pigs, elephants, etc. because their discerning features happen to be things that aren't as "soft" or "cuddly" or streamlined as felines, canids, etc. elephants/pigs are really wrinkly and have oddly shaped appendages or body parts, insects are hard to get emotions from, and these are harder to impose on a human body and still make it look humanlike.

Of course, some artists are very talented at this- But they're less common and so most artists have less to look upon and say, "Wow that looks good". If more people drew them, they'd be more normalized and it wouldn't feel so ugly to us.

You do have a point. However, I'm not sure how someone could do certain anthros right, so until they do, I'll probably prefer the "prettier" ones. =P Yes, I'm biased. No, I don't care.