FA+
Shop
Tibby's perspective on anthro anatomy.
11 years ago
A few hours ago, 
rickgriffin posted this journal about his take on the anatomy of anthropomorphic or furry characters. He covered multiple topics throughout the journal and replies to comments, and has some very solid points that I tend to agree with. Since there was only so much I could put into a comment before it became a burden to look at and took up so much page space, I decided to condense what I could in the comment and create this journal to expand upon it.
Whenever I draw an anthro or furry character, I always try to keep a moderate balance between human and animal traits, although generally I do lean a bit more on the human side. Faces, of course, are mostly animal, but I add just the right amount of human to allow for expression to be recognisable and easily readable. On the matter of lips, I find myself divided. Like many people here, I don't like seeing human lips on a furry face. It's just unsettling. That said, however, on species of animal that still technically have "lips" of some sort (like my dog, whose bottom "lip" is rather visible due to a slight overbite), if one handles them properly they can look nice and add just the right amount of allure. Artists like Strype, Ipoke, and even Rick himself have all shown examples of drawing lips the right way (The Captain's Cigars, for example. I love that one). Other animal characteristics should also make themselves known, especially those that a particular species is known for. Otters, naturally, have kickass tails. The various marsupial species have recognisable pouches, Fennec foxes have large ears, rodents' incisors never stop growing, etc.
And finally, we get to the topic most favoured on this site— bits and boobies. In my personal and most humble opinion, mammaries should only exist on mammals. I don't exactly go for the "multiple sets" thing, though. You won't ever find me drawing a furry with six breasts. That is just nightmare fuel. I might consider some leeway on marsupial teats obscured by a pouch, but the general outer rack is limited to two. Birds and reptiles don't nurse, so there's really no reason to give them anything there. What would the do with them, anyway? They'd only get in the way. And when it comes to mammals, for the love of Pasta I hate seeing them ridiculously-oversized. I've had the misfortune of seeing women with cans the size of cantaloupes, and it is at most painful to watch them move around. Keep their chests realistically-sized and your girls will love you for it. Now I do have one character who is rather "gifted" in that department, but she also has a figure to support it. Sure, she runs an 'E' at least, but she's also six feet tall and in great shape (toned but not scary macho buff). Her back is more than strong enough to easily carry them around without pain or discomfort. She still can't lie on her stomach, though.
As for 'bits', well that's another divided issue. I know some people are all for dudes matching their real-world counterparts in the junk department, and I know some other people are practically elitist in their insistence that things should be kept humanoid down there. I personally don't care much in either direction, but it makes sense to lean on the animal-like side in situations in which it would be appropriate. If your character is easily recognised as his real-world species from the waist-up and the knees-down, why not in the space between? In the end it all boils down to personal preference on the part of the artist. To each his own.
Ladies, are another matter entirely. I'm not even going to be balanced on this one. I very much prefer ladies to look like a human down there, mainly because I've had the displeasure of knowing what a lot of species look like in real-life and it ain't pretty. Not to mention "specialised" va-jay-jays look wonky at best on anthropomorphic characters. I know, I just gave a bunch of solid reasoning for guy parts, but those just don't apply here. At least male genitals more or less have the same basic structure in all species, but female ones less so. Call me what you will, but I just don't like the concept.
So anyway, that's my take on the matter. Thanks for reading, and if you have anything to opine I implore you do so below. I like hearing (or in this case reading) your thoughts on matters like this!
rickgriffin posted this journal about his take on the anatomy of anthropomorphic or furry characters. He covered multiple topics throughout the journal and replies to comments, and has some very solid points that I tend to agree with. Since there was only so much I could put into a comment before it became a burden to look at and took up so much page space, I decided to condense what I could in the comment and create this journal to expand upon it.Whenever I draw an anthro or furry character, I always try to keep a moderate balance between human and animal traits, although generally I do lean a bit more on the human side. Faces, of course, are mostly animal, but I add just the right amount of human to allow for expression to be recognisable and easily readable. On the matter of lips, I find myself divided. Like many people here, I don't like seeing human lips on a furry face. It's just unsettling. That said, however, on species of animal that still technically have "lips" of some sort (like my dog, whose bottom "lip" is rather visible due to a slight overbite), if one handles them properly they can look nice and add just the right amount of allure. Artists like Strype, Ipoke, and even Rick himself have all shown examples of drawing lips the right way (The Captain's Cigars, for example. I love that one). Other animal characteristics should also make themselves known, especially those that a particular species is known for. Otters, naturally, have kickass tails. The various marsupial species have recognisable pouches, Fennec foxes have large ears, rodents' incisors never stop growing, etc.
And finally, we get to the topic most favoured on this site— bits and boobies. In my personal and most humble opinion, mammaries should only exist on mammals. I don't exactly go for the "multiple sets" thing, though. You won't ever find me drawing a furry with six breasts. That is just nightmare fuel. I might consider some leeway on marsupial teats obscured by a pouch, but the general outer rack is limited to two. Birds and reptiles don't nurse, so there's really no reason to give them anything there. What would the do with them, anyway? They'd only get in the way. And when it comes to mammals, for the love of Pasta I hate seeing them ridiculously-oversized. I've had the misfortune of seeing women with cans the size of cantaloupes, and it is at most painful to watch them move around. Keep their chests realistically-sized and your girls will love you for it. Now I do have one character who is rather "gifted" in that department, but she also has a figure to support it. Sure, she runs an 'E' at least, but she's also six feet tall and in great shape (toned but not scary macho buff). Her back is more than strong enough to easily carry them around without pain or discomfort. She still can't lie on her stomach, though.
As for 'bits', well that's another divided issue. I know some people are all for dudes matching their real-world counterparts in the junk department, and I know some other people are practically elitist in their insistence that things should be kept humanoid down there. I personally don't care much in either direction, but it makes sense to lean on the animal-like side in situations in which it would be appropriate. If your character is easily recognised as his real-world species from the waist-up and the knees-down, why not in the space between? In the end it all boils down to personal preference on the part of the artist. To each his own.
Ladies, are another matter entirely. I'm not even going to be balanced on this one. I very much prefer ladies to look like a human down there, mainly because I've had the displeasure of knowing what a lot of species look like in real-life and it ain't pretty. Not to mention "specialised" va-jay-jays look wonky at best on anthropomorphic characters. I know, I just gave a bunch of solid reasoning for guy parts, but those just don't apply here. At least male genitals more or less have the same basic structure in all species, but female ones less so. Call me what you will, but I just don't like the concept.
So anyway, that's my take on the matter. Thanks for reading, and if you have anything to opine I implore you do so below. I like hearing (or in this case reading) your thoughts on matters like this!
