FA+
Shop
Interesting Dilemma
Posted 15 years agoSo...
I'm not an artist. Not the kind that draws pictures anyway. I'm a very capable writer and I've been honing my craft for years. I'd like to think I'm as good with words as some of you are with your pictures.
I have some stories I'd like to continue, namely "The Beowolf Project". I have a lot of interesting ideas for the story. It's always been my contention that a story that includes heavily adult sexual situations doesn't have to skimp on story and content. Quite the contrary, but our culture very rarely combines the two, even such stories as Ann Rice's Sleeping Beauty series are little more than masturbatory fantasies with some plot to string it all together. As humans we live our lives in these two very secret and separate worlds. The worlds of our 'normal' lives and the world that is our sexual lives. In fact, I've often noticed in these two factions of our lives we take on very different roles and personalities. At the same time, it's something all humans do and deal with. I think people are often more driven by their sexual needs in their lives than many other motivations and factors, yet somehow this all goes undiscussed and explored. Most modern books even tend to fade to black, or have very demure sexual encounters between characters, when often times most people would be getting out the furry cuffs and the anal lube. This schizophrenia of our personalities is a very interesting concept I'd like to explore more, but I wonder if there is an audience for such things?
My problem isn't so much that, as I would like to eventually develop character sheets and drawings for all the characters in my story, perhaps even design some story boards, comics and even some flash animation, except for one major problem. I don't draw. I don't draw in the way that I've noticed a lot of the good artists here have a hard time using the English language. Sometimes one skill doesn't beget the other. What I've noticed when I read over artist's commission notes is that they want some kind of drawn character reference sheet to go off from. I can WRITE you endless reams of what I see the character looking like in text format, but for me to actually try to draw something would just be a travesty. I know what good art looks like, and I don't make it.
That being said. Are there any artists out there that might be up to the challenge of drawing some character references with out first having a drawn character to draw from?
I'm not an artist. Not the kind that draws pictures anyway. I'm a very capable writer and I've been honing my craft for years. I'd like to think I'm as good with words as some of you are with your pictures.
I have some stories I'd like to continue, namely "The Beowolf Project". I have a lot of interesting ideas for the story. It's always been my contention that a story that includes heavily adult sexual situations doesn't have to skimp on story and content. Quite the contrary, but our culture very rarely combines the two, even such stories as Ann Rice's Sleeping Beauty series are little more than masturbatory fantasies with some plot to string it all together. As humans we live our lives in these two very secret and separate worlds. The worlds of our 'normal' lives and the world that is our sexual lives. In fact, I've often noticed in these two factions of our lives we take on very different roles and personalities. At the same time, it's something all humans do and deal with. I think people are often more driven by their sexual needs in their lives than many other motivations and factors, yet somehow this all goes undiscussed and explored. Most modern books even tend to fade to black, or have very demure sexual encounters between characters, when often times most people would be getting out the furry cuffs and the anal lube. This schizophrenia of our personalities is a very interesting concept I'd like to explore more, but I wonder if there is an audience for such things?
My problem isn't so much that, as I would like to eventually develop character sheets and drawings for all the characters in my story, perhaps even design some story boards, comics and even some flash animation, except for one major problem. I don't draw. I don't draw in the way that I've noticed a lot of the good artists here have a hard time using the English language. Sometimes one skill doesn't beget the other. What I've noticed when I read over artist's commission notes is that they want some kind of drawn character reference sheet to go off from. I can WRITE you endless reams of what I see the character looking like in text format, but for me to actually try to draw something would just be a travesty. I know what good art looks like, and I don't make it.
That being said. Are there any artists out there that might be up to the challenge of drawing some character references with out first having a drawn character to draw from?
Art Theivery
Posted 16 years agoBeing an enthusist of art for years, in it's many forms, I've had a chance to see alot of the differnt aspects of it. One thing that tends to pop up alot is the concept of art copying/theft. Especially online, and in the realm of made up and fantastical characters. Before I get to far into the subject lets stop for a moment and exam art as a whole.
There are MANY different kinds of art. For this discussion I'm going to stick with using a medium to express two dimensionally a three dimensional snap shot of a scene. In essence, that is what anyone is doing when they draw, wether it be with crayons, pencils, markers, paint, or even computers. The artist is attempting to capture some moment of three dimensional reality.
As far as humans can figure it, people began to draw to tell storys and keep records of real life experinces. Such things as hunting and gathering food or handprints to represent age and lineage. They might have been scratched in the dirt, and later drawn on cave walls and such with natural dyes and pigments.
Over the years of course it has evolved from simplely a crude form of writing in attempt to survive over time, to become a means of expression. The principals remain the same though. Trying to capture a moment in time. As art evolved so did it's subjects. Moving and ranging from people and inanimate objects to landscapes, and now, even unrealistic, made up fantasies that do no exsist nore have any real frame of refrence from wence they came. Or do they?
The truth of the matter is, even though fantastic art, such a Furry art, might not have any real analogies to pull from, every peice of the whole is still burrowed from some realistic source. The only art that does not do this is called abstract art. This art truely has no real frames of refrence in any reality, and are simply forms and colors combined in unique ways.
Furry art combines features of real animals, and applies them(generally), to a basic humaniod frame. The level of melding of the two species is decided by the artist, and how the two forms blend together, in some sort of coherent and vissually pleasing manner is also up to the artist, but in most cases, the anatomy is pulled directly from either source. That is to say, wether they imagine the animal creature, or actually use some method of refrence, the skeletal structures, muscularture, and fur patterns, designs and other extremeties, including ears, muzzles and sexual organs tend to be pulled directly from a 'real' source. Add into this mix the fact that generally the subjects are portrayed in a cartoon-like manner and you start walking a very slippery slope. A cartoon, generally is an art style that realizes the unreality of the subject and allows it to take on attributes and characteristics that would not normally be seen or pratical. (Giant gravity defying breasts, waspish waists, dicks bigger than the creature it's attached to, flesh and skin with elasticity beyond normal, allowing unreal situations and events)
One of the earliest forms of this artform comes from Walt Disney, which is where a great deal of the current Furry artform devoloped from. His art style was generally very cartoony humanoid animals, who looked more or less human with animal characteristics, but maintained a very cartoony unreality. Later came Warner Brothers and their 'Looney Tunes', which kept a more animalistic featured characters and had them simply act more human. These too also relied upon the unreality of the cartoon world, often making them near invicible despite massive injuries and traumas.
The 1970-90's saw a great influx of these cartoons, on movies and more often on Saturday morning and then after school cartoons, biased for younger children, even up into the teens. As the children grew, so did the cartoons and their subject matter, going from simply wacky slap-stick, to more mature themes and situations, where a coherent plot and arching story was more important.
The children growing up with these influences in their lives are obviously those also most responsable for starting the furry animation trend. There are other sources for furry art, including pagan believes such as totem animals and older legends and fables of such things as were-wolves, and vampires, where humans can take on animal, and animal hybrid forms. Throw it all in a mixing pot and stir it up together, and you get the here and now.
The art I see now, is a combination of all of these sources mixed together. My question is, if you borrow from more than two sources, is THAT orrigonal? Or perhaps from seven sources. The truth of the matter seems not to me WHERE people get their insperation, but how closely their end product resembles what inspired their depictions to begin with.
An artist drawing a live human figure, or a real bowl of fruit, could be said to be stealing the subject matter, as they do their best to recreate the subject matter as accurately as possible (usually). With furry art, there is no base subject to come from. Everything comes from imagination. Any artist will admit, most people, unless exceptionally gifted, start by mimicing what they can already see using certain techniques defined by the larger artistic world.
When you're trying to draw an apple as close as possible to a real apple you have infront of you, so you can work on your techniques, no one bothers you about 'stealing' the image. When you try your best to imitate an art style, be it professional like Disney or WB, or more mundane, as some one you saw on an art sharing website, you are actually stealing the art. Never mind that when the origonal artist drew the picture of a nude mare morph bent over spreading her pussy, they used a human model from a picture, perhaps their own body, or their recollection of human anatomy and images of actual horses and/or their own reccollections of horse anatomy to draw the picture.
Now we get down to the nitty gritty of splitting hairs of the ownership of orginal characters and works of art. How many points of relavance do you need before it goes from imitating some form of virtual reality, to theft of anouther person's art? Do the horns, fur markings and stance, all beget theft, if the same three things are represented in a differnt drawing, but nothing else, including specific art style and subject matter?
I see some claiming certain combinations of animalistic character traits, including, horns, fur markings and sex as uncopiable, or it could be constreued as theft. I've seen arguements over stances and postions of various charaters in a same general manner as a form of art theft. What it comes down to, is people are feircely against other's copying their work.
I ask, what exactly defines original? And perhaps all artists should take a moment to realize their own influences, how they came to get where they are, and what it took for them to get there. Talent is most often organic, it is very rare for it to simply be, it requires pratice and time. Intergrating seven differnt styles into your art, is no more or less truely original, other than in the way you choose to combine those differnt styles.
The worry of your art being stolen, sold, taken credit for by others and such of course will always be there. If you wanted to split hairs on that level, I think honestly, most all furry art could come under the umbrella of Disney and WB copying and they should have an issue with you selling depictions of anthromorphic animals for money. Where does it all start and end?
I think ultimately, artists should realize the ultimate goal of their art is to express a moment. It's ment to be shared and consumed by as many people as they can, otherwise why would you put it on the net. Much like I'm sure there are artists with sketchbooks and sketchbooks full of almost completely copied art and styles used simply to pratice and get more aquainted with drawing. The notion of sharing the art then comes into relavance. Is it ok to do it as long as you don't show alot of other people? Or as long as you list that it's not your original work? What if you use the art as a templet and then change a few variables? Is it yours then? or theirs? Which amount of variables do you draw the line?
Just a few of my thoughts anyway.
There are MANY different kinds of art. For this discussion I'm going to stick with using a medium to express two dimensionally a three dimensional snap shot of a scene. In essence, that is what anyone is doing when they draw, wether it be with crayons, pencils, markers, paint, or even computers. The artist is attempting to capture some moment of three dimensional reality.
As far as humans can figure it, people began to draw to tell storys and keep records of real life experinces. Such things as hunting and gathering food or handprints to represent age and lineage. They might have been scratched in the dirt, and later drawn on cave walls and such with natural dyes and pigments.
Over the years of course it has evolved from simplely a crude form of writing in attempt to survive over time, to become a means of expression. The principals remain the same though. Trying to capture a moment in time. As art evolved so did it's subjects. Moving and ranging from people and inanimate objects to landscapes, and now, even unrealistic, made up fantasies that do no exsist nore have any real frame of refrence from wence they came. Or do they?
The truth of the matter is, even though fantastic art, such a Furry art, might not have any real analogies to pull from, every peice of the whole is still burrowed from some realistic source. The only art that does not do this is called abstract art. This art truely has no real frames of refrence in any reality, and are simply forms and colors combined in unique ways.
Furry art combines features of real animals, and applies them(generally), to a basic humaniod frame. The level of melding of the two species is decided by the artist, and how the two forms blend together, in some sort of coherent and vissually pleasing manner is also up to the artist, but in most cases, the anatomy is pulled directly from either source. That is to say, wether they imagine the animal creature, or actually use some method of refrence, the skeletal structures, muscularture, and fur patterns, designs and other extremeties, including ears, muzzles and sexual organs tend to be pulled directly from a 'real' source. Add into this mix the fact that generally the subjects are portrayed in a cartoon-like manner and you start walking a very slippery slope. A cartoon, generally is an art style that realizes the unreality of the subject and allows it to take on attributes and characteristics that would not normally be seen or pratical. (Giant gravity defying breasts, waspish waists, dicks bigger than the creature it's attached to, flesh and skin with elasticity beyond normal, allowing unreal situations and events)
One of the earliest forms of this artform comes from Walt Disney, which is where a great deal of the current Furry artform devoloped from. His art style was generally very cartoony humanoid animals, who looked more or less human with animal characteristics, but maintained a very cartoony unreality. Later came Warner Brothers and their 'Looney Tunes', which kept a more animalistic featured characters and had them simply act more human. These too also relied upon the unreality of the cartoon world, often making them near invicible despite massive injuries and traumas.
The 1970-90's saw a great influx of these cartoons, on movies and more often on Saturday morning and then after school cartoons, biased for younger children, even up into the teens. As the children grew, so did the cartoons and their subject matter, going from simply wacky slap-stick, to more mature themes and situations, where a coherent plot and arching story was more important.
The children growing up with these influences in their lives are obviously those also most responsable for starting the furry animation trend. There are other sources for furry art, including pagan believes such as totem animals and older legends and fables of such things as were-wolves, and vampires, where humans can take on animal, and animal hybrid forms. Throw it all in a mixing pot and stir it up together, and you get the here and now.
The art I see now, is a combination of all of these sources mixed together. My question is, if you borrow from more than two sources, is THAT orrigonal? Or perhaps from seven sources. The truth of the matter seems not to me WHERE people get their insperation, but how closely their end product resembles what inspired their depictions to begin with.
An artist drawing a live human figure, or a real bowl of fruit, could be said to be stealing the subject matter, as they do their best to recreate the subject matter as accurately as possible (usually). With furry art, there is no base subject to come from. Everything comes from imagination. Any artist will admit, most people, unless exceptionally gifted, start by mimicing what they can already see using certain techniques defined by the larger artistic world.
When you're trying to draw an apple as close as possible to a real apple you have infront of you, so you can work on your techniques, no one bothers you about 'stealing' the image. When you try your best to imitate an art style, be it professional like Disney or WB, or more mundane, as some one you saw on an art sharing website, you are actually stealing the art. Never mind that when the origonal artist drew the picture of a nude mare morph bent over spreading her pussy, they used a human model from a picture, perhaps their own body, or their recollection of human anatomy and images of actual horses and/or their own reccollections of horse anatomy to draw the picture.
Now we get down to the nitty gritty of splitting hairs of the ownership of orginal characters and works of art. How many points of relavance do you need before it goes from imitating some form of virtual reality, to theft of anouther person's art? Do the horns, fur markings and stance, all beget theft, if the same three things are represented in a differnt drawing, but nothing else, including specific art style and subject matter?
I see some claiming certain combinations of animalistic character traits, including, horns, fur markings and sex as uncopiable, or it could be constreued as theft. I've seen arguements over stances and postions of various charaters in a same general manner as a form of art theft. What it comes down to, is people are feircely against other's copying their work.
I ask, what exactly defines original? And perhaps all artists should take a moment to realize their own influences, how they came to get where they are, and what it took for them to get there. Talent is most often organic, it is very rare for it to simply be, it requires pratice and time. Intergrating seven differnt styles into your art, is no more or less truely original, other than in the way you choose to combine those differnt styles.
The worry of your art being stolen, sold, taken credit for by others and such of course will always be there. If you wanted to split hairs on that level, I think honestly, most all furry art could come under the umbrella of Disney and WB copying and they should have an issue with you selling depictions of anthromorphic animals for money. Where does it all start and end?
I think ultimately, artists should realize the ultimate goal of their art is to express a moment. It's ment to be shared and consumed by as many people as they can, otherwise why would you put it on the net. Much like I'm sure there are artists with sketchbooks and sketchbooks full of almost completely copied art and styles used simply to pratice and get more aquainted with drawing. The notion of sharing the art then comes into relavance. Is it ok to do it as long as you don't show alot of other people? Or as long as you list that it's not your original work? What if you use the art as a templet and then change a few variables? Is it yours then? or theirs? Which amount of variables do you draw the line?
Just a few of my thoughts anyway.
What is Art?
Posted 17 years agoRecently I was looking over DCRabbit's page cause I love his stuff and I noticed his recent journal,
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/483559/
It got me thinking about art and what it is, and to be honest I think he and alot of the artists here do themselves a disservice by saying that they don't make art.
First off, what the hell IS art? You ask 100 people I promise you, you'll get 100 completely differnt answers. What I think it is, is using a medium, be it painting, sketching, music, or sculpting to evoke emotion, to capture a moment in time, to show some sort of internal visualization and bring it to life.
Anyone who draws is an artist of the looses sense. The splitting of hairs comes down to, then, what kind of artist are they?
What talents and trainings are required? What skill is involved and how long it takes? Who is intrested in your work, and does an audience of any size really matter as to the quality or validity of it's message?
So you draw anthromorphic animals fucking. The stuff I see on here, I call art. The people I watch are amazing to me. Take it from a guy who can hardly draw more than some basic anime facial drawings and really basic full body stick figure poses. I know what I want to see. I know what I like and enjoy. My hands just probably won't ever do the work.
To see some on here envision and put to paper, a scorching hot female bunny-human hybrid in a comprimising postion getting stuffed full of cock, or in some hard-on inducing pose is art in my book. I can look at your picture and I see what's going on, I get the transmission of that hot fantasy moment in time, and it's arousing.
Some want to say that what sorts of emotions are transmitted with art are more valid than others and I think that's bullshit. I see people here growing in talent every day, wither it's because they want to depict the most realisitc looking cock they can imagine or because they are dedicated to the purity of some imagined artistic code is meaningless.
Some ask if it's a question of realism? Does it matter if your anatomy is perfectly proportioned to a human or animal you are trying to portray? Well in the end, only you can decide because that's the kind of art you want to express. I think making huge billowy unreal lush and gropable titties that you would never see on anyone anywhere is just as much art if not more so, because you managed to pinpoint what it is that makes them so very hot to people in the first place an exaggerated it to better effect. This takes imagination and talent. That's art.
Most artists, of any note in today's world and of old are most often very well known sell outs, if not, they wouldn't be known now would they? They where commisioned for kings and churches, functions and orginizations. They did what they did because they were paid. But they got paid because they loved to do it, and it wasn't the money that usually got themselves there to begin with I'm sure.
I can't imagine anyone creates and continues to work on HOW they create and what, unless they love it. I don't think there's anyone who ever decides when they start drawing, doodling, painting, or strumming on a gituar that they are going to do it to become rich and famious. It's the love for the medium itself, watching their talent progress that drives any artist. A real artist is his only and best critic and fan. You continue to do what you do because you like to see what you draw. That certainly is art, and certainly does motivate and challenge you weither you know it or not.
Art is expression. Don't judge what the expression is, nor how many others may find intrest in it. Those are not true markers. It's almost clique now, that an artist is only famious after he is dead, so obviously intrest isn't always a factor.
In the end I just want to say I love you guys and what you do. I love that you provide it for free, and am amazed at how prolific you all are. I think you're ALL Artists, and deserve recognition and kudos for the great work you do.
I appreciate it.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/483559/
It got me thinking about art and what it is, and to be honest I think he and alot of the artists here do themselves a disservice by saying that they don't make art.
First off, what the hell IS art? You ask 100 people I promise you, you'll get 100 completely differnt answers. What I think it is, is using a medium, be it painting, sketching, music, or sculpting to evoke emotion, to capture a moment in time, to show some sort of internal visualization and bring it to life.
Anyone who draws is an artist of the looses sense. The splitting of hairs comes down to, then, what kind of artist are they?
What talents and trainings are required? What skill is involved and how long it takes? Who is intrested in your work, and does an audience of any size really matter as to the quality or validity of it's message?
So you draw anthromorphic animals fucking. The stuff I see on here, I call art. The people I watch are amazing to me. Take it from a guy who can hardly draw more than some basic anime facial drawings and really basic full body stick figure poses. I know what I want to see. I know what I like and enjoy. My hands just probably won't ever do the work.
To see some on here envision and put to paper, a scorching hot female bunny-human hybrid in a comprimising postion getting stuffed full of cock, or in some hard-on inducing pose is art in my book. I can look at your picture and I see what's going on, I get the transmission of that hot fantasy moment in time, and it's arousing.
Some want to say that what sorts of emotions are transmitted with art are more valid than others and I think that's bullshit. I see people here growing in talent every day, wither it's because they want to depict the most realisitc looking cock they can imagine or because they are dedicated to the purity of some imagined artistic code is meaningless.
Some ask if it's a question of realism? Does it matter if your anatomy is perfectly proportioned to a human or animal you are trying to portray? Well in the end, only you can decide because that's the kind of art you want to express. I think making huge billowy unreal lush and gropable titties that you would never see on anyone anywhere is just as much art if not more so, because you managed to pinpoint what it is that makes them so very hot to people in the first place an exaggerated it to better effect. This takes imagination and talent. That's art.
Most artists, of any note in today's world and of old are most often very well known sell outs, if not, they wouldn't be known now would they? They where commisioned for kings and churches, functions and orginizations. They did what they did because they were paid. But they got paid because they loved to do it, and it wasn't the money that usually got themselves there to begin with I'm sure.
I can't imagine anyone creates and continues to work on HOW they create and what, unless they love it. I don't think there's anyone who ever decides when they start drawing, doodling, painting, or strumming on a gituar that they are going to do it to become rich and famious. It's the love for the medium itself, watching their talent progress that drives any artist. A real artist is his only and best critic and fan. You continue to do what you do because you like to see what you draw. That certainly is art, and certainly does motivate and challenge you weither you know it or not.
Art is expression. Don't judge what the expression is, nor how many others may find intrest in it. Those are not true markers. It's almost clique now, that an artist is only famious after he is dead, so obviously intrest isn't always a factor.
In the end I just want to say I love you guys and what you do. I love that you provide it for free, and am amazed at how prolific you all are. I think you're ALL Artists, and deserve recognition and kudos for the great work you do.
I appreciate it.
Stranger
Posted 17 years agoI don't rember when or why I made Growl exactly. It was during my MUCK phase, when I was searching the internet for new ways to explore erotic chats. I found Tapestries almost by accident. I think I happened upon some one who had a Taps profile online where their slutty female skunk really liked bears.
So I made one up.
That was years ago now, so far back the Tavern was still around. I've been lurking ever since. Delving into the strange and erotic world of Furries.
I wish I could say I was one, sometimes I want to. But I'm not. I don't ever feel like a bear, or even feel all that empathic towards animals. I long for the comradery, the closeness those who are seem to share.
I'm just some one who doesn't mind being a dirty old bear who likes to fuck naughty sexy animal girls. Yes I know most of them are guys. I'm not even latently gay. I just keep it out of my mind. Of course if I find out I'm playing with a guy, I can't help but be turned off.
I think it's kind of funny how so many want to be accepted and understood for the things that turn them on, but have a hard time respecting some one else who can't help what turns them off.
I love the art here, as you can tell by my favorites I really love the hardcore erotic art. Like most I grew up with anthromorphic Disney cartoons and aways felt a little guilty being attracted to female animals. Now I just don't give a fuck. It's hot and sexy and gets me off.
More often than not I wish I could say I was one. So I could go to the conventions and find some hot kinky girl who likes dirty art and sexy themes, a little geeky, a little gamer, a little quirky like me, and alot addicted to sex.
Sadly, I can't lie. I am not a furry.
It's strange because I can never seem to find any place where I fit in. I'm left instead to sad little cyber flings here and there. Years of practice have made me good at it. I have lots of partners. Fuck buddies as it were, but they are all just some strange passing blip on the internet. Never to be known or loved.
I know it's probably hard being a Fur, but it's even harder not being anything at all. You should smile, knowing that you have people that love and accept you. That you can find a place where people appreciate what and who you are. Some don't. Some never will.
So I made one up.
That was years ago now, so far back the Tavern was still around. I've been lurking ever since. Delving into the strange and erotic world of Furries.
I wish I could say I was one, sometimes I want to. But I'm not. I don't ever feel like a bear, or even feel all that empathic towards animals. I long for the comradery, the closeness those who are seem to share.
I'm just some one who doesn't mind being a dirty old bear who likes to fuck naughty sexy animal girls. Yes I know most of them are guys. I'm not even latently gay. I just keep it out of my mind. Of course if I find out I'm playing with a guy, I can't help but be turned off.
I think it's kind of funny how so many want to be accepted and understood for the things that turn them on, but have a hard time respecting some one else who can't help what turns them off.
I love the art here, as you can tell by my favorites I really love the hardcore erotic art. Like most I grew up with anthromorphic Disney cartoons and aways felt a little guilty being attracted to female animals. Now I just don't give a fuck. It's hot and sexy and gets me off.
More often than not I wish I could say I was one. So I could go to the conventions and find some hot kinky girl who likes dirty art and sexy themes, a little geeky, a little gamer, a little quirky like me, and alot addicted to sex.
Sadly, I can't lie. I am not a furry.
It's strange because I can never seem to find any place where I fit in. I'm left instead to sad little cyber flings here and there. Years of practice have made me good at it. I have lots of partners. Fuck buddies as it were, but they are all just some strange passing blip on the internet. Never to be known or loved.
I know it's probably hard being a Fur, but it's even harder not being anything at all. You should smile, knowing that you have people that love and accept you. That you can find a place where people appreciate what and who you are. Some don't. Some never will.
