
it pisses me off when people draw a purebred wolverine or ferret or bear or whatev and they make it digitigrade like stop
i have even seen like ferret fursuits that are digitigrade
unless the animal in question has digitigrade legs as part of its design (ex: Wolf/ferret crossbreed oc) then thats okay.
otherwise dont do it
no
this has been a public service announcement
i have even seen like ferret fursuits that are digitigrade
unless the animal in question has digitigrade legs as part of its design (ex: Wolf/ferret crossbreed oc) then thats okay.
otherwise dont do it
no
this has been a public service announcement
Category Artwork (Digital) / Animal related (non-anthro)
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 960px
File Size 104.2 kB
The concept of ursine, going to digigrade is.. pretty impractical, since they can already stand and walk. Moving from a flat-footed stance, into digigrade JUST because canines/felines are given it, makes no sense, moreso to people that enjoy the overall look, and not just something that's similiar to everything else
My specific sona has digigrade but that's only because I think it looks better on her ono I know they're plantigrade but I really just like my personal character with them
Really though, people need to look at the anatomy of the animal in question before drawing unless the original creator of the character says otherwise
Really though, people need to look at the anatomy of the animal in question before drawing unless the original creator of the character says otherwise
At first I was so used to drawing canines that their anatomy spilled over into my other creatures. D: But since then I have learned to do near-excessive amounts of research before drawing anything (especially things I'm not familiar with). I get that some people have different opinions over this sort of thing because art isn't a black and white, set-in-stone kinda thing, and I also get that every artist has his or her own style... But isn't it obvious that proper anatomy just looks better, aesthetically, if nothing else? I had an argument with someone once over whether dragon wings should have "elbow" spikes. They said that a dragon isn't real and wouldn't be able to fly anyway.. well, so what? It's incorporating the anatomy of an existing animal (e.g. a bat) and they do NOT have elbow spikes. That's just another personal peeve of mine..
Anyway, thank you for making this tutorial of sorts. Things like this are always helpful to me. :3
Anyway, thank you for making this tutorial of sorts. Things like this are always helpful to me. :3
I totally understand this like if it needs to be drawn correctly for something like a commission of a wolverine.
My pet peeve is people who won't accept things, like that I want to put digigrade and paw pads on my pure breed red panda. "It ruins the animal. They don't have that...". I'm sorry, I was never informed they when making an oc or suit I HAD to use the correct anatomy.
My pet peeve is people who won't accept things, like that I want to put digigrade and paw pads on my pure breed red panda. "It ruins the animal. They don't have that...". I'm sorry, I was never informed they when making an oc or suit I HAD to use the correct anatomy.
See, but why are you making your character a "red panda" if you don't LIKE the way red pandas actually look?
If you LIKE dog anatomy, make a dog OC with an extra-fluffy red panda tail + fur coloration!
The thing is, red pandas are NOT in ANY WAY defined by their coloration.
They are a species based off the combination of their features-- they are ONLY a "red panda" if they have those specific features, and are NOT a "red panda" if those features are not present.
The fact that they have a specific, unique combination of those particular body parts is what creates and defines that animal, not the fact that they have cute little face markings and a pretty striped tail. They were not classified as a species because they have different fur than other animals. Pelage is 100% irrelevant and meaningless to the definition of a species. (Different colorations can define a population, "race", etc., but not a species!)
And, while art is certainly a land away from reality where anything is possible... when you are drawing a real live animal that actually exists, then no amount of imagination will change what that animal really is. You may be able to emphasize features, like giving them an adorably-oversized forehead or big eyes, but if you suddenly change its feet to hooves, do you genuinely believe that animal would still be a "red panda"?
Of course, this may not sway your own outlook on things, but-... perhaps now you can at least see where we're coming from! :)
It's not a matter of us not "accepting" things... it's a matter of other people not "accepting" things!
Because you can use your imagination & artistic freedom to create anything you could ever want, but you can't change facts about real-life things that already exist, so why use an IRL-animal that obviously is NOT what you want when you COULD just show us your true creativity and create something new?? :)
Considering so many of these often-misrepresented animals are actually threatened with total species extinction, with many expected to go extinct within 20 years, why disrespect them? The features they have are what make them so beautiful and admirable! It's why we should love them! And in 20 years, when you may will never be able to see one alive ever again, we won't have any other species of cute, lazy, tree-dwelling plantigrade fox-bear to admire... :(
If you LIKE dog anatomy, make a dog OC with an extra-fluffy red panda tail + fur coloration!
The thing is, red pandas are NOT in ANY WAY defined by their coloration.
They are a species based off the combination of their features-- they are ONLY a "red panda" if they have those specific features, and are NOT a "red panda" if those features are not present.
The fact that they have a specific, unique combination of those particular body parts is what creates and defines that animal, not the fact that they have cute little face markings and a pretty striped tail. They were not classified as a species because they have different fur than other animals. Pelage is 100% irrelevant and meaningless to the definition of a species. (Different colorations can define a population, "race", etc., but not a species!)
And, while art is certainly a land away from reality where anything is possible... when you are drawing a real live animal that actually exists, then no amount of imagination will change what that animal really is. You may be able to emphasize features, like giving them an adorably-oversized forehead or big eyes, but if you suddenly change its feet to hooves, do you genuinely believe that animal would still be a "red panda"?
Of course, this may not sway your own outlook on things, but-... perhaps now you can at least see where we're coming from! :)
It's not a matter of us not "accepting" things... it's a matter of other people not "accepting" things!
Because you can use your imagination & artistic freedom to create anything you could ever want, but you can't change facts about real-life things that already exist, so why use an IRL-animal that obviously is NOT what you want when you COULD just show us your true creativity and create something new?? :)
Considering so many of these often-misrepresented animals are actually threatened with total species extinction, with many expected to go extinct within 20 years, why disrespect them? The features they have are what make them so beautiful and admirable! It's why we should love them! And in 20 years, when you may will never be able to see one alive ever again, we won't have any other species of cute, lazy, tree-dwelling plantigrade fox-bear to admire... :(
OMG RIGHT
^ ME EVERY DAY
PREACH IT BROTHER
I (obviously) have a massive bias against digitigrade lemurs, because not only are they plantigrade, but they don't even have paws, and yet I CONSTANTLY SEE THIS SHIT. DIGI LEMUR FURSUITS.
LIKE WTF
HOW HARD IS IT TO GOOGLE A SINGLE PHOTO??
I suppose that since mustelids + ursines + procyonids + etc. (basically, the majority of plantigrade critters) still have paws, I can sort of understand the confusion ("paws = digitigrade, amirite??")-- it can be SUPER HARD to find photos of them standing still, and in-motion a plantigrade paw can easily look digitigrade.
In fact, I've actually ended up struggling with this, myself, despite my years-worth of professional biology education, anatomical practices, & obsessive love of taxonomy & animal accuracy! When I wasn't sure if a few obscure mustelid species were truly plantigrade or not (based on taxonomy, they likely would be, but there are exceptions), this question ended up being a big problem, because photos were fairly inconclusive, and there was no mention of it on fact sheets/etc.!
WITH MOST OF THESE ANIMALS, THO? It's not hard. The info is out there. :V Bears being plantigrade is common knowledge.
-- and don't even get me started on digitigrade primates because omfg. don't even try to tell me u looked up a single photo & yet still drew dat shit with digi feet & nubbly pink pawpads
IDK, man. How people can draw a skunk, kangaroo, rabbit, etc. is totally beyond me. They are not "more appealing" with incorrect legs-- they are LESS appealing that way, because you're barely even drawing the same animal, anymore! Just make up a new species/make a hybrid if you want something with big ears and digi legs, y'know? The mentality of doing what you are "more used to/like more" for an animal that very obviously doesn't have those qualities is, frankly, something I cannot even comprehend.
~ AND THAT IS MY RANT FOR THE DAY ~
(It's so nice to see other folks fighting for this cause, though!! YESSSS!! POWER TO YOU!!)
^ ME EVERY DAY
PREACH IT BROTHER
I (obviously) have a massive bias against digitigrade lemurs, because not only are they plantigrade, but they don't even have paws, and yet I CONSTANTLY SEE THIS SHIT. DIGI LEMUR FURSUITS.
LIKE WTF
HOW HARD IS IT TO GOOGLE A SINGLE PHOTO??
I suppose that since mustelids + ursines + procyonids + etc. (basically, the majority of plantigrade critters) still have paws, I can sort of understand the confusion ("paws = digitigrade, amirite??")-- it can be SUPER HARD to find photos of them standing still, and in-motion a plantigrade paw can easily look digitigrade.
In fact, I've actually ended up struggling with this, myself, despite my years-worth of professional biology education, anatomical practices, & obsessive love of taxonomy & animal accuracy! When I wasn't sure if a few obscure mustelid species were truly plantigrade or not (based on taxonomy, they likely would be, but there are exceptions), this question ended up being a big problem, because photos were fairly inconclusive, and there was no mention of it on fact sheets/etc.!
WITH MOST OF THESE ANIMALS, THO? It's not hard. The info is out there. :V Bears being plantigrade is common knowledge.
-- and don't even get me started on digitigrade primates because omfg. don't even try to tell me u looked up a single photo & yet still drew dat shit with digi feet & nubbly pink pawpads
IDK, man. How people can draw a skunk, kangaroo, rabbit, etc. is totally beyond me. They are not "more appealing" with incorrect legs-- they are LESS appealing that way, because you're barely even drawing the same animal, anymore! Just make up a new species/make a hybrid if you want something with big ears and digi legs, y'know? The mentality of doing what you are "more used to/like more" for an animal that very obviously doesn't have those qualities is, frankly, something I cannot even comprehend.
~ AND THAT IS MY RANT FOR THE DAY ~
(It's so nice to see other folks fighting for this cause, though!! YESSSS!! POWER TO YOU!!)
Comments