FA+
Shop
763
Views
Views
38
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / Comics
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 839 x 1081
File Size 894.4 kB
Report this content
★
More from czgoldedition
Furry Art: The Comic - Page 1.
Page 1 of an indefinite number of pages.. probably three or four.
Furry art gets a bad rap; this comic will be my own little attempt at refuting that. It was inspired by last week's sketchbook topic in my portfolio class, "cliche". And since my art teacher absolutely hates furry art.. well, I couldn't resist. :P
Fursons clearly depicted in the second panel are: up front, Kit (MicahFennec's fursona), to the far right, Larathen, next to him, HikariDarkfire, and behind them both, Moose_BMD. I didn't wind up using as many folks in that panel as I thought I would because 1) I got lazy and 2) I like how it goes into sketchiness on one side.. but mostly because I got lazy, yeah. XD But never fear, if you volunteered to be in the comic, and aren't on this page, you'll probably appear on a consequent page. :3
I took a bajillion photos of myself to work off as references for this.. I was trying to get Chinook, my fursona, to look as much like I do in real life as possible. It took forever, but I'm really fairly pleased with the results. :3
Furry art gets a bad rap; this comic will be my own little attempt at refuting that. It was inspired by last week's sketchbook topic in my portfolio class, "cliche". And since my art teacher absolutely hates furry art.. well, I couldn't resist. :P
Fursons clearly depicted in the second panel are: up front, Kit (MicahFennec's fursona), to the far right, Larathen, next to him, HikariDarkfire, and behind them both, Moose_BMD. I didn't wind up using as many folks in that panel as I thought I would because 1) I got lazy and 2) I like how it goes into sketchiness on one side.. but mostly because I got lazy, yeah. XD But never fear, if you volunteered to be in the comic, and aren't on this page, you'll probably appear on a consequent page. :3
I took a bajillion photos of myself to work off as references for this.. I was trying to get Chinook, my fursona, to look as much like I do in real life as possible. It took forever, but I'm really fairly pleased with the results. :3
Category All / Comics
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 839 x 1081px
File Size 894.4 kB
Go get em! I always loved doing things like this. Stick it to em like you mean it, because I know you do!
If you want to expand on things, try going into one aspect of the uniqueness of furry imagination - hybrids. Look at me, half lynx and half dragon! Heck, use me as an example if you want! :)
If you want to expand on things, try going into one aspect of the uniqueness of furry imagination - hybrids. Look at me, half lynx and half dragon! Heck, use me as an example if you want! :)
-bows- Oh great sage of the arts, speak your words of wisdom!
But really... I've never understood why people are always so uptight about furry art. It's still art... just with a different perspective... just like those really really boring still-lifes with fruit in a bowl.
Only our fruit happens to be sexier XDDD
But really... I've never understood why people are always so uptight about furry art. It's still art... just with a different perspective... just like those really really boring still-lifes with fruit in a bowl.
Only our fruit happens to be sexier XDDD
When I make art I always ask the question: "What's it for". I've seen hundreds of drawings of wolf characters posing, and the only reason they are even in the picture in the first place is because the artist likes to draw wolf people posing.
Furry art is still art, but the majority of it suffers from being ill-communicated, and boring. It's the same stuff, communicated in the same way. Over, and over, and over again. There are many "furry" images that would be better if they didn't rely on the same species and character. There was one image I saw called the "Puppet Master" where a wolf was coming out of the flames to dangle people from his strings.
Why is it a wolf? Wolves aren't demonic creatures, why is it playing a satanic role. The only reason I could come up with is that the artists likes wolves.
And sure, I suppose you can use it to show off the animal side of sexuality, but again, a ton of people have done this already, and not very gracefully I might add. I'm sure there are other ways to express this idea than a pony getting up the ass by a griffin, or a wolf fucking a husky.
This is why most furry art isn't taken very seriously by people who aren't in the fandom. The artists are in love with one way of expressing an idea, and don't diverge at all.
Furry art is still art, but the majority of it suffers from being ill-communicated, and boring. It's the same stuff, communicated in the same way. Over, and over, and over again. There are many "furry" images that would be better if they didn't rely on the same species and character. There was one image I saw called the "Puppet Master" where a wolf was coming out of the flames to dangle people from his strings.
Why is it a wolf? Wolves aren't demonic creatures, why is it playing a satanic role. The only reason I could come up with is that the artists likes wolves.
And sure, I suppose you can use it to show off the animal side of sexuality, but again, a ton of people have done this already, and not very gracefully I might add. I'm sure there are other ways to express this idea than a pony getting up the ass by a griffin, or a wolf fucking a husky.
This is why most furry art isn't taken very seriously by people who aren't in the fandom. The artists are in love with one way of expressing an idea, and don't diverge at all.
Very true - in fact, I've felt stifled and bored by some of the things the "fandom" produces on occasion. However, the frustration I was attempting to express with this comic is the fact that other art forms equally thoughtless as some generic furry art is are upheld by "normal" people (folks not in the "fandom") as artwork while furry art is not. Some artists paint nothing but still lives of fruit. What's the significance of that? Probably as close to nothing as an artist who draw nothing but a random wolf posing. Yet people value the fruit, and not the wolves.
If an artist were to draw their literal, human selves dangling little puppets over flames - the art community as large would be more likely to take it seriously than if that same artist drew themselves as a wolf dangling them, as in your example. This is what does not make sense to me, and this is what angers me. Why is representing yourself as an animal not meaningful, while just representing yourself as your boring ol' self is? And as for the animalistic side of things - the 'griffin stuffing a pony' may not be meaningful to any random viewer, but to the people those characters represent.. it means the world. And THAT is art. An expression, a feeling, an exploration. In this case, in expression of love and /or lust, capturing the feeling associated with it between them, and exploring a world where these feelings can be found acceptable.
Not that I'm all that into the erotic side of things, but I definitely find that more interesting than fruit, a generic portrait, or some bogus abstraction.
If an artist were to draw their literal, human selves dangling little puppets over flames - the art community as large would be more likely to take it seriously than if that same artist drew themselves as a wolf dangling them, as in your example. This is what does not make sense to me, and this is what angers me. Why is representing yourself as an animal not meaningful, while just representing yourself as your boring ol' self is? And as for the animalistic side of things - the 'griffin stuffing a pony' may not be meaningful to any random viewer, but to the people those characters represent.. it means the world. And THAT is art. An expression, a feeling, an exploration. In this case, in expression of love and /or lust, capturing the feeling associated with it between them, and exploring a world where these feelings can be found acceptable.
Not that I'm all that into the erotic side of things, but I definitely find that more interesting than fruit, a generic portrait, or some bogus abstraction.
Very true - in fact, I've felt stifled and bored by some of the things the "fandom" produces on occasion. However, the frustration I was attempting to express with this comic is the fact that other art forms equally thoughtless as some generic furry art is are upheld by "normal" people (folks not in the "fandom") as artwork while furry art is not. Some artists paint nothing but still lives of fruit. What's the significance of that? Probably as close to nothing as an artist who draw nothing but a random wolf posing. Yet people value the fruit, and not the wolves.
I have yet to see a single well known artist that only paints fruit. Fruit is a common subject because the simple shape, texture, and color of the study make it ideal for learning how to render hue and value. Not because the subject or message is particularly interesting. The only value it has these days is nostalgic, since most agree that bowls of fruit, perhaps with a side of wine, are cliche.
Non-anthropomorphic wolves are an extremely popular subject in wildlife paintings. I see them in malls all the time over the US. Anthro wolves not so much because they are either too strange, cartoony, or filled with native american influences that not everyone is big on. This doesn't mean that they don't have value (although I think that they are pretty cliche), but they don't appeal to the average consumer. The fruit bowl wins out because it is non-offensive and Grandma probably had one.
"If an artist were to draw their literal, human selves dangling little puppets over flames - the art community as large would be more likely to take it seriously than if that same artist drew themselves as a wolf dangling them, as in your example."[i]
But you are assuming that the artist is trying to render a version of themselves to begin with. Most artists, including myself, don't put themselves in their work to begin with. Sure, facets of our personality sometimes get in there, but that can't be helped. I don't want to draw picture after picture of "me" or what is essentially "me", because most people don't give a damn. A good self portrait is taking a facet of your traits and exaggerating it or twisting it around. Artists have the advantage of mirroring traits of people we can't normally see.
Also note that I never said the "puppet master" had to be human. If a human did it that would be cliche (and emo) too. As an aside, it would have probably been much more interesting if he used a squid, its huge tentacles holding a guy up like a puppet.
[i]This is what does not make sense to me, and this is what angers me. Why is representing yourself as an animal not meaningful, while just representing yourself as your boring ol' self is?
If an artists insists on drawing themselves, the best ones can do it in a really interesting way without resorting to turning themselves into "Wolfy McLarge Strong" to do it. If anything this is the more honest approach since nearly all of the fursona's I've ever seen look and act like the artist wishes they were percieved, rather than how they actually are.
http://www.conceptart.org/artist/an.....1500px_web.jpg
And as for the animalistic side of things - the 'griffin stuffing a pony' may not be meaningful to any random viewer, but to the people those characters represent.. it means the world. And THAT is art. An expression, a feeling, an exploration. In this case, in expression of love and /or lust, capturing the feeling associated with it between them, and exploring a world where these feelings can be found acceptable.[i]
Art is used to convey a message. If it successfully coveys a message between a woman who pretends she's a pony, and a man who pretends he's a gryphon online, then it succeeds for those two people. To everyone else the art is a bit too personal and confusing. The artist can complain about this, it wasn't for a general audience anyway. It was for two people, and if others like it that's just luck.
If one wishes to send a message to the public about feelings of animal lust they have to do it in a way that everyone can understand. Not just pony-girl and gryph boy. They have to speak on a level that everyone can relate to. It is a foolish artists who thinks that it's the viewers fault that their point didn't get across.
Here is a good example of an artist depicting animal lust: http://www.luc.edu/depts/history/de....._Blake_Great-R
[i]Not that I'm all that into the erotic side of things, but I definitely find that more interesting than fruit, a generic portrait, or some bogus abstraction.
Okay now I don't understand this. You complain about people having trouble finding meaning in a genre that's rather niche to begin with, then trash genres you don't understand.
Furry art is no different then any of the genres you dislike. Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it any less valid than a horse diddling a poodle (with EMOTION!)
I have yet to see a single well known artist that only paints fruit. Fruit is a common subject because the simple shape, texture, and color of the study make it ideal for learning how to render hue and value. Not because the subject or message is particularly interesting. The only value it has these days is nostalgic, since most agree that bowls of fruit, perhaps with a side of wine, are cliche.
Non-anthropomorphic wolves are an extremely popular subject in wildlife paintings. I see them in malls all the time over the US. Anthro wolves not so much because they are either too strange, cartoony, or filled with native american influences that not everyone is big on. This doesn't mean that they don't have value (although I think that they are pretty cliche), but they don't appeal to the average consumer. The fruit bowl wins out because it is non-offensive and Grandma probably had one.
"If an artist were to draw their literal, human selves dangling little puppets over flames - the art community as large would be more likely to take it seriously than if that same artist drew themselves as a wolf dangling them, as in your example."[i]
But you are assuming that the artist is trying to render a version of themselves to begin with. Most artists, including myself, don't put themselves in their work to begin with. Sure, facets of our personality sometimes get in there, but that can't be helped. I don't want to draw picture after picture of "me" or what is essentially "me", because most people don't give a damn. A good self portrait is taking a facet of your traits and exaggerating it or twisting it around. Artists have the advantage of mirroring traits of people we can't normally see.
Also note that I never said the "puppet master" had to be human. If a human did it that would be cliche (and emo) too. As an aside, it would have probably been much more interesting if he used a squid, its huge tentacles holding a guy up like a puppet.
[i]This is what does not make sense to me, and this is what angers me. Why is representing yourself as an animal not meaningful, while just representing yourself as your boring ol' self is?
If an artists insists on drawing themselves, the best ones can do it in a really interesting way without resorting to turning themselves into "Wolfy McLarge Strong" to do it. If anything this is the more honest approach since nearly all of the fursona's I've ever seen look and act like the artist wishes they were percieved, rather than how they actually are.
http://www.conceptart.org/artist/an.....1500px_web.jpg
And as for the animalistic side of things - the 'griffin stuffing a pony' may not be meaningful to any random viewer, but to the people those characters represent.. it means the world. And THAT is art. An expression, a feeling, an exploration. In this case, in expression of love and /or lust, capturing the feeling associated with it between them, and exploring a world where these feelings can be found acceptable.[i]
Art is used to convey a message. If it successfully coveys a message between a woman who pretends she's a pony, and a man who pretends he's a gryphon online, then it succeeds for those two people. To everyone else the art is a bit too personal and confusing. The artist can complain about this, it wasn't for a general audience anyway. It was for two people, and if others like it that's just luck.
If one wishes to send a message to the public about feelings of animal lust they have to do it in a way that everyone can understand. Not just pony-girl and gryph boy. They have to speak on a level that everyone can relate to. It is a foolish artists who thinks that it's the viewers fault that their point didn't get across.
Here is a good example of an artist depicting animal lust: http://www.luc.edu/depts/history/de....._Blake_Great-R
[i]Not that I'm all that into the erotic side of things, but I definitely find that more interesting than fruit, a generic portrait, or some bogus abstraction.
Okay now I don't understand this. You complain about people having trouble finding meaning in a genre that's rather niche to begin with, then trash genres you don't understand.
Furry art is no different then any of the genres you dislike. Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it any less valid than a horse diddling a poodle (with EMOTION!)
Heh, it's okay.
Anyway, I trash other genres because I'm bitter - not because I don't understand them. I draw them too. If you check out my DevART gallery, you'll see that I draw a ton more than simply "furry" artwork. And I used to work as a portrait artist professionally. I just adore a lot of "furry" work, and my art teacher trashes it and fantasy artwork in general constantly. Hence the bitterness, and hence the motivation behind my creation of this comic.
As for cliche - I despise the word cliche. It angers me for reasons I won't go into here; hence why I also subtly trashed the word cliche in the comic. XD I also despise art critics. In hindsight, it was probably wrong of me to speak out against other art while trying to defend furry art.
Basically, my mantra: draw what you life to draw! Don't let "the man" tell you it's "not art".
Anyway, I trash other genres because I'm bitter - not because I don't understand them. I draw them too. If you check out my DevART gallery, you'll see that I draw a ton more than simply "furry" artwork. And I used to work as a portrait artist professionally. I just adore a lot of "furry" work, and my art teacher trashes it and fantasy artwork in general constantly. Hence the bitterness, and hence the motivation behind my creation of this comic.
As for cliche - I despise the word cliche. It angers me for reasons I won't go into here; hence why I also subtly trashed the word cliche in the comic. XD I also despise art critics. In hindsight, it was probably wrong of me to speak out against other art while trying to defend furry art.
Basically, my mantra: draw what you life to draw! Don't let "the man" tell you it's "not art".
Anyway, I trash other genres because I'm bitter - not because I don't understand them. I draw them too. If you check out my DevART gallery, you'll see that I draw a ton more than simply "furry" artwork. And I used to work as a portrait artist professionally. I just adore a lot of "furry" work, and my art teacher trashes it and fantasy artwork in general constantly. Hence the bitterness, and hence the motivation behind my creation of this comic.
Yeah but trashing genres as a whole isn't a good way to respond to these criticisms. In an ideal world, art would be handled on a case by case basis and we wouldn't have any genres to begin with. However, things are rarely ideal.
As for cliche - I despise the word cliche. It angers me for reasons I won't go into here; hence why I also subtly trashed the word cliche in the comic. XD I also despise art critics. In hindsight, it was probably wrong of me to speak out against other art while trying to defend furry art.
Yeah, but it's easier than saying "I've seen this over and over again and I'm sick of seeing it draw something else."
Basically, my mantra: draw what you life to draw! Don't let "the man" tell you it's "not art".
I agree, but the fine art world is a harsh mistress. Unfortunately it is easily swayed by popular opinion and trends. These days you can become a fine artist not by skill, but by the ability to pitch your idea. No matter how poorly executed. Only the truly best last, but the artist is usually dead by that point. I could write about this forever though so I will stop now.
Thanks for chatting with me, even if we don't agree on all points I'm glad to see you listened to my POV and didn't get ticked or block me or anything. Unfortunately, I'm usually not that lucky!
Yeah but trashing genres as a whole isn't a good way to respond to these criticisms. In an ideal world, art would be handled on a case by case basis and we wouldn't have any genres to begin with. However, things are rarely ideal.
As for cliche - I despise the word cliche. It angers me for reasons I won't go into here; hence why I also subtly trashed the word cliche in the comic. XD I also despise art critics. In hindsight, it was probably wrong of me to speak out against other art while trying to defend furry art.
Yeah, but it's easier than saying "I've seen this over and over again and I'm sick of seeing it draw something else."
Basically, my mantra: draw what you life to draw! Don't let "the man" tell you it's "not art".
I agree, but the fine art world is a harsh mistress. Unfortunately it is easily swayed by popular opinion and trends. These days you can become a fine artist not by skill, but by the ability to pitch your idea. No matter how poorly executed. Only the truly best last, but the artist is usually dead by that point. I could write about this forever though so I will stop now.
Thanks for chatting with me, even if we don't agree on all points I'm glad to see you listened to my POV and didn't get ticked or block me or anything. Unfortunately, I'm usually not that lucky!
Yeah, but it's easier than saying "I've seen this over and over again and I'm sick of seeing it draw something else."
Well, the reason "cliche" bothers me so is that many fine artist critics tend to whip out the "cliche" card as use it to dismiss art forms they dislike, such as fantasy or science-fiction related. And sometimes there is a basis to call something "cliche", granted - but often its use is unfounded. For example, I tend to draw a lot of animals, a lot of portraits, a lot of political artwork.. and not all *that* much else. So I thought, to be different for once, I should try and draw something different. And randomly, I drew the grim reaper wearing a sign which read: "free hugs", using ink and torn up pieces of a xerox glued down for his eyes, the background, and a few other bits. I thought it would be amusing. My art teacher hated it. He said that while it was well done, it was "cliche". And that irked me immensely, because I'd never drawn a grim reaper before in my life. True, I suppose other people probably do draw imagery involving the reaper, but I hadn't really thought about it when I did the piece, you know? It wasn't like I was *trying* to conform to their subject matter of choice. So, hence my dislike of the word when applied to art - just because something has been done previously doesn't make it invalid. In some cases, it might even make the image stronger, like in my example: using any other figure aside from the reaper wouldn't have the same satirical effect. It was the very familiarity said figure and what it embodies that made the piece effective, I thought.
I agree, but the fine art world is a harsh mistress.
I've gotten that impression, yes, and I'm none too fond of it. I just enjoy art for its own sake - whether I personally enjoy it, if it tells a story or expresses an idea, the quality of its execution, etc.
Thanks for chatting with me, even if we don't agree on all points I'm glad to see you listened to my POV and didn't get ticked or block me or anything. Unfortunately, I'm usually not that lucky!
Oh, no problem. It's always a pleasure to have a discussion and hear someone else's ideas, even if on a topic that dismays me. :]
Well, the reason "cliche" bothers me so is that many fine artist critics tend to whip out the "cliche" card as use it to dismiss art forms they dislike, such as fantasy or science-fiction related. And sometimes there is a basis to call something "cliche", granted - but often its use is unfounded. For example, I tend to draw a lot of animals, a lot of portraits, a lot of political artwork.. and not all *that* much else. So I thought, to be different for once, I should try and draw something different. And randomly, I drew the grim reaper wearing a sign which read: "free hugs", using ink and torn up pieces of a xerox glued down for his eyes, the background, and a few other bits. I thought it would be amusing. My art teacher hated it. He said that while it was well done, it was "cliche". And that irked me immensely, because I'd never drawn a grim reaper before in my life. True, I suppose other people probably do draw imagery involving the reaper, but I hadn't really thought about it when I did the piece, you know? It wasn't like I was *trying* to conform to their subject matter of choice. So, hence my dislike of the word when applied to art - just because something has been done previously doesn't make it invalid. In some cases, it might even make the image stronger, like in my example: using any other figure aside from the reaper wouldn't have the same satirical effect. It was the very familiarity said figure and what it embodies that made the piece effective, I thought.
I agree, but the fine art world is a harsh mistress.
I've gotten that impression, yes, and I'm none too fond of it. I just enjoy art for its own sake - whether I personally enjoy it, if it tells a story or expresses an idea, the quality of its execution, etc.
Thanks for chatting with me, even if we don't agree on all points I'm glad to see you listened to my POV and didn't get ticked or block me or anything. Unfortunately, I'm usually not that lucky!
Oh, no problem. It's always a pleasure to have a discussion and hear someone else's ideas, even if on a topic that dismays me. :]
hey, my doc had some lovely charcoal nudes framed on the walls :]
seriously, though, this is actually quite lovely. i still can't help but feel ashamed, though, that my art gets lumped in the same category as mspaint sonic sprites eating each other and crap, but hell. good art is still good art, no matter what it's of
i personally would rather see some prettily-painted foxes going at it than another fucking Thomas Kincade lighthouse >:|
seriously, though, this is actually quite lovely. i still can't help but feel ashamed, though, that my art gets lumped in the same category as mspaint sonic sprites eating each other and crap, but hell. good art is still good art, no matter what it's of
i personally would rather see some prettily-painted foxes going at it than another fucking Thomas Kincade lighthouse >:|
Comments