?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile FurAffinity Previous Previous Next Next
Grr - The art of Thornwolf
thornwolf
thornwolf
Grr
Does drawing animal people make me less of an artist?

Are my strokes less skillfull because they're used to draw an animal?

I'm sick and fucking tired of posting to the do community and having people not comment on my art but instead comment on how "disturbing" a raving kangaroo is or my furry subject matter is cluttering up their friends page. The stuff I post there isn't even furry! The most anthro stuff I've posted there WAS the kangaroo, then after that my ACEO cards and these icons.

Bullshit.

Yeah I don't rant publically often but I had to do it this time.
57 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
kittomer From: kittomer Date: September 3rd, 2006 06:04 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm sure you heard of the nerd pyramide, no? The explanation lies in that.
thornwolf From: thornwolf Date: September 3rd, 2006 06:05 pm (UTC) (Link)
actually no i havent, explain?

I'm guessing its something like how gamers pick on furries who group themselves with trekkies etc..
(Deleted comment)
rainbow_roo From: rainbow_roo Date: September 3rd, 2006 06:04 pm (UTC) (Link)
Art is - in many senses of the word - in the eye of the beholder. When you made me my icon - it brought more excitement to me then I could recall for months, maybe even half a year to a year or so? Maybe I have a dull life - or maybe it really blew me away, yanno?

But honestly...I love your style. Please don't ever let anyone tell you that you don't have a magic touch with the media that you use.
corvus_animus From: corvus_animus Date: September 3rd, 2006 06:11 pm (UTC) (Link)
Tell them drawing nudes doesn't make them any better of an artist, in fact it's easier.

I'm not a big fan of a majority of that art, having just scanned through it. Though what is 'good' art is extremely subjective. It still doesn't justify being an ass though.
o0andraste0o From: o0andraste0o Date: September 3rd, 2006 06:20 pm (UTC) (Link)
It's the same thing everywhere and all the time.

I thought it would be the right decision to visit the art class but the teacher didn't want me there because i drew such "pervert animal rape" (her words) that's sick.

And you're right when you think that art is in the eye of the beholder.
moonykins From: moonykins Date: September 3rd, 2006 06:20 pm (UTC) (Link)
Assholes.

Plus, I like that experimental style of yours way better than the majority of what I saw in that community.

Yeah, so what if you sometimes draw furries/anthros. That's just as much art as anything else.
thornwolf From: thornwolf Date: September 3rd, 2006 06:55 pm (UTC) (Link)
Agreed. Instead of going "oh nice painting style" or "you could add more contrast here" they just go "lol furries". ;P
autumn_sunrise From: autumn_sunrise Date: September 3rd, 2006 06:30 pm (UTC) (Link)
People who bash art based on the subject matter should be dragged over carpet tacks and then rolled in salt. :)

Have a nice day!
tiger_melanie From: tiger_melanie Date: September 3rd, 2006 06:56 pm (UTC) (Link)
I've been going through this myself lately - wanting to stop drawing furry because of the social unacceptability that goes along with it, but not wanting to stop because, well, I like it. I want to be well known & get my art out there, but that requires changing what I draw, so I wouldn't be drawing for myself anymore... it's a catch 22.

I don't have any answers. I really wish I did.

(sorry I trailed off in your LJ)
tooiebird From: tooiebird Date: September 3rd, 2006 06:57 pm (UTC) (Link)
Do they just comment like this to you? Because I went back about 80 entries and I saw some pigs, and a few cats. & I don't think that those were commented on being furry art. I don't know, I think that if you don't like it you shouldn't comment, or if you do you should still be nice.

But no I do not think it makes you less of an artist. You do very beautiful work,
thornwolf From: thornwolf Date: September 3rd, 2006 07:05 pm (UTC) (Link)
I wondered the same and yeah so far it seems to be just me. Which is odd because sixthleafclovr keeps "furry" company and draws dragons and gryphons and stuff but I haven't seen more than the well deserved "wow" comments on her posts =/

Thank you though =)
avivashywolf From: avivashywolf Date: September 3rd, 2006 07:05 pm (UTC) (Link)
what annoys me is when I do something non-furry or non-animal (human portraits, assignments for school, etc) noone comments, favorites, or even LOOKS at the image. What little fame I have all seems to be based on the furry art that I do for other people. I'd like to be a well rounded artist and do art for a living, but it helps if others can give critiques.

I know what you mean, though. And I personally think you're a very good artist, in general.
sfinder From: sfinder Date: September 3rd, 2006 07:26 pm (UTC) (Link)
For some reason there seems to be some negativity associated with even drawing 'furry' art and when folks see it they automatically lump the artist into that deviant sub-culture and no longer seem to take them seriously because suddenly it's all 'omg! Furriez! lolz!!1". It's sad, especially when (as it is in your case) the artist is talented, but ignored or looked down upon just 'cause they like to draw anthro animals.

I think it's just because more or less furry artists aren't viewed as 'professional' enough. Seems to me that when people think furry art they think 'cute hobby', which in truth, it kind of is. Very few people can make a decent living off of such a niche market. So I think that, coupled with the stigma of simply drawing animal-people, makes folks think less of anthro artists vs. other artists, even if the anthro artist is just as skilled as the other guy.

Maybe you should try to post at cgtalk.com or conceptart.org? Those are also very 'professional/industry' oriented sites, but they also look beyond the subject matter and to the artist's actual skill. You'll be able to get good critique there. That's where I go when I want to get feedback from people who are more or less 'in' the industry and know what they are talking about.
thornwolf From: thornwolf Date: September 3rd, 2006 07:35 pm (UTC) (Link)
I have a name on Conceptart.org although I haven't been posting there much because I don't have as many things I want critique on anymore (as in, things that are ongoing projects, such as the lion I had at FC, that I posted on there and got help) and also because I don't have much non furry stuff that I'm working on at the moment. Admittedly the furry stuff I HAVE posted there went under the radar, but its still a bit of paranoia.

Speaking of paranoia, nice to see you posting in my journal again, does this mean that you've stopped talking about me in filtered entries? =)
drake_anaya From: drake_anaya Date: September 3rd, 2006 08:17 pm (UTC) (Link)
your OMG!DEVIANT! icons are sure a hell of a lot nicer than this crap. this one has a human and an animal in close contact! they must be furries!!!

This is why I don't really like "professional" groups, and eh.
From: frenchpresser Date: September 3rd, 2006 08:19 pm (UTC) (Link)
I think I'm missing something.. I could only find like one remotely sarcastic comment in your entry. And I saw tons of other people's posts with even fewer comments.
thornwolf From: thornwolf Date: September 4th, 2006 09:42 am (UTC) (Link)
oh its not that recent entry, its all the other ones I've posted. Almost every one gets some sort of sarcasm or "ohnoez furries" reply. This one was just a little reminder ;P
From: quelqueshuitres Date: September 3rd, 2006 08:50 pm (UTC) (Link)
- Does drawing animal people make me less of an artist?
- Are my strokes less skillfull because they're used to draw an animal?

Of course not, of course not, of course not. When you ask a question like that, the answer is obviously no. The subject matter is rarely, if ever, the real problem with popular art or illustration.

I think the real problem is that, despite how marginalized or "sub-culture" furry art is that it is fundamentally... well, unoriginal. It is building off of a style pioneered originally by disney. It is a bunch of people copying off one another in a closed community, usually without the basic drawing, painting, or abstract design fundamentals.

I think the best art is that which is speaks authentically about one's own life and one's own experiences. No one on the web nowadays arrived at drawing furry animal/people through self-discovery or many years of work before arriving at a personal style or symbolism. All furry art is probably symbolic in some way, with different animals meaning different things... But as it is not orginal to the author and the subject matter is not personal, the is inauthentic.

There. That is what I think makes the vast majority of furry art "bad." It's inauthentic.

I think this is true of anime, american comic books, all those emo tim-burton rip-offs...
This is work, usually of young people that have decided on a "style", a superficial quality, before first learning the fundamentals of visual ART, that adopt someone else's orginal thing and then it all get regurgitated.

Tim Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas" was authentic because it was the personal, PERSONAL work that at that time was orginal.
Now when anyone else does it, it is just weak, without the ring of truth to it.

Art imitates like, and so on. And I truly believe that in order be raw and true to life (whether in comedic work or tragedy) it takes a whole lot of serious scrutinizing and digesting of our REAL lives, our REAL worlds, and it is very, very very hard to avoid cliches.
And I think if you looked very hard at life and wanted to express something honest and authentic about it, I doubt it would be "a raving kangaroo."
mythos_amante From: mythos_amante Date: September 4th, 2006 12:45 am (UTC) (Link)
Dude, that quelqueshuitres guy's on crack!

There are like, NO original subjects, just original ways of depicting them, or original ways of making them symbolic. If he can't tell the difference between Disney's Robin Hood and a good anthro piece, then he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Hopper's Nighthawks and Renoir's Luncheon of the Boating Party. Yet he'd declare those as different and original, perhaps. Which leads me to believe that he's just lazy and doesn't want to look hard at any art with sentient-looking animals in it because then he might have to give it credit where credit *IS* due and that'd just shake his little secure arsty-farsty-went-to-school world up.

Ther times, they are a changing. Those not getting on the boat, go ahead and stay on your comfy little island. The rest of us are off on an adventure!
foxfeather From: foxfeather Date: September 3rd, 2006 09:30 pm (UTC) (Link)
Why care what they think?
If they are that simple and close-minded, then who wants their critique anyways :P
xianjaguar From: xianjaguar Date: September 3rd, 2006 10:01 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well....I'll tell you the views of someone who is NOT a furry, an artist, or anywhere near fandom... my mother.

She thinks animals are for children. That no adult could REALLY be 'into' animals to want to draw them all the time. She has NO animal art in her house (ie, no wildlife art, no Carl Brenders, etc.) and has ALL pictures of things like landscapes, people and houses hanging up.

She sees all animation as 'for children' too, and believes there can be NO animation for adults, because no "normal" adult could possibly enjoy animation.

Unfortunately, the people in her social demograph are often the same way as well.

There really IS a bias against 'animal art', *UNLESS* you're an established famous Wildlife artist such as Carl Brender, and even then. some people will shake their heads and think "What a waste of talent".

It's sad, really. :(
eski From: eski Date: September 3rd, 2006 10:58 pm (UTC) (Link)
Thatr is really sad... I may be young, but I can't see ever giving up my love for animals just because I'm an "adult". =(
desertcoyote From: desertcoyote Date: September 4th, 2006 01:41 am (UTC) (Link)
Art is art, whether it features animals, humans, or whatever.
BTW- I like your icons- very fun and experimental.
From: gungho_squirrel Date: September 4th, 2006 06:03 am (UTC) (Link)
Yeah... I've been referred to as "not an artist" by quite a few people just because I draw anthropomorphic fantasy characters.

Last I checked, Fantasy artists were real artists... but I must be mistaken? I forgot, I just draw stupid "cartoons."

Does it bug you to when your stuff is called cartoons? To me cartoons have to have a certain kind of style to them. Just because anthro characters aren't real doesn't make them cartoons. I would never consider myself a "cartoonist." That's not my bag.
rikacmo From: rikacmo Date: September 4th, 2006 08:20 am (UTC) (Link)
It's a bit sad how so many artists pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for being free-thinking and open-minded... but sneer all over anyone who enjoys drawing animals and anthros, with a knee-jerk 'Ew, furry!' reaction.

Even when--if only they'd stop to take a look--they'd find that the artist in question is one who regularly and consistently experiments with radically different techniques on a regular basis, and is actually seriously dedicated to improving herself with every new drawing (kudos for that!). Their loss, really.

-- Rika
swandog From: swandog Date: September 16th, 2006 05:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
FTW? Illustration involves the illustration of fairy tales as well, MOST of which, traditionally, is of anthro animals. :P I think I might just leave the community now. *grr*
57 comments or Leave a comment