ArtSpots Forum Topic - What is a "Furry Artist"?

Metsys

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 03:45:23 -0000

Hello everyone. I just barely signed up so I can contribute to this topic as it applies to my work. As an outsider of the community looking in, hopefully I'll be able to contribute to the discussion, feeling as though some are holding back. I might be going out on a limb, so here it goes. Just a little bit of background so you know where I'm coming from: I'm the lead illustrator and writer on a project that includes anthropomorphic animal characters as well as humans. The project initially started out as a game concept, but after developing the milieu, characters and their story I felt that it would be best suited as a 3D animated series. It's possible that it'll become both because it would still make a great game, but we are planning on it being one of our more expensive projects when our studio gets under way. Some time after we initially started the project, writing, brainstorming and creating concept art, we had no idea that there was a furry community, let alone any negative feelings toward the style until I started working with other artists who expressed their dislike for the genre, which was funny because one of them actually had furry art in their portfolio. A year later I began to notice that it was the artists that were more indignant towards the genre, as opposed to people versed in geek culture whom I believe understand the fandom the least, and use the word furry as an insult. My theory is that these artists are frequent visitors of places like deviantART where just about any kind of art is displayed, and are exposed to everything including mature furry art. I can understand why people are disgusted by it, but I'm surprised how many people associate innocent furry art with (and I apologize if this is a bad word around here as I haven't seen it used in this discussion) yiffy art. I don't know anyone personally who immediately associates anime with hentai, but it's unfortunate that it's sometimes the case with people's perception of anthropomorphic art. I read a lot of web comics and articles, and unflattering furry jokes are seemingly becoming more common. One of my recent concerns is how our project could be received when released. I've made some decisions and other people agree that we shouldn't use the term "furry" when referring to these characters because of the negative relationship of the term, and that the safest way to refer to them would be "animal characters". Even "anthro" is pushing it because that's what deviantART lists furry art as, and seems to be the the standard alternate term. Despite this, I trusting that the use of anthropomorphic animal characters in a show isn't going to be a big of a turn-off for people in a mainstream audience. Over the Hedge, Kung Fu Panda, and even Disney's Robin Hood (which is more similar to what people consider as furry art than the previous examples), is generally well accepted and not associated with the fandom, even though by definition they should be. We aren't going to replace the anthropomorphic characters with human ones; there's too much humor and character conflicts that play on that concept to simply drop it out of fear. And with more movies with anthropomorphic characters being released, I think even those who hate the genre will likely soften up a little. But again it's still a concern because we don't know what the world's perception of the style is going to be like when it's released. As for what I think people generally consider as furry art are anthropomorphic animal characters that have mostly human proportions and secondary sex traits, or as one of our 3D artists says, "humans with animal heads." With that character design it's too easy to sexualize them--which people do--and I think that's what turns people off to the genre. It just seems too weird for people who grew up watching Loony Toons and Disney cartoons to see animals with the same seductive curves and skimpy outfits as a human would. And then there's the name: furry. Calling someone a furry has a different meaning outside the fandom than those inside. It's like the word hacker. I know it means computer enthusiast, but outside it means someone who illegally circumvents computer security systems. That's why the terms "white hat" and "black hat" were created. I also don't know if "furry artist" is really the official term, or if there even is one that's well accepted. Furry artist, furry, they have different meanings but the same word is used, and therefore it has the same meaning to many people. It's also possible that the furry genre is just too specific, and therefore can't be taken as seriously. Typically, overly-specific classifications of genres imply an underground movement. If furry meant anything that included animal characters then it'd be fine. Then even Animaniacs and The Secret of NIMH would be considered as furry works. But we already have an umbrella term for things like that, at it's called cartoons. One thing that might need to be done is a community effort to improve the perception of the genre. Renaming it, not using the term anymore, whatever. It's not the first time a community has done this and I'm open to discussion on that topic. As for what do I consider as a furry artist? Simply someone that makes mostly cartoon/anthropomorphic animals (not necessary drawing realistic animals), and isn't ashamed about it. I do wish there was a different term for it, simply because calling someone a furry is pretty strong and suggests they do all kinds of things like dressing up in fursuits. "Anthro artist" seems to be the standard synonym, but it still doesn't sound right because it seems like side stepping the issue, and anthro isn't really a genre in my mind; anthropomorphic animals are just another type of creature to me. And because of that "anthro artist" just doesn't sound like a good job title, in the same way that fantasy artist or manga artist does. "Anthro artist" is kind of like calling yourself an "alien artist." As for myself, since I do draw anthropomorphic animals, I just call myself an illustrator just because the story defines the art style and content of the image. I don't draw furry art because I'm a furry, I do it because thats the story! That's what an illustrator is supposed to do. I also believe that it's bad to pigeonhole yourself. I know people who started drawing manga because they liked the style and that's what inspired them to get into art. It was hard for them to learn because they where copying the art rather than life, so they didn't really understand the abstractions and why the faces are stylized the way they are. Some animators also do the same thing, looking at animation for reference on how the body moves instead of life. Okay, that walk cycle was from the Aristocats, and that bobbing of the head was from the Jungle Book, but you didn't add that exaggeration from your own understanding of motion, you did it because a very experienced animator did. Same thing with furry art, you need to draw from life, both humans and animals, so you can come up with your own interpretation of both (which is why Kelly Hamilton's art is so good). Basically, I wish no one called themselves anthro artists. I'd much rather be known as a illustrator than a sci-fi/fantasy illustrator. I don't want to be linked by genre. I just want to tell stories that no one else can in what ever style best serves it. And because of that I really wish furry art, or more precisely art that contains anthropomorphic characters, was seen as an artist interpretation of life instead of a fetish. So there it is: my observations, conclusions and personal opinion. I'm not sure how accurate my analysis is on the topic, so I'd appreciate any insight and suggestions you may have as part of the community. Thanks.

allytha

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:30:15 -0000

Lupercaleb said: the definition of anthropomorphic is something - anything - given human traits. this does not include the reverse, which would be humans given nonhuman traits now, my opinion is that furry is the universal term; that includes anthro, because furry can be used to describe what anthro is not

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention the literal definition in this thread, and I'm actually a little surprised it didn't come up sooner. Personally I think this is a great assessment and totally agree, which is why I found it so interesting that some people found the term anthro snooty. But then, I can definitely see where they're coming from, because as Glowsheep pointed out, the term anthro tends to be used as a bit of a smokescreen for people who don't want to be labeled as furries. I'm not saying everyone does it, but it does happen. I guess I have to say I just consider myself an illustrator who does furry art, among other things.

Lupercaleb

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:35:30 -0000

the definition of anthropomorphic is something - anything - given human traits. this does not include the reverse, which would be humans given nonhuman traits now, my opinion is that furry is the universal term; that includes anthro, because furry can be used to describe what anthro is not

Coyox

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:47:00 -0000

I personally think it is silly to call any artist a "furry artist" unless they are of course, a furry. An artist that considers themselves a furre is well a .... furry artist. Much like the male artist would consider himself a "male artist". No not everything he draws is a male (o dear god no! boobs boobs boobs!) But he is still, a "male" artist. Just because you draw "furry" things does not mean you are a "furry" artist. You are just an artist, drawing a "fur". You could be a male artist, drawing a..."fur". The term furry involves a certain group of people. It is a subculture, as crude, underminding, demeaning or cruel it might sound-- it is a subculture. Much like the goths, gays, nerds, or rednecks. Demeaning yet-- a culture of sorts. I think it's a silly thing to think the word "furry" is demeaning in any way. I've met and become friends with many people who happily consider themselves "furry". Its a good thing for them. That's how they find similarities in other people. That's how they find people within their "culture". Thats how they find people that same well, the same fetishes and likes and thoughts. Furry most certainly is a group of people. I don't consider myself a furry, I more fall into the beatnik/goth category. yes yes! It sounds demeaning! It sounds like you REALLY want attention from someone by putting yourself into a subculture category. But... isn't it the truth? I am a beatnik/goth artist. lmfao. Beatnik/Goth is not a cry for attention, it's not demeaning it's basically just the lousy group I'm put into given a name that isn't half as positive as the people it yeilds. Furry is a category of people just like anything else. :) I don't believe Anthromorphic and Furry are the same thing. I think there are many differences that separate the two... but I digress.

Airu

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:36:01 -0000

I am not picky about it... I guess technically I would be considered a "furry artist" because I draw for the furries, and I have furry characters. I like to call them anthro, personally because "furry" just seems like more focused on the fandom to me and anthro seems more focusd on the general theme, not the fandoms or fetishes. I agree with Thorn that I would personally call myself just a general artist because I draw so much crap that I don't really stick to one description. I would rant about anthro vs furry and why I draw a thin line between the two, but that is a rant for a different time.

kynliod

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:44:21 -0000

Does anyone else find it kinda funny that most of the people who have posted so far do not consider themselves furry/furry artists? It seems counter-intuitive. =P Anyway, I don't really consider myself a furry in the way most people would. I don't wish I was an animal, I don't fursuit, and I'm not a "lifestyler". But I wouldn't say I am not a "furry artist". I think that term means someone who draws anthropomorphic animals. It's even possible that the term "furry" came because it's just easier/quicker to say or write. If I'm addressing someone from the fandom, I'd call myself a furry artist. If I'm addressing someone outside the fandom, I just tell them I draw cartoony animals. Honestly, everyone outside the fandom I've ever used the term "furry" towards had no clue what I was talking about, hence the dropping of the term when addressing those folks.

JavaMoose

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:16:38 -0000

Well, I do not consider myself a furry either; there are just too many issues surrounding that term that I refuse to even attempt to reconcile with. Besides, I barely have ANYTHING in common with most folks in the fandom; just a liking for "funny animals", if I am using that term correctly, and there seem to be many examples of that on this site. Furthermore, I prefer not to incriminate myself by associating myself with groups; I like to be an individual. However, I don't really have much against most of the folks in the fandom, as long as they keep all the unsavoury things to themselves. Personally, I consider myself a casual "cartoon and animation enthusiast"; a "Cartoonista", if you will. I don't really take most of my dabblings in this area TOO seriously, but that does not mean that I cannot appreciate the works of those who do. Hence why I am here.

ALH

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:40:57 -0000

I don’t usually use forums of any kind except on very rare occasions. The only Internet communication I really use is e-mail, and I don’t get very many messages. That being said, usually when I do say something, it’s about something significant to me. I’m glad this subject was brought up. To throw in my own 2 cents, I simply consider myself an individual who in their artistic efforts likes to employ the usage of non-human characters for their unique visual interest. Nearly every game I own only uses non-human characters, simply because they’re more visually interesting. Humans on the other hand, well, you see them every day. I suppose I also like the fantasy elements. I remember when I first discovered this type of art. Someone e-mailed me a question. (My first response was “wow, someone e-mailed me and it wasn’t junk!”) They asked me if I did “anthro art.” My response to that: “What’s that?” It is also very good to know that many are aware of the negative connotations that can be attached to such a simple adjective as “furry.” -ALH

legathin

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:05:24 -0000

I like this forum every one isn't all crazy like other forum I've gone to :).I kinda dont like saying furries and anthro is a word meaning human so im sorda stuk.

Wulffrith

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:13:05 -0000

I figure a furry artist is someone that creates art specifically for a furry audiance. They can be a furry or not and they certainly can create more than just furry art. In my opinion being a "furry artist" doesn't make them any less of "just an artist." Personally I don't really think it matters much. I think people are weird if they somehow find it wrong to be a fan of anthropomorphism. Also, in some sense I think that an interest in anthropomorphics is in part due to an interest in what makes people human. It's an exercise in introspection as well as a fascination with animals or whatever else you want to anthropomorphize. Then again I have a friend that thinks animal people are "creepy." Whatever, to each their own.

DeWiwi

Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:27:31 -0000

Well I know I haven't been in the 'furry/anthro' fandom for so long, I just been it for 3 years now, and just barelly seeing the negativity towards the fandom. "Furry" - to me that word seems real silly, so it sorta goes with the fandom. To me, what freaks me out is seeing old people around the age of of 40 wearing fox ears and tails. I depict that as 'furry' to me. Making the suites as what general 'furrys' do I find ok cause it's kinda cool, I think it's cool for kids, cause it makes them happy. And not all 'furrys' are insanely negative. If anything there very positive people that just view life a lot differently then the everyday joe. The only reason the term 'furry' is so negative and looked on bad is for all the sick fetishes that came out from that fandom and how many people [ people outside the fandom ] see it as 'beastiality'. "Anthro" - Has a stronger meaning from how I see it. It can mean 'spiritually' or has a stronger meaning. It has a bit more of a positive look and a artistic view as well. In the art view, there is the 'Anthromorphic' area to it, for giving a animal more human characteristics. Giving it as well personality and stylizing it. For the longest 'Anthro' art has been around. Like Tribes will summon animal spirits, or wear the animals hid to be 'one' with them. For myself, I don't call myself an 'Anthro' artist, let alone a 'furry'. I agree and disagree with both sides. I'm too mixed with other things as well. I rather have the title "Artist" over my head then placing myself in one catagory.

Richard Bartrop

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:10:47 -0000

I have one for you. Explain to me how Star Trek fans could exist before Star Trek. Baseball obviously existed before there were baseball fans. and people like Verne and Wells well writing work that was recogizably science fiction long before there was a science fiction fandom, or even before the term "science fiction". If anything, it's obvious that something has to exist before one can be a fan of it. Films like "Robin Hood" and "Animalympics" are embraced as furry right from the beginning, even though they clearly predate any organized fandom. To maintain that the work of more talented and successful creators doesn't qualify is basically a crutch so a few fan favourites can pretend they're at the top of the food chain. I suppose it's also useful for molstering the tired old argument that "The public isn't interested in furry" if you can throw out any data that contradicts it. You're not a furry? Hey, neither am I, but it's obvious that we might create work that might interest a furry fan. Mainstream writers who venture into speculative writing will also try to protest that what they wrote wasn't "Science fiction", but the fact is, most people tend to recognize it for what it really is.

Loba North

Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:27:28 -0000

A "furry artist" is a -self-declared- member of the furry fandom who creates art specifically for other -self-declared- members of the furry fandom, with a clear emphasis on the interests of that fandom. The only person who gets to decide if a certain artist is a furry artist or not is that artist theirself. Period. Simply creating animal people does not a furry artist make. Otherwise, artists such as Patricia Piccinini, Beatrix Potter, Fernand Khnopff, and many others are/were furries. If that's the case, someone kindly explain to me how one could be a furry before the fandom even existed. :) As if in response to the negative press about furries, every popular or well-regarded anthropomorphic creation, from Beatrix Potter's books to The Lion King and Disney's Robin Hood, is being referred to as an example of 'furry art'. As a friend of mine says, it seems like a last-ditch attempt by furries to dilute their poisoned waters by labeling everything under the sun "furry", as if to make 'furry' impossible to make fun of because we all enjoy 'furry' things. I think this is highly problematic for reasons I feel are pretty obvious, including the labeling of people as 'furry' when their works were created well before the existence of the furry fandom, or were created independently of the fandom. Personally speaking, I do not like being referred to as a 'furry' artist and I will politely correct those who make this mistake. I do create art featuring "animal people", but the majority of my work is not "animal people". In fact, I enjoy, and am willing to, paint and sculpt lots of things, including landscapes and portraits. I also started drawing "animal people" independently of the furry fandom, and only became familiar with it though buyers and appreciators of my art who happen to be furries. I too feel the label of "_____ artist" is self-limiting as well as personally inaccurate; thus I prefer to be called simply an "artist". I sell my art at furry conventions but perhaps apart from an interest in symbolism involving humans and animals, I have NO furry-specific interests; you'll never see me at a "furmeet" or live roleplay, I don't masquerade as a character online, I don't read comics, etc. I don't know how I can reasonably be called a furry when 98 percent of furry stuff doesn't appeal to me. I will sell my art to whoever wants to buy it, where ever it will be bought and appreciated. If one of those places is to furries at a convention, so be it. That doesn't mean that I personally am a furry.

SaiTenyo

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:27:37 -0000

I don't call myself a "furry artist" because that's not all I draw. That sounds really limiting to me. Like calling oneself a "people artist" or "trees on hills during sunset artist." Yeah, a lot of what I draw would probably be considered "furry art" by a lot of people, but I never saw the point of pigeonholing oneself into a specific category by labelling what "kind" of artist you are, as if they must do -only- that and nothing else.

Glowsheep

Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:56:21 -0000

Astolpho said: I call it furry art. The negative connotations don't bother me. Anthro sounds snooty.

I agree. "Anthro Artists" are just furry artists who are ashamed of the fandom. XD Honestly, I am a BIG HUGE FREAKIN' FURRY, but not a furry artist. (Y'all can be non-furries who are furry artists, you know. Or furries who aren't furry artists.) I have more fun drawing buildings and people and tricycles than animal people. I totally dig furry art, especially cartoony stuff, I buy it, I like looking at it, but like... I don't really have a lot of cool original furry ideas and characters and stuff. If other people tell me what to draw I can do furries (everything in my "Digital" folder save for my logo were trades/commissions/gifts) but I never come up with cool furry stuff on my own like a lot of you guys do. Even with my own furry character, Glowsheep, I like how other people draw her better than how I do.

Feather Dancer

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:55:55 -0000

Be it a critter standing on it's hind legs/platigrade or human but with a clear mesh of the original beastie, not tacked on ears and tails here :) Enough cat girls as it is, not that there's a shortage of the other type that said. Really, mine is pretty close to the definition of animal or object with human characteristics so quite broad a scale.

vantid

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:58:26 -0000

Everyone's answers are so varied and interesting. It seems to be a personal choice by most. What is anthro or furry art? I know the line is blurry and is a personal definition as well. What do YOU consider anthro?

Cane McKeyton

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:30:52 -0000

I think someone is a furry artist if/when they decide to declare themselves as one. There are many artist out there that would qualify as a furry artist but do not identify themselves as one. They instead use the term "Anthro Artist" mostly because of the stigma attached to the word furry. Because of this I wouldn't necessarily call them a furry artist, it would be insulting to them.

Whisper Panthress

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:33:53 -0000

Came back from a long morning walk on the mountains and I almost wrote "animals who draw furry things", which is true in a sense. The first thing that comes to mind for furry artist is someone who draws anthros. Second would be someone who is either a fur him/herself or is someone who draws for those in the fandom. The negative connotations are not something I focus too much on. There are better things to worry about than aunt edna accepting the fact you're going to a fur con. As for a definition, I don't think there ever will be a specific one people can all agree on. But at least a furry is someone who identifies with animals enough to associate him/herself with one or more. I may be considered more of an animal artist since 90% and above of my gallery is not anthropomorphic. But I like animals enough to understand why fans wear suits, go to cons, etc. When I was young I associated myself with a horse. Now I'm older, I associate myself with a cougar. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with furry art when you look at it as animal admiration. It's only when some people lump furs with bestiality and sexual perversion it gets messy trying to get others to think differently...

Sulacoyote

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:53:00 -0000

- An artist who draws furries - An artist who draws furries on furry websites and insists on not being called a furry artist - Yrruf tsitra spelled backwards