|
Post by Garamoth on Mar 22, 2010 18:57:24 GMT -5
So where does Redwall fit in the great spectrum of furry art? I like the US artwork (the top ones)... the animals actually look like animals, only more badass! The French ones (the last two) look pretty creepy, especially the wolf wearing a fox on his head. On the other hand, they still look like animals.
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Mar 22, 2010 19:02:07 GMT -5
I'd actually say both sets look really good, though I agree the U.S. art is better.
They both kick the crap out of Lisa Jennings art, at any rate. (:
-Tom
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Faptastic on Mar 22, 2010 19:05:08 GMT -5
I don't know, I don't really consider it "furry" when the characters are literally just animals standing on their hind legs and holding things. Even if they do have little hands.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee of Zur-En-Arrh on Mar 22, 2010 19:11:26 GMT -5
Agreed with Fappers.
I think animals like that are bad-ass sometimes, as I previously stated.
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Mar 22, 2010 19:22:24 GMT -5
I can't help but see that as a headless body with a giant badger head poking through the doorway in the background.
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Mar 22, 2010 20:09:34 GMT -5
I quite literally LOLed at that. (: Man, I would SO read that book if that actually happened!
-Tom
|
|
|
Post by ryochan on Mar 22, 2010 20:27:56 GMT -5
But it's when people get so obsessed with characters, whether pre-existing or self-created, that they pretend to be them that I start raising an eyebrow. Game and anime fans do it too, but I think it's even more extreme with the furry community, what with the fursonas and fursuits and such. I know a lot of people would try to defend that stuff claiming it's normal, but I don't think I'll ever be able to see it that way. Whenever this comment comes up, or a similar comment, I always wonder what that means about actors. Are they completely out of their minds because they become a different character for a while, dressing up and taking on their manuerisms? Also, people tend to dress up and pretend to be others for many different reasons, ranging from wanting to use their imaginations, to trying to see a different point of view, and so many other things, and in fact, therapists often use role-play to assist in helping people to understand themselves and others. Children also pretend to be another person in order to grow, so really, it IS a normal thing, and is generally not harmful. The only time it really becomes harmful is when one begins to lose touch with reality, and cannot differentiate between themselves and their characters (Leonard Nimoy for example). Otherwise, dressing up, pretending to be someone else, and things like that isn't a bad thing. Also, as to the entire thing about "why hire a person who draws furry porn for a kids' game?", well, because they know how to draw it. I can tell you, I can't draw animals that look human because I generally have never studied them. If I add any animal pieces, I always have a human form with the additions, not the other way around. And as was stated, it's also easier to draw the clothes on a person once you realize exactly how the human body works. In fact, when I first began to draw, my brother had to point out that men didn't have large breasts, that their hips were pretty much straight, rather than more rounded, and so on. So, just food for thought on that account. :)
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Mar 22, 2010 20:45:16 GMT -5
The only time it really becomes harmful is when one begins to lose touch with reality, and cannot differentiate between themselves and their characters (Leonard Nimoy for example). Well, that's what I was getting at in regard to being obsessed with characters. When an actor takes on a role, he or she doesn't want to actually BE that character; he/she just likes the art of acting itself and the challenges it brings. In fact, a lot of characters that actors portray are quite repugnant, so it would be a nightmare to imagine actually being that character. But there are a lot of people that have unhealthy obsessions with game/anime/furry characters and they flat-out state that they wish they were those characters or even feel like the characters really are them in the case of self-made characters. In those cases, you could almost liken someone dressed in a fursuit to a man who believes he should be female dressing in women's clothing. Although, it's possible that transgendered people have something abnormal about them genetically which makes them feel that way, but obviously nobody literally has an animal's genes in them so their feelings can only be attributed to delusions of the mind.
|
|
|
Post by ryochan on Mar 22, 2010 20:49:56 GMT -5
Well, that's what I was getting at in regard to being obsessed with characters. When an actor takes on a role, he or she doesn't want to actually BE that character; he/she just likes the art of acting itself and the challenges it brings. In fact, a lot of characters that actors portray are quite repugnant, so it would be a nightmare to imagine actually being that character. I had a friend who honestly thought he was Ranma from Ranma 1/2, so I get that. But I also think the best actors get into the character's head, just a little bit at the least. In those cases, you could almost liken someone dressed in a fursuit to a man who believes he should be female dressing in women's clothing. Although, it's possible that transgendered people have something abnormal about them genetically which makes them feel that way, but obviously nobody literally has an animal's genes in them so their feelings can only be attributed to delusions of the mind. I won't open this can of worms, but I would like to note: We all start as the same gender in the womb. It's only after a while that we begin to develop into the other. I believe we all start as women, though I may be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by kal on Mar 22, 2010 20:51:18 GMT -5
Yeah Ryochan is right in the art department side of things - I checked out those images just to post roughly the same thing. Aside from 1 or 2 drawings (I think, I may have missed some?) there's nothing there that wouldn't be out of place in a life drawing class. Although the artist herself wasn't particularly strong at the time it's best to be able to build anything from the base and work up. Line of action - Base shapes (geometry) - Bones - Muscle - Skin - Clothes (This isn't an exhaustive list). Of course exceptional artists can skip these steps and jump right into something that works well immediately because they've spent so long learning these things intuitively. While I don't doubt that there's a measure of sexualisation in the work itself this doesn't necessarily corrupt the artists non-erotic work - I've personally done life drawing for years would that make you uncomfortable knowing that the clothed figures I draw have been partially learnt from studies of the naked form...I doubt it right? The game itself is wholesome enough and that's all that's largely all that matters - just like Pee Wee Herman right
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Mar 22, 2010 20:55:06 GMT -5
I actually know people who do this - one of my former coworkers came to work every day in a dress, in fact. Nobody thought poorly of him for it, he never flaunted it in peoples' faces, and he was very good at his job. I kind of... don't like your implication that people who do this are in some way defective or in the wrong. That's not far removed from racism, sexism, or homophobia.
-Tom
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Mar 22, 2010 21:07:01 GMT -5
Ugh, are you guys really going to be so hypersensitive? Are there really some topics so taboo that they can't be mentioned at all? I was making a comparison to an activity that may have a similar mentality behind it (that you feel different on the inside than how you look on the outside), one that people are more familiar with and more accepting of, except my point was to look at it scientifically. Something causes people to be transgender (unless you want to argue that it's all in their minds, which I'd say would be more insulting to them), but there's no way for someone to literally be a hybrid of a human and an animal, in which case there is no excuse for that thinking and it must be a delusion. I didn't say anything disparaging about transgender people at all, so it's a bit absurd to be pulling out the bigot card.
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Mar 22, 2010 21:11:10 GMT -5
Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying. I wasn't "pulling the bigot card," so to speak. I was just responding to your choice of words, which made it sound like you were saying transgendered people and cross-dressers = "fursonas" in terms of unnaturalness. And considering your expressed distaste for people with "fursonas," I assumed that meant you were lumping together a bunch of things you found distasteful and wrong.
I apologize for the misinterpretation.
-Tom
|
|
|
Post by TheGunheart on Mar 23, 2010 0:32:04 GMT -5
I don't know, I don't really consider it "furry" when the characters are literally just animals standing on their hind legs and holding things. Even if they do have little hands. And here we find the problem to me. Furry doesn't actually mean anything. I mean, to you, it means animals drawn a certain way, to others, it means any and all humanized animals, even ones that still walk on all fours. The fact that it also refers to to the fans themselves doesn't help. And that's why I don't associate with them, even though I like anthropomorphic animal characters. And yes, I'll admit that works with animal characters do earn at least a glance from me. So do works involving giant robots, steampunk settings, space ships, highly stylized combat, etc, etc, etc.
|
|
|
Post by syntheticgerbil on Mar 23, 2010 10:22:27 GMT -5
I'd actually say both sets look really good, though I agree the U.S. art is better. They both kick the crap out of Lisa Jennings art, at any rate. (: -Tom I don't want to argue about any of this stuff anymore, so I'm just going to agree with this and I think Redwall has always done a much better job of making the animals look like what animal they are and eschewing most human characteristics (At least on most of the covers I've ever seen), much like Aesop's Fables. I think it shows the exact difference between the way to handle the subject with class without pandering to a certain audience.
|
|