A common topic among the anthro community (and heck, DeviantArt at large) is the classification of what is anthro, what is furry, and what isn't. Heck, even well-established artists have a hard time explaining it, and to quote Scott Kurtz of PvP: "Cartoon animals don't have boobs!"
An often-offered definition of the difference between Anthro and Furry is that Furry is a sexualized form of Anthro, whereas Anthro is simply drawing animals acting like humans and sipping tea; ergo, Anthro is the 'true' art and standard of civilization, while Furry is its mentally retarded drooly cousin, mostly consisting of cub porn and recolored Sonic OC's.
This is the most widely accepted definition between Furry and Anthro.
It's also dead wrong.
To help demonstrate this, I've made up a simple graph to make it clear what 'Anthro' is and what Furry isn't:
A brief explanation of the relevant bits so I'm not just repeating what's already written on the chart's deviation page:
Anthro covers every possible thing you could turn into a humanoid.
Anthro Machines are
Droids.
Anthro Plants are
Treants.
Anthro Animals are
Furries.
Anthro anything else is . . . whatever you want to call it, it's not really important which.
In case you didn't notice it when you first saw the chart, the style, the context, and the genre are completely and utterly irrelevant. There is no delineation or special terminology given to obscene materials in that chart, or for cartoon characters, or for realistic representations of these concepts. There's a good reason for that.
If you are drawing ANY representation of an animal given human traits, it's Furry. It can be Mickey Mouse, It can be Sonic, it can be Hepcats fanart, it can be that Aflac duck . . . I don't care how sexualized or innocent, how cartoony or realistic, how crude or refined, if you are drawing animals doing things that you don't see animals doing in real life, it's Furry.
Attempting to classify yourself as Anthro when you're drawing Furry is deception at best and arrogance at worst deception because while all furry is anthro, not all anthro is furry, and arrogance because it furthers this idea that drawing animals is okay
only as long as it's within socially acceptable boundaries and you're not doing anything crazy like pretending you were a dragon or giving your catgirl the build of a college coed.
Yes, there are seedy elements of Furry, just like there are artistic nudes on DeviantArt. There is drawn pornography (commonly termed 'Yiff') in Furry, just like there's Hentai in Anime. There are plenty of Furry archives that will push these limits, just like there's other art archives out there that will post all the other stuff DeviantArt doesn't allow.
There is no excuse for claiming all Furry is Yiff, just like there is no excuse for claiming all Anime is Hentai. (For those who have short memories, the Anime/Manga/Hentai connection was a common mistake in the 90's, but this too has died down thanks to the mainstreaming of Anime and Manga.)
Unless your animal characters are little plush toys, art sculptures, or some other series of inanimate objects that have somehow come to life, you are dealing in Furry and if said items have any human traits whatsoever, they're still Furry. The sooner we all accept this fact and stop treating the term 'Furry' like it only applies to the kinky fetish side of Anthro . . .
. . . the sooner we can get the rest of the internet to cut us some slack.
Devious Comments
ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human
or resembling or made to resemble a human for..
so basically anything that isnt human having human characteristics or form.
--
go to hell... in style
[`mirrorkills]
Furry for me draws up images of cute fluffy animals. It's sorta... like, a pop-culture internet term. In the real world, anthropomorphic animals are not furries, they're anthropomorphic animals. There is no furry. There are many artists and illustrators through the ages, before the internet, who have done anthropomorphic animals. Just subtle emphasis on features like the eyes. It's anthropomorphic, but it's not furry.
My dog is very expressive, so when I take her picture, it's got anthropomorphic elements. It's not furry.
'Attempting to classify yourself as Anthro when you're drawing Furry is deception at best and arrogance at worst'
Everyone has their own view of what anthro or furry art is, and therefore classification is very hard to do. I think there's a very fine line between anthro and furry sometimes, that you can't classify one or the other. No one has written rules about this. It's what art and fantasy is about; no one can say what's what when it's magical anyway. For me, anthropomorphics is just another type of fantasy. or science fiction.
This sort of arguement can go one for ages, and it already has. You've put some points points across, but I'm not about to call my anthro art 'furry art' because of someone else's opinions. I think people should classify themselves however they want, and if they are happy with what they are, then no one else should say otherwise.
--
Flying High - For the Winged Horses Out There
--
Flying High - For the Winged Horses Out There
Anthropomorphic art includes deviations with attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior applied to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.
I think this sums it all up to a single line. Why bother write a huuuge news article to explain something that has already been clarified?
--
Free Hugs Campaign GO!
<emothemurdok> there are pants in your poem
--
Flying High - For the Winged Horses Out There
--
Avatar by =BlauerAuss
Help||*watercolorists||#traditional
--
Avatar by =BlauerAuss
Help||*watercolorists||#traditional
Furry is only a subset of Anthro, and not even a very large subset if you think about it.
--
Last Resort - Science Fiction Every Sunday.
[link]
Scooby Doo, on the other hand, is as furry as Garfield; the fact he runs around naked on all fours doesn't change the fact that Scooby talks, uses his hands, and is capable of giving arguments for the sake of his own survival. Hell, he's functionally equivalent to Shaggy, which furthers his humanity (or else lowers Shaggy's), thus increasing the case of making him furry. If he could only talk, you might argue that he's parroting, but Scooby's clearly talking on his own and with a reasonable grasp of English, and showing several other traits besides.
That said, Scrappy Doo is definitely furry.
--
Last Resort - Science Fiction Every Sunday.
[link]
--
Last Resort - Science Fiction Every Sunday.
[link]
Previous Page12345... Next Page