Low Standards and other ramblings

[Red Lion]

Do you guys ever feel like a big chunk of this community has low standards for art and writing? You see a few pieces here and there with nice linework, good detail and clear effort to make something legitimately good, but I feel like I spend a lot of time sifting through crude, unimaginative art, full of the same lazy, uninspired, character designs. I don't even use Furry Sites to find nice anthro art most of the time because my favorite anthro themed works aren't even done by people who are part of the furry community. Could be that I'm just not looking hard enough but sometimes it seriously feels like there's a lack of quality art and storytelling going around within the community. 

To give you an example I really like the artstyle and theme of the Lackadaisy comics. http://www.lackadaisycats.com/ Those cats are adorable, expressive and have a very distinct look and style to them. Or take classic Disney/Dreamworks movies that feature anthropomorphic animals as a design choice. Humanized animals are used as a way of enhancing a visual narrative, it's just one facet of the work and I'd argue in a lot of cases that isn't event the important facet. Why don't I see more of this kind of thing made explicitly by/for the Furry community? People say Zootopia is a furry movie, but Disney has been using anthropomorphised animals and non-human characters in their children's films for a long time so I don't really see any reason to think of this one as being any different from their other animated films. If the creators of all of these things don't think of themselves or their work as furry then what does that say about this community?

Which kind of brings me to another question I was thinking about. What exactly IS Furry? I always assumed it was just "People who like and make anthro art". If that's the case why do so many artists feel the need to distinguish themselves and their work as "non-furry"? When I came into this community I was of the mind "Oh, I like the use of animals as an artistic design, therefore I like/am furry" now I'm not sure it's that simple. 

What are y'all's thoughts on this?

[Zytan]

There's a thread regarding what is/isn't a furry, but I definitely have to agree the good stuff is a damn sight easier to find outside of the certain furry art website.  There's a wealth of anthro art on deviantart that isn't just an MS Paint job I could do with a gaming mouse.

[Red Lion]

I've seen a fair bit of the MS paint stuff but when I say lack of quality I mean I see a lot of the same mediocre looking, rounded, rainbow colored, dog face going around, or the same long tailed, elf-eared, shark with paws and digitigrade legs. Like people are doing what they think looks cool but they aren't doing it very well and not a lot of real thought goes into the character or its design.  That's not to say this is representative of the whole community but there's if more of that than there isn't and I haven't seen anything similar to non-furry works that just happen to use anthro animals. I haven't seen anything that resembles the Redwall series to use another example. This didn't just have animal protagonists it actually detailed their world, culture and even the damn food they ate. It comes down to an overall lack of depth and detail. 

And that's not to say that this isn't a problem in other communities, it definitely is, but it feels like the furry community has less to balance it out and most of the people who DO put that much depth into their creation prefer not to be furries. Again I could easily be over looking things or missing something and if I am just disregard my ramblings.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Red Lion

[Red Lion]

Just now, Saxon said:

I don't know, I think people who complain about this are pretentious. 

>:P Butts upon ye *Snoot snoot snoot*

[Joel]

Everyone has different tastes and not ever artist is going to be able to please everyone as people prefer different styles of art 

And FA and other art sites are full of people who are just starting out trying to find what particular style suits them rather than dumping on them people encourage them by watching and complimenting their art I don't think it's because of standers being low 

Granted some art I've seen has took a couple years off my life 

[Maug]

The FA main page feeds my ego,  the DA main page (what's hot) humbles it. That's not to say FA doesn't have great artists, there are plenty, they take more effort to find.

I think that the fandom attracts many younger members learning to draw so it's going to be at a lower quality,

Of course what is art is subjective and means different things to different people.

 

[Conker]

Well as to writing, the lack of quality probably comes about from the low interest in it on the whole. FA is an image site first and foremost, and the images that do the best are porn. So if someone wants to write furry fiction, I imagine they'll go the smut route.

Then you gotta factor in that writing is hard and takes a shitload of time to get good at, but since anyone with a word processor can try (which is a good thing, mind you), you'll be getting newer people just experimenting and trying to figure out HOW to tell a story.

And that story will probably have penises enter butts.

I've written one big thing that could appeal to furries, but I'm also trying to get it traditionally published first. If that fails--it will--then I suppose self publishing is the route I'll go. But I'll also charge money for it, even just a few bucks, and I'm not sure how well that will go over.

My other writing doesn't involve talking animal people, even the stuff I throw on my blog, so obviously it's not getting advertised to you lot I don't want to become a "furry author."

[Red Lion]

1 hour ago, Rhíulchabán said:

Anthro stuff outside of the fandom (such as from Disney, or Lackadaisy (which I love)) has to be of higher quality to stay alive and get noticed because it has to win over non-furries. If Lackadaisy was drawn in the same old same old furry stereotype styles (which is a whole different discussion in and of itself) then the wider public wouldn't get into it. Non-furry artists have to make their Anthros appealing on an artistic level beyond "oh look, it's a fur!"

They usually also make the Anthros look more cartoony/styled/etc. instead of the more samey looking realistic stuff a lot of furries like. You see higher detail and differentiation thrown into these non-furry works because it is necessary to make the work succeed, essentially... and because it requires an audience.

I do believe that the Lackadaisy creator, although loving his work, wouldn't continue the comic if folks didn't ever read it. On the flipside, furries will make stuff and just post it onto art sites regardless of who sees it (especially unskilled artists looking for recognition), or they continuously post requests from folks or commissions if they are more skilled and have an audience. This leads to unskilled artists posting a lot of "crappy" art until they get better or quit while skilled artists that get lots of fans end up posting a lot of commissions from folks who want the same sort of things over and over... which creates a feeling of low quality/samey art.

The non-furry Anthro artists mainly seem to be those who put the characters to use in stories with audiences, meaning there isn't an endless stream of the art coming out, but only the higher quality "finished product" art. Furries on the other hand just keep producing over and over again, and in general there is more bad than good art, and the more art there is in general that means the more bad art there will be until it seems ubiquitous.

Actually that makes a lot of sense. 

well, I guess that means my questions are answered.

[malibu]

2 hours ago, Red Lion said:

Do you guys ever feel like a big chunk of this community has low standards for art and writing? 

I feel so attacked right now.

[Red Lion]

5 minutes ago, malibu said:

I feel so attacked right now.

As you should >8[
you should be filled with shame for your very existence! 

granted your avatar is adorable.....aw, I can't stay angry at that face *pets*

[malibu]

1 minute ago, Red Lion said:

As you should >8[
you should be filled with shame for your very existence! 

granted your avatar is adorable.....aw, I can't stay angry at that face *pets*

Oh the shame! My life is worth less than a lowly flea. 

Thanks for the comment on my av. The artist did a fantastic job.

On topic. I think the reason the furry community is rather easy going on the quality of its work is because it's starving for content. While some movies and even cartoon shows have anthro characters, they're not necessarily furry and a lot of times they don't even appeal to the general fur. Like The Amazing World of Gumball, for example. While it's true you can find your regular artist drawing anthropomorphics from time to time, like the Lackadaisy cats, it's a lot harder to find specific (like paws, macro, vore) material and especially hard to find certain kinks, which a lot of adult furs enjoy. Personally, I'm not one to judge another artists quality, especially since artists do improve over time, so I have no issue with places like FA housing what some consider "mediocre" artists.

[Zeke]

I can draw, but it's trying to find my niche between traditional and digital. Frankly, something about digital art puts me off.

 

[Maug]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

...eeeh I'm not so sure about that actually. 

Unfortunately in the fine art world, artists seem to get away with anything like putting dead sharks in cages or finding a toilet and simply signing it.

One man's rotting shark carcass is another man's 1 million dollar masterpiece.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Maug
spelling

[Zeke]

2 hours ago, Rhíulchabán said:

Anthro stuff outside of the fandom (such as from Disney, or Lackadaisy (which I love)) has to be of higher quality to stay alive and get noticed because it has to win over non-furries. If Lackadaisy was drawn in the same old same old furry stereotype styles (which is a whole different discussion in and of itself) then the wider public wouldn't get into it. Non-furry artists have to make their Anthros appealing on an artistic level beyond "oh look, it's a fur!"

They usually also make the Anthros look more cartoony/styled/etc. instead of the more samey looking realistic stuff a lot of furries like. You see higher detail and differentiation thrown into these non-furry works because it is necessary to make the work succeed, essentially... and because it requires an audience.

I do believe that the Lackadaisy creator, although loving his work, wouldn't continue the comic if folks didn't ever read it. On the flipside, furries will make stuff and just post it onto art sites regardless of who sees it (especially unskilled artists looking for recognition), or they continuously post requests from folks or commissions if they are more skilled and have an audience. This leads to unskilled artists posting a lot of "crappy" art until they get better or quit while skilled artists that get lots of fans end up posting a lot of commissions from folks who want the same sort of things over and over... which creates a feeling of low quality/samey art.

The non-furry Anthro artists mainly seem to be those who put the characters to use in stories with audiences, meaning there isn't an endless stream of the art coming out, but only the higher quality "finished product" art. Furries on the other hand just keep producing over and over again, and in general there is more bad than good art, and the more art there is in general that means the more bad art there will be until it seems ubiquitous.

Quanity over quality comes to mind.

[Maug]

2 hours ago, Rhíulchabán said:

Anthro stuff outside of the fandom (such as from Disney, or Lackadaisy (which I love)) has to be of higher quality to stay alive and get noticed because it has to win over non-furries. If Lackadaisy was drawn in the same old same old furry stereotype styles (which is a whole different discussion in and of itself) then the wider public wouldn't get into it. Non-furry artists have to make their Anthros appealing on an artistic level beyond "oh look, it's a fur!"

They usually also make the Anthros look more cartoony/styled/etc. instead of the more samey looking realistic stuff a lot of furries like. You see higher detail and differentiation thrown into these non-furry works because it is necessary to make the work succeed, essentially... and because it requires an audience.

I do believe that the Lackadaisy creator, although loving his work, wouldn't continue the comic if folks didn't ever read it. On the flipside, furries will make stuff and just post it onto art sites regardless of who sees it (especially unskilled artists looking for recognition), or they continuously post requests from folks or commissions if they are more skilled and have an audience. This leads to unskilled artists posting a lot of "crappy" art until they get better or quit while skilled artists that get lots of fans end up posting a lot of commissions from folks who want the same sort of things over and over... which creates a feeling of low quality/samey art.

The non-furry Anthro artists mainly seem to be those who put the characters to use in stories with audiences, meaning there isn't an endless stream of the art coming out, but only the higher quality "finished product" art. Furries on the other hand just keep producing over and over again, and in general there is more bad than good art, and the more art there is in general that means the more bad art there will be until it seems ubiquitous.

 

Just now, Zeke said:

Quanity over quality comes to mind.

 

That makes sense. It takes more time to make better images so there would be less of them floating around

[Alexxx-Returns]

Yes. I feel ashamed of the fact that I even upload the horse shit I draw, especially without slapping several disclaimers over it saying "yes, I KNOW this is garbage, don't for one moment think I'm proud of this in any real way". I upload and keep drawing because I'm actively trying to improve my ability. My sketchbook thread from like 2013 is still going and I love getting advice on how I can improve from people who know what they're talking about.

Meanwhile other people, in and outside the fandom go on and on about how great my stuff is. And they call me self deprecating and too critical when I maintain that it's shit, because it IS shit. And it's kind of insulting to actually good artists to say my stuff is remotely good.

[Zeke]

6 minutes ago, Maug said:

 

 

That makes sense. It takes more time to make better images so there would be less of them floating around

With galleries like FA, the more you post, the more exposure you get as long as your art often crosses the front page. If you are seldom uploading art, you aren't going to get great exposure, even if your art is fantastic. With the popular artists I see on FA, they churn out a lot of sketches and such to keep their gallery fresh so that it doesn't get stale. 

Art that I know that is easily replicated by novices isn't great by any means, but it's what keeps their gallery keeping the hits. Especially if it is something that attracts an audience...like crappy porn.

[Maug]

Just now, Zeke said:

With galleries like FA, the more you post, the more exposure you get as long as your art often crosses the front page. If you are seldom uploading art, you aren't going to get great exposure, even if your art is fantastic. With the popular artists I see on FA, they churn out a lot of sketches and such to keep their gallery fresh so that it doesn't get stale. 

Very true.

[Zeke]

6 minutes ago, Alexxx-Returns said:

Yes. I feel ashamed of the fact that I even upload the horse shit I draw, especially without slapping several disclaimers over it saying "yes, I KNOW this is garbage, don't for one moment think I'm proud of this in any real way". I upload and keep drawing because I'm actively trying to improve my ability. My sketchbook thread from like 2013 is still going and I love getting advice on how I can improve from people who know what they're talking about.

Meanwhile other people, in and outside the fandom go on and on about how great my stuff is. And they call me self deprecating and too critical when I maintain that it's shit, because it IS shit. And it's kind of insulting to actually good artists to say my stuff is remotely good.

I have a sketchbook that I need to upload as well, but I think my shit is...shit

Although, I've been studying animator's sketches like Don Bluth to improve a bit.

[AlastairSnowpaw]

One thing i recently noticed is that most furry artists even the really popular good ones don't draw enough indication of fur on anthros, i recently got a couple pics from an artist who does do that and it's really nice to see and a pretty big difference.

[jcstinks]

I swear to god, if I see one more talented artist waste their talents by posting a litany of "my character posing meekly against a background," I will eat my hat.

 

It's not interesting. It's boring. Stop boring me. I hate being bored by artists with the skills to not bore me.

[jcstinks]

12 hours ago, Saxon said:

But what if that character has a really nice bottom? 

No.

[Maug]

On 2/10/2016 at 5:16 PM, jcstinks said:

I swear to god, if I see one more talented artist waste their talents by posting a litany of "my character posing meekly against a background," I will eat my hat.

You must go through a lot of hats.

[diretractor]

On 2/9/2016 at 0:36 PM, Saxon said:

What really depresses me is the people who spend thousands to go to Art college and come out of it basically still unable to draw. 

We've had graduates come out of Cal Arts -- yes, Cal Fucking Arts -- take our courses because they were not taught the fundamentals and still needed an acceptable portfolio. Let me re-emphasize: they were graduates, with $150k-200k in debt. We started seeing it more and more, people coming out of Cal Arts just not knowing how to draw. And it wasn't just the students not able to learn. We were able to teach them everything that Cal Arts didn't and in just a few months. It was very sad. The more they improved the more pissed they got with Cal Arts. Not to say it's not a bad school overall, just that the focus of their animation department (as a result of new faculty) is now centered on creating your animated short, making the assumption that students have some hidden talent, some big avant-garde idea that you just need the right environment and tools to create it, as opposed to honing your fundamental skills.

[AlexInsane]

Since so many of us can't draw or play music, anything you do on that level is going to be pretty impressive to the rest of us. 

[Liovaire]

Well, why not take a look at the http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Ursa_Major_Awards_winners

Sure it had/has (not sure if it is still a thing) open voting which skews your results but the basic pattern is exactly the same. Like say in 2008 we had this "Best Anthropomorphic Comic Strip - Fur-Piled, by Leo Magna (aka. A. Husky)" now .... that is what i would consider probably the most stereotyped fur comic in existence. There is like one strait character and his girlfriend is like an abusive anti-gay catholic (if I'm remembering correctly i only read it the once) and he is the only character who doesn't end up with someone in the end pretty much everyone else is gay and for bonus points the fox is the slut because why not :V

Then Housepets started to sweep the category but it didn't stop it winning again later in 2010 "Best Anthropomorphic Other Literary Work - Fur-Piled #4, by Leo Magna"  or perhaps a better example, once the category of best website was introduced Equestria Daily won once and then FA swept the category for the remaining years.

 

Everything being a popularity contest generally means that the best won't rise to the top and the fandom is horrible at being a meritocracy in any capacity.

[Toshabi]

It's a fandom based purely on expressing your imagination of something that doesn't exist. Literally not having art in this fandom, to the majority, is akin to not existing in it. This is why everyone who has acess to a mouse and MSPaint will create and submit a half-inspired abomination to the art world: They just want to exist.

How lame.

This is also the reason why browsing any good community site for art is going to result in having to shovel through piles upon piles of doo doo before you find anything worthwhile. 

[Hewge]

It takes years and years of practising (almost) every day just to be able to begin getting anywhere with learning how to draw. Developing a unique, distinctive art style is something that takes even more time and effort on top of everything else. Most people aren't even going to practice hours every day, let alone put in the huge amounts of time to develop ones own fleshed-out "style".
It's pretty unrealistic to expect pretty much everyone to have developed an art style and have the skills that you yourself would find appealing.

As for the furry thing; yeah, I would say that "liking cartoon animal people" is pretty much all it is. But I mean, just because someone draws cartoon animal people sometimes it doesn't mean they need to call themselves a furry, if they don't want to.
I'd also imagine if you're a very popular and well-known artist, having a label you don't entirely want could be pretty annoying. As such, marking yourself with a specific connotation could lead to unwanted things such as people being a part of :insert fandom here: complaining whenever you don't draw what they followed you for, or even anything that you draw which isn't a part of that :insert fandom here: is probably going to be ignored completely.

It's sort of like big-time twitch.tv streamers; Sure - they may have over 10,000 viewers every time they play the League of Legends, but if they play any other game at all they're going to get a tiny fraction of their regular viewer base.

 

Personally though my thoughts are: I don't care about MSPaint drawings other people are making. I don't care if people want to pay for said MSPaint drawings. And really I don't care if people are choosing to call themselves a furry or not.

I just draw what I want to draw, and I enjoy seeing what I enjoy seeing. Other people can do whatever they want, just as I will do the same.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Hewge

[Xaende]

On 2/10/2016 at 7:16 PM, jcstinks said:

I swear to god, if I see one more talented artist waste their talents by posting a litany of "my character posing meekly against a background," I will eat my hat.

 

It's not interesting. It's boring. Stop boring me. I hate being bored by artists with the skills to not bore me.

Yeah, but that's what people want to see. I used to get more faves posting a character standing around doing nothing than I did posting comics or illustrations with interesting stuff going on. Most furs just want to see characters big enough to be noticed in the FA thumbnails. Granted, going above and beyond attracted some positive attention from artists I respect, but for the new fur wanting to make his mark on the fandom it's much easier to post "character posing meekly against a background"... or even better... "character posing meekly" without a background. Bigger ROI, in terms of time and effort.

[AshleyAshes]

22 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I think some people are inherently quite good with little effort

Show me someone who you think is 'inherently good' at something, who isn't often just doing it, practicing it, reading about it, looking at other examples of it and basically always waist deep in the skill at hand because they love it.

[AshleyAshes]

3 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Michelangelo; he painted the Sistine chapel in spite of 'not caring for painting'. The Pope beat him with a stick until he agreed to do it, even though he identified as a sculptor and did not want to take up the brush. 

I certainly think a lot of artists hone their talents further, with consistent practice, but the sparks which get the fires burning are innate, and cannot be given to people without. 

He spent YEARS painting it. That's like... Effort.  A -lot- of effort.  

[willow]

I think that the reason why people have such low standards is because we're just a bunch of regular people for the most part and the majority of us draw as a hobby. sure we have professionals and freelance artists doing work but they're so few and far between.

also I think the median age for most people in the fandom is around the late teens or early twenties and probably just getting serious about drawing.

as a side note I was one of those kids who people said had natural art talent and that I should do art school but tbh, most of my stuff is average. the majority of people who were impressed by my stuff weren't artists themselves

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

The point is that he was a talent as soon as he took up the brush, showing that he had an inherent talent. 

He'd been painting since he was sent off as a boy for training...

Anyway, how about instead of one example who has been dead for five hundred years and is the subject where mythos is often mixed with fact and you can't just ask the guy, got anything else?  Because really, we could go back and forth on that one for a while and why bother?

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

I don't think the point I was trying to convey, that some people are much better predisposed to excel than others, isn't very controversial.

No, see, that I'll agree with.  But you initially worded it as if they can just walk up to anything and magic happens.  People who are predisposed don't just magically have those skills, they have the aptitude and interest, they do this stuff and got into it.  They study it, learn it, do it, observe it, and all that.  Even your Michelangelo example fits because he'd been painting since he was a boy.  He was deep into all the arts.  It's the combination of aptitude and training that makes someone amazing.

Edited February 13, 2016 by AshleyAshes

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Saxon said:

My initial wording was clearly flawed, k?  

My comment is mostly aimed at people who don't have a predisposition, but try and try and try to no avail. 

Yeah, I'll agree with that.  I mean obviously training is better than no training, training will always help and improve, but without an actual aptitude to go along with all that training you can only go so far.  And that those with the attitude are doing the training anyway, because it's what they have the attitude for.  Aptitude without training isn't worth much either.

[Monochromatic-Dragon]

On 2/11/2016 at 0:01 AM, diretractor said:

We've had graduates come out of Cal Arts -- yes, Cal Fucking Arts -- take our courses because they were not taught the fundamentals and still needed an acceptable portfolio. Let me re-emphasize: they were graduates, with $150k-200k in debt. We started seeing it more and more, people coming out of Cal Arts just not knowing how to draw. And it wasn't just the students not able to learn. We were able to teach them everything that Cal Arts didn't and in just a few months. It was very sad. The more they improved the more pissed they got with Cal Arts. Not to say it's not a bad school overall, just that the focus of their animation department (as a result of new faculty) is now centered on creating your animated short, making the assumption that students have some hidden talent, some big avant-garde idea that you just need the right environment and tools to create it, as opposed to honing your fundamental skills.

My god does this ever sound like the criticism that is said about my university.

It is pretty sad, actually. I went into college as a pretty bunk artist and I guess I am still pretty bunk. I put a lot of blame on myself for not having my head or my heart in the right place in my pre-college days and then some. Unfortunately art college seems like a place for already talented artists to hone their skills and to figure out their style/concept and then move on to be very successful, not a place to learn the fundamentals. 

But creative ability is sort of a strange and anomalous degree in and of itself. No-one will ever try to tell you that you only need four years to develop yourself as an artist. It takes a lifetime. I don't believe that any true artist would ever just "settle in" after deciding that what they have is "good enough" and they can stop improving forever. 

[diretractor]

17 minutes ago, Saxon said:

All through my education I asked art teachers when I would be taught the fundamentals, and they always claimed that 'those are difficult and you will be taught them at the next level up'. 

I don't think they ever do teach them. 

Holy fuck. I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate on what happened, specifically what they were teaching, when they taught it and what fundamental skills they thought they could put off teaching?

[Guest]

On 9/2/2016 at 8:50 PM, Red Lion said:

Could be that I'm just not looking hard enough but sometimes it seriously feels like there's a lack of quality art and storytelling going around within the community.

I did that but it mostly was during my crappier art period so very few people were drawn to my works (I also wrote too much and too sparsely, my early descriptions were not compact but unpolished and weighed down by unnecessary, uninteresting details). Funnily enough, now that my art has improved a bit I've gotten tired of storytelling and just shit out half assed sketches.

One last push until the 22nd of february, then I'll be able to say to have submitted at least one drawing every 3 days for a full year. After that, I'll stop drawing

[Monochromatic-Dragon]

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

All through my education I asked art teachers when I would be taught the fundamentals, and they always claimed that 'those are difficult and you will be taught them at the next level up'. 

I don't think they ever do teach them. 

My high school was good about drilling the elements and principals of good composition and design, but otherwise it was just... finding a photo you like online and attempting to replicate it in your chosen media. 

[diretractor]

11 hours ago, Saxon said:

teachers told me that I should expect to be taught techniques in university or preparatory courses. 

Got it. So these were high school-level classes. I can see it being hard to get good teachers outside of college and trade schools. If people are taking it as an elective class then I can see the bar being set pretty low, allowing for pretty much anybody to feel like they are creating art (thus the image tracing).

In a good college curriculum, the first few classes are usually the ones that cause people to drop out. I think this is largely because well-structured classes have you drawing boring stuff like spheres, cubes, and construction drawings of mechanical objects. People like to feel like they are getting somewhere, and create something that looks impressive. I think it would help both the students and the instructors if the reasons why they have to do all of this boring fundamental exercises is because of how these skills are used in what the really want to do artistically. In other words, there's no shortcuts, but if your practice is deliberate and calculated then you'll get their faster. But it does mean you have to wait until you can create something that looks cool. Better yet, show them why these seemingly primitive exercises are cool.

If you are a character designer, you want to learn a repertoire of 3D shapes that you can rotate, because your characters should only be built with shapes you can rotate. If you can't rotate a sphere or a cube, then you pretty much can't do anything with character without tracing reference images, or you have to end up creating very graphic-looking flat characters, which many designers do. But even those kinds of characters require strong design skills, and the way you learn those is by creating very abstract compositions of shape: exercises that I never saw done in college art classes, but did see done in graphic design classes. Again, teachers need to communicate all of this. They have to know what your goals are, and communicate the path that your skills need to take for you to get there. The good news is that the bottom three quarters of that tree is the same for all disciplines, but they need to know why. They need to know how it applies. Landscape artists need to know why they have to draw mechanical objects. Character designers need to understand why they need to take graphic design classes and compose designs with simple shapes. Everyone needs to learn how to draw a perfect sphere. Everyone needs to be able to draw figures, and understand why that's important (it trains your brain to see angle and proportion so your brain is not fooling your eyes).

I'll get off my soapbox.

High school teachers are not paid enough for talented art instructors to teach there. Same with community colleges (with the exception of the community college next to Cal Arts, their faculty teaches at both places for extra money). University level art classes can be a mixed bag, same with trade schools. I wished I could give you a sure fire way to determine if that place has good teaching going on there by people who know what they are talking about, but I can't without seeing it for myself. I guess you just have to ask the students and see if they are any good and if they are learning anything.

[diretractor]

On 2/9/2016 at 11:50 AM, Red Lion said:

sometimes it seriously feels like there's a lack of quality art and storytelling going around within the community. 

Actually, there's some good art out there if you know where to look for it, but storytelling is really, REALLY hard. It's not just based on one good idea. Stories take thousands of ideas and you have to get most of them right. At SIGGRAPH I heard Ed Catmull say that good people are more important than good ideas, because only good people can get those thousands of ideas right, and be humble enough to axe the ideas that are hurting their story. Stories don't grow in a vacuum. They are the sum of the person or people writing it. A person's view of how the world actually works gets injected into their story, which is why you can tell what the author's political leanings are or how they feel the world works because of how certain types of characters react and what the consequences of certain actions are. They don't even have to be doing it intentionally, it's just how they think the world actually works.

Knowing what we know about people in the furry fandom (or rather those who have the stones to identify as such), I can totally understand why those types of stories are made. Again, the story is the sum of the creative minds behind it.

The other part of this is that it takes a very long time for even a good writer to make a story work, and they often need outside opinions. Beta readers, an editor, or maybe a good writers group to help them work things out with their story and to help point out things that don't work. I have a hard time seeing that type of support group being easily found within the furry community. But I'm an outsider looking it, so I probably don't know where to look.

Someone who will put the time in writing a good story will probably want more people to enjoy it, which may result in them distancing themselves from the furry community.

There's a lot going against having a good story come out of the furry community directly and have it be identified as a 100% furry product, instead of 30% furry, or maybe 5% furry just because it has animals in it. It may be that the furry fandom just has to attract the right kind of people.

I can't imagine how many drawings of OCs just evaporate into the void and vanish from the community's memory months after they are produced. But a story, those are evergreen. The images that are attached to a story can last for hundreds of years, and never be forgotten.

[FlynnCoyote]

I have never really been bothered by low standards in the artistic community. Doesn't mean I'll gush over crap, but I'm not the sort of person to tell others they should stop drawing.

What bothers me more is artists who make no effort to improve or develop what drawing/painting/writing style they have and just produce the same thing over and over. Doesn't have to come in leaps and bounds, but I like to see artists at least trying to do a little differently here and there and improve over time.

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

11 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

I have never really been bothered by low standards in the artistic community. Doesn't mean I'll gush over crap, but I'm not the sort of person to tell others they should stop drawing.

What bothers me more is artists who make no effort to improve or develop what drawing/painting/writing style they have and just produce the same thing over and over. Doesn't have to come in leaps and bounds, but I like to see artists at least trying to do a little differently here and there and improve over time.

I feel the exact same way.

[PastryOfApathy]

99% of furry "art" is shit, including me and just about everyone here. I've never claimed to be 'artist' myself, and the closest thing to art school I've ever attended is some shitty elective art class in community college so I can't really bitch about my non-existent experiences with everyone else. I'm just an asshole who spent all his time in school doodling dumb shit because I was a raging autist who hated everyone. Go figure.

Anyways, the main problem I see with people and art sites in general (DA, FA, all of 'em) is that they create a creatively stifling echo chamber that encourages conformity and resistance to any form of criticism.

I mean I'm pretty much 100% self-taught so I naturally fuck up a lot of fundamental stuff that someone whose spent half their life in art school would probably think is a given, and I always say in my profile that I actively encourage criticism. But you know what I found out real quick? People are scared shitless of giving any form of criticism. They've been conditioned by bullshit "popufurs" and other breeds of spastics that saying anything other than "OMG ur da bestt <3333" is grounds for being blocked and/or screamed at, which is absolute horseshit.

And then there's the inherent issue with conformity where styles naturally become more and more homogenized to create a kind of generic "furry style". Everyone knows it and could recognize it instantly so I'm not gonna bother grabbing an example or anything. In a way I guess I was lucky that I had about zero internet access as a kid, as my err "style" was developed by taking inspiration from countless TV shows and video games with varying and diverse art styles I liked at the time. But people now don't really seem to expose themselves to enough stuff since places like FA have seemingly everything all in one place but not only that, it tells you exactly what the most popular way of drawing is and encourages people to effectively copy what works as opposed to experimenting themselves.

This shit just annoys me and I'm not gonna bother with the whole "what is furry" question because I've talked about that way too much.

[Naesaki]

On 09/02/2016 at 7:50 PM, Red Lion said:

It seriously feels like there's a lack of quality art and storytelling going around within the community.

I tried spreading the stories I write on FA but no one in the community seemed to care, even got a PM every now and then of random furries telling me to stop posting my writings because it didn't fit a sex, fetish or nsfw criteria -__-

I eventually got some interested readers but then they turned into, Deathly afraid of giving me any form of constructive criticism, even though I always asked for it and said it was very welcome. So they'd tell me the chapter was good but not why it was good and when I asked they either didn't respond or gave a vague non-answer.

So I kind of gave up trying to push my writings forward on FA and I wasn't about to drop all my ideals just to appeal to common denominator who wanted sex or fetish writing.

 

[Xaende]

On 2/14/2016 at 3:33 PM, Saxon said:

I asked when we would be taught perspective and oil painting, and pointed out that the course agreement indicated we should receive at least 1 hour of lectures each week. The lectures never happened, and the teachers told me that I should expect to be taught techniques in university or preparatory courses. 

If you want to learn more about vanishing points and 3D illustration, I recommend taking a drafting class. Especially if you can find one that doesn't rely on computers and devotes adequate time to three-point perspective.

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by Xaende

[PastryOfApathy]

4 hours ago, Saxon said:

I like the Hellenistic style, because buff torsos are smexy. 

Whatever floats your boat. Personally as a kid in like 3rd grade (which was when I started to actively "experiment" I guess) a couple major influences were Jhonen Vasquez's stuff and the art style from the Windwaker-style Zelda games since I had this poster I spent a bunch of time copying.

I also had some terrible anime phase like pretty much everyone else did but let's not talk about that.

Edited February 16, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[Troj]

I would say the general standards for writing are pretty low. The really good furry writers are very few and far between, and I can't think of a furry writer who is in the same league as the writers we traditionally consider great.

I'd say the standards overall are mezza-mezza because furries are overwhelmingly young, so their tastes are still unrefined and non-discerning, and because "true" furry art is arguably scarce enough to make people willing to consume sub-par stuff in order to get *something.*

[PastryOfApathy]

10 minutes ago, Saxon said:

...Oh god. OH GOD. OH GOD NO

;^3

[diretractor]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

...Oh god. OH GOD. OH GOD NO

Don't knock on Jhonen Vasquez TOO hard. I'm not a fan of his stories, but he does have a very good sense of design, and I have studied his work for that reason.