PegiBrunoFeatured By OwnerJan 7, 2014Hobbyist Digital Artist
A furry can be an anthro artist, a cartoonish artist, an artist who draws ferals as long as you claim yourself a furry. A furry can also draw humans too. But its only when you feel like being a furry and claim to be one, I think.
I don't consider myself a furry I just happen to have a feline character to represent myself online. I don't feel that I am her, she's just my "logo" and a way to express myself. A cat because I love them but that's as far as it goes. Many of my clients do happen to be furries so I do draw quite a few but I do not consider myself one as I don't partake in the community other than drawing.
I agree with your take on it completely. I think being "a furry" is more of a self-identification label than anything else. Some people who draw furry art may be furries, because they identify with that, while others (such as myself) may just be people who happen to like drawing cartoon animals.
If drawing anthropomorphic animals is all it takes to make a person a furry, then by that logic, Walt Disney, Chuck Jones, Don Bluth, and a dozen other artistic professionals who happen to include that stuff in their repertoire are "furries."
If you draw/appreciate anthropomorphic art, you're a furry in my eyes. That's all I see the term as. Someone who appreciates anthropomorphic art. I don't see why people get all flustered when they get called a furry for drawing anthro art, it's just a name. And one not meant to insult at that.
I think some people get flustered because there are some negative connotations associated with the term but obviously there are furries who are perfectly pleasant, not creepy people too so I don't think the term should automatically be considered negative.
That said, I just personally feel it's inaccurate to label anyone who draws/appreciates anthro art as a furry. By that logic, Walt Disney and Chuck Jones would be considered furries. And I suspect the average person wouldn't consider that to be an accurate label for them.
I think being a "furry" encompasses more than just drawing/liking anthro art. I'd consider a furry to be someone who self-identifies as such, and typically may identify strongly with their "fursona" (perhaps sometimes more strongly than with their human self). It seems to be more of a lifestyle than just an aesthetic appreciation of particular artistic subject matter.
I say this as someone who regularly draws "furry" art but don't identify with the label for myself. I don't mind interacting with the furry community at all, as they're a fantastic audience for my art, but I admittedly do feel a bit out-of-place in it on a more in-depth level because I don't necessarily identify with the lifestyle/philosophical aspects of the community. To me, anthro animals are just a fun thing to draw rather than an intrinsic aspect of my identity or a rejection of my own humanity.
Well, let me fix what I said, someone who appreciates/draws anthro art AND has a fursona. Personally, it annoys me when someone says they have a "character representation" of themselves but "Theyre not a fursona because Im not a furry!" No, if you have an animal, that represents you, it's a fursona, and you're a furry. That's pretty much how I see it.
But on that note, I dont really see Walt Disneys characters as anthro.. maybe its from the style they're drawn in xD
Like, for example, Dali isn't me. He's a male dog and his personality differs from mine. I may use him as something of a cartoon stress ball or something to draw but he doesn't really represent me because... he isn't me, if you get what I mean. Think of it as Walt Disney drawing Mickey Mouse, who isn't him obviously (even if he voiced him once or twice). Dali is just a character I made up to draw and experiment with, not a character I made to be me. Sure, I may adopt a few features from myself to make his design more 'realistic' in some images (i.e. eye bags) but this is an on-off thing.
I use other characters to 'represent myself' so are they my 'fursonas' too? I also have personas (i.e. human characters from a story I'm writing) but, alas, I'm no good at drawing them, hence why I mostly focus on Dali and animals. Not because I view myself as an animal.
Totally not after a fight or anything, I'm just legitimately curious on your views on what I call 'mascots' because I always view fursonas as animal versions of a person, with a few exaggerated features. This is why I think this topic is a bit hard to pin down, because everybody's definition of what is a furry or fursona differ.
Truly sorry for the tl;dr wall of text. I'm pretty hopeless at explaining myself sometimes. lol
I see a fursona as a consistent character that you will always use to truly represent you. I have a fursona, a few actually but even I occasionally use my normal characters to represent my feelings. Thats normal.
To me, typically a 'true' fursona will have a lot of characteristics that you have, or have other characteristics that are 'symbolic' to ones you have. ie, my fursona Zee sometimes has a scar over her right eye to symbolize my vision failing in that eye, though I dont have an actual scar over it. Sadly I hardly draw her with this because I have a symmetry issue xD she also has self harm scars that I myself have. So shes basically a really good representation of me, though shes an animal, with ever changing designs/features. Fursonas change a lot, just as the person they represent does.
I do not view myself as an actual animal either, I just use one to represent me. I'm well aware that I am human xD and not an 'animal in a human body' though I do have animal-like habits that probably just developed since most of my young child hood was spent pretending to be animals xD
Sorry if this seems all over the place x3 not to good at organizing my thoughts anymore
Yeah, I totally don't wish to be a male dog. The opposable thumbs and being a girl are a-OK by me. xD
That's a bit of a bitch for me because I like making people laugh (i.e. I'm a bit of a clown) but so is Dali but that's because Ibizan hounds are known as 'clowns of the dog world' because their breed temperament makes them eager to please and show off, so I also made Dali a bit of a diva and an actor. I made him an Ibizan hound because I love the breed and I love Salvador Dali's work (Spanish artist, Spanish breed of dog). So, in a way, he can be counted as something of a fursona.
Ah, I used to have really complicated character designs that didn't suit me. I love simplicity and, sometimes, a character's design can only represent yourself so much imo or it gets too 'cluttered' if you know what I mean. I learned that from past characters. Dali's design works for me because it's simple and he looks like an Ibizan hound, which I adore. I tried creating a proper 'fursona' (i.e. a dog version of myself) and it really didn't feel right because I really don't know what sort of person I am inside so I'm hopeless at creating an animal version of myself.
The reason for me using animals in my art will always be my inability to draw humans and the lack of fun I have with them. If I could draw humans as well as some artists I watch, I'd draw animals a hell of a lot less than I would. And all of us have animal habits, my mother occasionally acts like a meerkat because she's always on edge and constantly watching my and my siblings' every move, in utter silence. haha
I think that can have other implications besides being "a furry" too though. For example, I had a fursona that I always drew myself as for years, not because I identify with/want to be an animal, but simply because I found animals easier to draw than humans. I was really insecure about drawing people and getting their faces to look right when I was younger, and just had more fun drawing animals, so it was just so much easier to represent myself with an animal character.
There's also something fun about taking a person, and drawing them as an animal, just as an exercise on caricature. Because when you're drawing a person as a non-human (be it an animal, or even a toaster or a lamp) you really have to pay attention to what features are really identifying and make them look like "them." My friend and I played a sort of game like that once, where we took a human character, and drew him as various inanimate objects (lamp, toaster, couch, etc) and managed to make all these things still "look like him" because we'd figured out what his most identifying features are.
These days, having become more confident at drawing people, my self-portraits are usually human. But I still draw my "fursona" now and then just for fun or because I'm doing commission examples for the furry fandom and that resonates more with them.
Technically, anthropomorphic is defined as "having human characteristics," so even a character like Simba would be considered "anthropomorphic" because he's a lion who talks and has human-like issues and thoughts. But if we go by the popular fandom viewpoint of an anthro character being an animal that walks on two legs (has somewhat humanoid proportions) and talks and wears clothing, that still applies to a lot of Disney/Warner Bros/other animated characters, such as:
I think people frequently forget just how prevelent anthropomorphic characters are (and always have been: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia… ) in our culture completely outside of and unrelated to the furry fandom. Anthro characters existed long before furries. Furries just have a more involved appreciation of/identification with them than the average person.
Right, and like I said, according to that definition, quite a few Disney (and other major company) characters would be considered anthro or furry.
And I still disagree that simply drawing oneself as an anthro character makes someone a furry. It's not really at all uncommon for artists draw themselves/their coworkers as animal characters for fun/as a joke. There are examples of this in The Art of the Lion King book. If you're using a fursona as your primary representation and have more of an emotional/philosophical attachment to the character beyond just "I drew this because it was fun," then sure, that might make someone a furry. But I think the definition of ever having an anthro character of yourself is far too broad and would encompass a lot of people that you probably would not consider furries.
But, you're making assumptions. That's the problem. I just gave you examples of how someone can have a fursona that represents them visually, but not necessarily have a strong connection with them.
Unless I'm misinterpreting your usage of "truly represents." If you mean, "This is my identity/how I see myself/how I want the world to see me," then sure. But I would argue that drawing something for fun, or because an artist is insecure about drawing other things due to lack of skill/practice is quite different from having a strong connection with something or wanting to be seen as something other than human.
Great poll! It always makes me kind of uncomfortable when I see people reblogging my Skyrim fanart with the tag "furry". I'm not a furry so who is that tag referring to? The person reblogging it maybe? I just like the beast races of a fantasy world, that's it. They might be anthopomorphic cats and lizards, but that doesn't qualify me as a furry in my opinion. (If I found DA when I was 10 I would've probably become a furry. But that's not the case.)
Being a furry is a mindset; a big part of it does involve having a fursona, drawing anthros, and things of that regard but its not the defining traits. Those who are furries are usually people who like to disregard their humanity and press to other extremes such as fursuits, the ears, tails, and things like that. Or so that is what I have observed, so far
I feel like if you're into anthro characters to a certain degree, you're at least some kind of furry u3u it's weird cause sometimes I'll see people who have furry representations of themselves and also draw muy naked/sexin' furries but claim not to be a furry at all and I'm like "uh I think that's about the most furry u can get"
eh, some people are really invested in their characters to the point that they feel they pretty much are their characters, so they make accounts under their character's names, or use them as their constant personal avatars, often roleplay into conversation and by default be that character (do things like wag tail or ear droop or snakie wrap and such), or fursuit them etc. i think that's being a furry. when someone's really into their character
i don't feel that level of connection with the ~furry ways~ though. have multiple 'fursonas' that just stem from my interest of drawing animals. sometimes i wanna draw me but i don't want to draw a person. so what i do is just plunk down an alien dog or a donkey or a bear idk whatever i feel like at the time. but when i do casual chatty roleplay, boopin someone or smoochin em, i just see me. i don't fall into any type of character idk
The whole 'anthro art = furry art' thing is annoying but I believe some people come out and call you a 'furry' because I think it's been adopted as a derogative term by the people who are not that fond of them. I've seen artists get accused of being a furry for drawing feral animals rather than anthro and that's when I began to think that people just use it as an insult, like 'I'm gonna associate you with people I don't like because I think constantly drawing animals is strange'.
The mindset of the whole 'someone drawing animal art is a furry' almost makes me reluctant to engage in discussion on Youtube because of the content of my videos. I once commented on a video, it got quite a few thumbs up and there was going to be that one guy who looked at my videos and told me to go 'yiff in hell', like it was relevant to the discussion. I didn't give him a response, of course, because I knew that's what he was fishing for but I was thinking 'erm - what does yiff have to do with me drawing G-rated cartoon doggies?'. But, oh of course, it's because Native Americans and anybody who associates themselves with an animal 'mascot' is a furry.
And the argument apparently dies once you get an FA account anyway so I was best off keeping my mouth shut and not denying it. lol
now that's some silly stuff. i don't see how appreciating art of cartoon animals makes one a furry. kids grow up with cartoons of animal characters, so naturally some of them who pick up the pencil will end up drawing them by influence of the stuff they like, and it sticks sometimes
personally i have FA because i draw anthros and that is where i can probably get a lot of business commission-wise. i watch some artists and have made friends but i'm not heavily involved with the community and i don't even browse the search engine. idk but usually people who call me a furry don't even know i have FA.
I'm not really going to name the artist who was accused of being a furry because this happened a few years ago but she did tell this guy who was accusing her that she does draw human artwork as part of her degree and studies but she is more comfortable drawing animals in her free time, not because she views herself as an animal but because there's a lot of opportunity to explore anatomy and have a bit of diversity. The guy's response was something along the lines of 'oh, nonsense, I know furries who don't have a fursona or dress up as an animal but it still doesn't change the fact that they're furries because they're constantly drawing dogs/cats and nothing else'. Of course, the artist reminded him that animal 'totems' have been part of Native American culture for thousands of years but you certainly don't get people saying that they're furries for doing what their ancestors did and believing they have an animal 'mascot', which is completely different from a fursona and that what people see on the internet doesn't necessarily reflect what goes on in real life. The guy didn't reply, of course, so I guess she got him there.
For people who are very anti-furry 'appreciating art of cartoon animals' can easily translate to them as 'finding animals sexually attractive' no matter how blue in the face you get by telling them that's not the case. There are just people out there who like to twist things for their own amusement when they can't find anything to cause a shitstorm over, and that includes calling artists who draw 'nothing but dogs/cats' furries. I believe there is a fine line between an animal artist/animator and a furry but that line is becoming so blurred to so many people that there comes a time when you just have to shrug and be all 'think what you want to think' because the internet is filled with people who won't change their minds once they get an idea into their head or have spent years in anti-furry communities.
Given what you've said about your commissions business with anthros, I can see why you'd be accused of being a furry. Because weeding them out is srs business to some guys and anybody who even speaks to a furry in a business sense just HAS to be one. Clearly. jk, I legit pity you because nobody should've to put up with endless 'are u a furry' questions just because you're just trying to earn a living. I mean, God, why does it even matter? xD
So well-put. I find the stubborn refusal to accept that someone can *gasp* enjoy drawing animal characters without being a furry generally reflects a certain level of immaturity and/or lack of understanding about the prevalence of anthro animals in commercial art, frequently coupled with a desire to try and insult or belittle other artists by calling them furries.
I just draw animals because I suck at humans: is that a bad thing? lol
Obviously, animators at Disney and Dreamworks work with animals (even the dreaded anthropomorphic ones) and calling them furries is quite bizarre. Then again, places like TVTropes aren't all that helpful in that argument as that particular website (although useful and entertaining to read) is quick to point out that films like Robin Hood have a huge furry fanbase, just in case anyone is under any doubt that appreciating anthropomorphic animals = being something of a furry. Evidently, they don't mean for it to come across that way but part of me just thinks 'who gives a shit?' when it comes to this obsession with linking ANYTHING with anthropomorphic animals to the furry fandom.
You also get the odd troll that will be all 'oh, I never watched Disney shit growing up' and then you're free to break off all communication because that's when it's clear you're either dealing with someone who watched more... questionable things than a furry ever would or someone with a 'i'm so right lalala' attitude.
What really gets me (particularly on Youtube) is when someone drags it into the conversation like it's relevant. I mean, there are channels out there that I don't believe should exist but I certainly don't go around telling people if I'm in the middle of a conversation with them. This is partially why I'm glad Google have changed their comments system, because it really is like a landmine, even when you're not trying to insult anyone or get into a fight. You just know what somebody's retort will be if you disagree with a comment because they can just look at your videos and be all 'LOL FURRY' even though I'm not one and it has little to do with the discussion. :/
i say this because i've seen people that like to stamp 'furry' on people because they draw anthros often or have a fursona. not that i'm against furries necessarily (well......not all furries anyway. gotta admit there are a few dark corners in the furry fandom), but i'm not a furry. i just like drawing animals, people, and cool crosses of the two
and here i have at least 4 people calling me a furry. not that it's necessarily 'insulting;' i'm just annoyed at how they think 'anthro artist' and 'furry' is synonymous
so i'm happy with the poll results so far. thanks deviantART
Amen to all your above statements. It can be so frustrating, especially when people I like tell me that I must be a furry because I draw anthro characters. By that logic, all the folks to worked on the movie Rango must be furries too.