This is genuinely the most retarded acceptance of political correctness I have ever seen.
epiphanythere is literally no excuse to suck anymoreepiphany by rainue
"but I'm still young, need more practice under my belt" FALSE YOU'RE OLD ENOUGH TO HOLD A TABLET, YOU'RE OLD ENOUGH TO REACH THE KEYBOARD.
"but I'm studying _____! I'm a ft student! I'll wait until college/after highschool/retirement." FALSE you ought to make time for art! AND LIFE WILL ALWAYS KEEP YOU BUSY. THERE'S NEVER A PERFECT TIME TO DRAW. U JUST GOTTA, SUCK IT UP, DRAW ANYWAYS.
"but I'm not studying art! I don't have access to the resources others do " FALSE google exists, you can afford art classes, there's so many resources. You can practice more than anyone else, always.
"but I don't know what style I want to do yet" GO DRAW ANYWAYS"but my faces/hands/etc sucks" THATS CAUSE YOU DIDN'T PRACTICE ENOUGH"but I'm just born terrible at art" THEN GO PRACTICE MORE THAN THOSE WHO "ARE""but I'm good for my age/group/peers" BUT ARE YOU GOOD...ENOUGH!? ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR ART? CAN YOU DO BETTER?"It's too lat
My real name is not Viktoria RosÚn. Let's get that out of the way. All the implications of that I leave to you to figure out. All great artists have a stage name or an alter ego or a psuedonym, and that's mine.|
I am not a great artist and I don't want to be one either for the very simple reason - artists are no better than orthodox religious people, from the nihilistic Buddhists to the inbred Creationists. I am here to become better at my Craft and document the process along the way as well as make a name for myself, but do not ever delude yourself into thinking I'm an artist. To be clear, I define an artist as someone who does something inteligent and mistakable for original in a creative way for his/her own sake without any kind of pragmatic reason, and since DA hardly has a single person matching that description I figure it's as good a place as any to start. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there's anything wrong in being an artist, I'm just saying I don't want to be an artist because I find no satisfaction in that thinking.
I am here to develop and hone above all my ability as an illustrator - find my style, learn to work creatively, do it proficiently, which means I want criticism for all my work. What was good, what was bad, how you liked it.
The reason is I am developing the base for a longer series or of novels based in a futuristic Cthulhu cycle exploring themes of independence, religion, personality, power, evil and goodness, all set within a erotic sci-fi/fantasy drama called "Who Durst Defy", and while I am driven I am far from near being able to pull that off. That's the main reason why I want to hone my artistic ability, but more than that I have discovered I have a generally creative mind and feel good when I do creative things such as write or draw and I would rather do that than anything else the average drone's life has to offer. I don't want to do this to make money (I am not that stupid) but I want to get by on it one day.
Most obvious things you'll learn about me is I am a nyctophile, meaning I find alot more comfort in darkness than in light, and I am an anthropomorphile, a faculty term I've invented meaning "a strong, passionate, sexual as well as spiritual desire and/or connection to a entity defineable as more than human" but that does not mean I like Furry. Porn is one thing, a starved woman can't be a picker, but other than that I do not want any connection to Furry as a movement because I do not care for nor follow that style. I draw anthropomorphs, not furry, and there is a difference between the two. Anyone who claims anything different is either living in denial or plain ignorant. Yes, there are similarities, but it's like comparing wolves with those chihuahuas you see in handbags. I've thought a bit about what it is that seperate these two genre's and I think I've come up with a fairly good explanation of the differences between them. Before you read though, let me make it plain I have little against furries as such, I simply want it plain that what I draw isn't furries as such.
1. Furry is a part of Anthropomorphism, not the other way around.
Fred Patten, a historian born in 1940 who have been able to follow the evolution of the genre first-hand, claims it originated at a sci-fi convention in the 1980's, tough furries as we've come to know them has existed since much earlier in the 1900's (take Disney's Robin Hood for example). Anthropomorphism on the other hand is exceedingly much older than any of these examples, and much more diversified. Stories of human-like animals or animals with human minds and reasoning or humans with animalistic features can be found on every continent and in every culture. The Germanic werewolves, the Greek Minotaur, La Belle et la Bŕte, the Dove of the Old Testament, the Were-lions of Africa, these are just a few of the many.
2. Furries are without exception depicted in a cartoon- or manga style.
By this I mean furry artists generally don't bother with making realistic drawings, they're always stylized, and often in a manner similar to one-another. A common denominator is I have yet to see a furry artist bothering to draw fur, but simply making a field with a few "pointy edges" to give the character a feeling of having fur. If I am unclear as to what I mean with this, the works of Walt Disney, , Kadath, and ought to clue you in. Now you may point out old depictions of for example werewolves, woodcuts and the like, have a smilar style, to which I say more often than not the entire depiction is given an even fur pattern, and when it's not it's often meant to depict shades, depth, light, et cetera. Another denominator is furries can give human facial expressions no matter how their faces are designed. Of course, animals can do expressions we can interpret as simimilar to our own and it can be argued that furries therefor can do them to, and I could let it slide should it be an expression not unrealistically exaggerated. On a sidenote, furries can pronounce human words and sounds which we know are impossible for animals to replicate with a snout for example.
3. Furries are unimaginative parodies of the entire concept of the borderline between human and animal.
This is probably the most offensive title of the argumentation for where furry ends and anthropomorphism begins but I can explain why it is also very accurate. The Furry fandom is very closed-off if you compare it to the rest of all that anthropomorhism can be. The word "Anthropomorphism" is actually a synonym for "personification" and it applies not just to animals, but everything. Everything not human with human-like features and capabilities is an anthropomorph. Death as a skeleton with a scythe in black robes is a anthropomorph and so is an Easterly wind depicted as a cherub blowing ships across the sea. But for now we'll focus on the animalistic. By "unimaginative" I mean furries are essentially completely human. The one thing seperating a furry and a human is its exotic body. More often than not furries can wear clothes, they can use machines, they have a human society, and they have a human capacity for reasoning and empathy. Anthropomorph's are supposed to be in-between human and animal, and that in itself opens a world of possibilities very rarely utilized in furry. Which brings me to "parody of the concept between human and animal". What I mean by parody is the mocking trivialization of the world of possibility that lie there. "Between human and animal...is a human with a nearly human body." It's almost disrespectful. Almost. Anthropomorph's are very rarely not meant to symbolize something, usually that humans are animals in one way or another, which we through-out history have been struggling hard to deny, or put a Devil's stamp on (take the vampire, which is essentially the embodiment of the deadly sins) but it can be so much more and often is.
4. Furries is not taken seriously.
There's a very good reason people mock Furry fandom - it has yet to be depicted in a way that can be taken seriously. You have to admit all in all furry can be split into three undergenre's - porn, childrens TV-series, and minor psuedo-drama's. Furry porn is not taken seriously because it's porn and while porn in itself is often mocked furry can all to easily be interpreted as "beastiality in denial". Kid's TV-series with furries is directed at a very distinct audience - kids. What we like as kids is very rare to like as adults because we are taught to put childish things behind us as we grow older because they're often clashing with reality, which we need to embrace if we are to function in society (we are taught). This I really blaim the most for furries not being taken seriously. Finally, what I mean by "psuedo-drama's" is a general drama that not only isn't very good, but could function just as well with humans as with furries, because all characters are essentially humans with fur. Anthropomorph's aren't taken very seriously either, but it is mocked to a much smaller degree than furries. I think the reason is because everything I have already argumented - anthropomorphic animals are in total percieved as more realistic in depiction as well as mentality and nature.
Of course, this is just a generalization and depictions of furry/anthropomorphism often cross these lines in one way or another. These are just a few rules of thumb that I have written down to help maintain the distinction.
This is who I am, and there's nothing else to say.
"Life has no Point, so we can shape it as we wish."
- Viktoria RosÚn