Is Anthropomorphic Art Lazy?

[BlairH]

What the furries do in their own time is their own business. I don't want any part in it, but I woln't criticise you for it either. I will say -however- that over using humanoid animals in fantasy, sci-fi and anime strikes me as being artistically lazy.

I was pissed off to discover -in Elder Scrolls: Oblivion for the Xbox360- that much of the province of Tamriel is populated by a race of fucking annoying "tiger people". I have became so annoyed with this particular race, that I have taken it upon myself to find and destroy every last one of them. See, lazy art design makes Blair a genocidal maniac.

The only exception to the rule is Thundercats. I just will not hear any criticism of that cartoon at all.

EDIT: I didn't start this thread.

[Cephus]

What the furries do in their own time is their own business. I don't want any part in it, but I woln't criticise you for it either. I will say -however- that over using humanoid animals in fantasy, sci-fi and anime strikes me as being artistically lazy.

How is it any more artistically lazy than Star Trek, which uses regular humans with crap stuck on their faces as aliens? Or Babylon 5 which did the same thing? Or the vast majority of SF and fantasy shows? Almost nobody is original these days and hasn't been for a long, long time.

Now I will defend using anthropomorphics in stories because sometimes, it makes telling a particular type of story easier. Star Trek had to resort to using guys with black on one side of their face and white on the other to tell a story about racism, simply because nobody is going to argue with it. Using a canine race and a feline race in a story about racism is also much easier than using humans because you're not going to offend anyone using black or white skin, you can just use different kinds of fur and tell a compelling tale.
You can do things with non-human characters that are much harder to do using humans.

[BlairH]

How is it any more artistically lazy...

I think you answered your own question:
You can do things with non-human characters that are much harder to do using humans.

[Pól Rua]

What the furries do in their own time is their own business. I don't want any part in it, but I woln't criticise you for it either. I will say -however- that over using humanoid animals in fantasy, sci-fi and anime strikes me as being artistically lazy.

Yeah, because if there's one thing I associate with Stan Sakai, Juan Canales, Juanjo Guardino, Carl Barks, Don Rosa, Masumone Shirow, Scott Shaw, Reed Waller and Kate Worley is artistically lazy.

[BlairH]

Yeah, because if there's one thing I associate with Stan Sakai, Juan Canales, Juanjo Guardino, Carl Barks, Don Rosa, Masumone Shirow, Scott Shaw, Reed Waller and Kate Worley is artistically lazy.
If that's your stuff then fair enough, but I -personally- haven't got the time for any of them. I find their work to be -for the most part- lazy.

[howyadoin]

Heck, as for the whole "drawing anthro animals is easier" line, that's a pile of BS. I should know, I've learned how to draw starting with humans, and now I'm busy learning how to draw animals, which isn't as easy as people make it seem.If you can draw people well, it's because you understand structure and musculature. And most likely perspective.

If you know those, you should be able to draw anything.

[JerrBear81]

If that's your stuff then fair enough, but I -personally- haven't got the time for any of them. I find their work to be -for the most part- lazy.

I don't see how it's any lazier than using elves, halflings, vulcans, klingons, etc.

[Gilda Dent]

Yeah, because if there's one thing I associate with Stan Sakai, Juan Canales, Juanjo Guardino, Carl Barks, Don Rosa, Masumone Shirow, Scott Shaw, Reed Waller and Kate Worley is artistically lazy.

And Art Speigleman. I hear that some story he wrote and drew using anthropomorphic animals is pretty well regarded.

GILDA

[Gorthaur]

I don't see how it's any lazier than using elves, halflings, vulcans, klingons, etc.All those fictional species have human facial features, though, which means that in order to draw them properly, you have to master the difficult nuances of human postures, facial expressions, etc. With anthro-animals, simplified and exaggerated caricatures of the same usually suffice, which is what I imagine BlairH meant with "artistic laziness."

Not to say that caricaturized art doesn't have its place, of course.

[JerrBear81]

All those fictional species have human facial features, though, which means that in order to draw them properly, you have to master the difficult nuances of human postures, facial expressions, etc. With anthro-animals, simplified and exaggerated caricatures of the same usually suffice, which is what I imagine BlairH meant with "artistic laziness."

Not to say that caricaturized art doesn't have its place, of course.

I don't know if it should be considered lazy though. Most any kind of detailed drawings takes a lot of effort.

Also, with video games, I'd imagine it takes as much effort (Like the one Blair menntioned) to animate an anthromorphic's face as it does a human's. Maybe more depending on how detailed one is going.

[JeffreyWKramer]

If that's your stuff then fair enough, but I -personally- haven't got the time for any of them. I find their work to be -for the most part- lazy.

That's possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on these boards. And mind you, that includes statements from iwarrior, Samurai, Watson Glenn and various people who said crazy shit while drunk.

[Cephus]

I think you answered your own question:

Let's change that to "impossible to do using humans". It's possible to do a story like Maus using mice that you just couldn't do using humans.

[jaguarshark]

Originally posted by Blair H
If that's your stuff then fair enough, but I -personally- haven't got the time for any of them. I find their work to be -for the most part- lazy.

Originally posted by Pol Rua
Yeah, because if there's one thing I associate with Stan Sakai, Juan Canales, Juanjo Guardino, Carl Barks, Don Rosa, Masumone Shirow, Scott Shaw, Reed Waller and Kate Worley is artistically lazy.

And Art Speigleman. I hear that some story he wrote and drew using anthropomorphic animals is pretty well regarded.

GILDA


I had a high school English teacher who was completely against the use of anthropomorphic animals in storytelling as well. I can't even remember how or why it came up- I think he was extolling the virtues of every genre of storytelling and specifically pointed out that he didn't like that sort- but I didn't understand it then and I don't really understand it now. I'm genuinely curious why it would be considered an inherently lazier form of storytelling.

And as long as we're creating a list of famous storytellers in that mould, we may as well move outside comics and add legendary guys like Walt Disney and Chuck Jones to the list as well. I mean, I totally get that some people might not like any of those guys work, but what about it could be considered 'lazy'?

[lonewolf23k]

I had a high school English teacher who was completely against the use of anthropomorphic animals in storytelling as well. I can't even remember how or why it came up- I think he was extolling the virtues of every genre of storytelling and specifically pointed out that he didn't like that sort- but I didn't understand it then and I don't really understand it now. I'm genuinely curious why it would be considered an inherently lazier form of storytelling.

And as long as we're creating a list of famous storytellers in that mould, we may as well move outside comics and add legendary guys like Walt Disney and Chuck Jones to the list as well. I mean, I totally get that some people might not like any of those guys work, but what about it could be considered 'lazy'?


Hell, you might as well go right back to Aesop's fables, which use animals with human-like intelligence as symbolic characters, like in "The Lion and the Mouse".

[Pól Rua]

And Art Speigleman. I hear that some story he wrote and drew using anthropomorphic animals is pretty well regarded.

GILDA


I knew I was forgetting someone... and I had a feeling they were a big name.
Thanks, Gilda.

[jaguarshark]

Hell, you might as well go right back to Aesop's fables, which use animals with human-like intelligence as symbolic characters, like in "The Lion and the Mouse".
Yeah, that's what doesn't make sense about it to me... it seems like a pretty broad body of work to paint with the same brush, you know?

[Slam_Bradley]

That's possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on these boards. And mind you, that includes statements from iwarrior, Samurai, Watson Glenn and various people who said crazy shit while drunk.


Damn you for beating me too it.

While I can't vouch for all creators, Carl Barks did a ton of research for his stories. Not lazy.

[Athena Bast]

What the furries do in their own time is their own business. I don't want any part in it, but I woln't criticise you for it either. I will say -however- that over using humanoid animals in fantasy, sci-fi and anime strikes me as being artistically lazy.

I was pissed off to discover -in Elder Scrolls: Oblivion for the Xbox360- that much of the province of Tamriel is populated by a race of fucking annoying "tiger people". I have became so annoyed with this particular race, that I have taken it upon myself to find and destroy every last one of them. See, lazy art design makes Blair a genocidal maniac.

The only exception to the rule is Thundercats. I just will not hear any criticism of that cartoon at all.

what about video games? Kimahri from FF10?

[Kid Omega]

Hey Blair.

You really have no clue what you're talking about.

If you don't know anything about the technical aspects of illustration (and it seems you don't), it's probably best not to say anyting at all, because not only do you come across as Incredibly, Empirically Wrong, but you stand the risk of making people think you're just trolling.

Thanks.

[Michael P]

Blair, you're really talking out your ass more than usual on this one. Hell, I'm not the biggest fan of the convention, but I'm not going to knock it all because of the lower-tier practitioners.
Interesting thing I noticed earlier this year: The Comic Genesis FCBD book had a lot of BAD anthropomorphic stuff, truly bad, in it. What made it bad wasn't that it was anthropomorphic, but rather the same stuff that makes anything bad: simple ineptitude. The characters were one-dimensional, the plotting was non-existent, there was no sense of style or structure... it was just inept.

And you can't say that about most of the professional stuff. Barks, Sakai, Walt Kelly, others people have mentioned, they knew how to tell a story.

[Lubichev]

I was pissed off to discover -in Elder Scrolls: Oblivion for the Xbox360- that much of the province of Tamriel is populated by a race of fucking annoying "tiger people". I have became so annoyed with this particular race, that I have taken it upon myself to find and destroy every last one of them. See, lazy art design makes Blair a genocidal maniac.

What about the lizard folk? Gonna wipe them out too? Might as well. They aren't human, either.

You sound like a Nazi, Blair.

[Winslow]

And you can't say that about most of the professional stuff. Barks, Sakai, Walt Kelly, others people have mentioned, they knew how to tell a story.

Preach it Michael (and others)

Oh, and Mouse Guard may be the best ongoing comic in print right now.

and the art is clearly not lazy:

http://www.davidpetersen.net/mouseguard/index.htm

*shameless plug*

[JeffreyWKramer]

And you can't say that about most of the professional stuff. Barks, Sakai, Walt Kelly, others people have mentioned, they knew how to tell a story.


Anyone who thinks the likes of Walt Kelly, Carl Barks, Stan Sakai and Art Spiegelman are somehow artistically lazy, or not completely and utterly competent... well, fuck, words fail me.

I continue to be astounded at that statement, because it's just so obviously so completely untrue.

[JeffreyWKramer]

You sound like a Nazi, Blair.

Well, that's going a bit ludicrously far. We are, after all, talking about imaginary beings that are depicted as being non-human.

If a person doesn't like anthropomorphistic art and related stuff, that's fine and good. I have no problem with that. But to suggest it is somehow lazy or lacking in quality, that's another thing entirely.

[Michael P]

Preach it Michael (and others)

Oh, and Mouse Guard may be the best ongoing comic in print right now.

and the art is clearly not lazy:

http://www.davidpetersen.net/mouseguard/index.htm

*shameless plug*
Mouse Guard brings to mind Redwall (you might be able to accuse that guy of laziness, but only in milking the same idea for 20 years). And that brings to mind Watership Down and the NIMH books.

[tricksterpup]

Mouse Guard brings to mind Redwall (you might be able to accuse that guy of laziness, but only in milking the same idea for 20 years). And that brings to mind Watership Down and the NIMH books.
But what about Bloom county??
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/Delrina-OpusNBill-BrainSaver.jpg

Or Calvin and Hobbs?
http://www.lawrence.edu/fast/SARNECKJ/pals.jpg

[Gingold]

Maybe I missed this somewhere earlier in the discussion, but why the hell are Barks, Kelly, Sakai, etc. involved in a discussion about Furries at all? I'm failing to see what drawing cartoon animals has to do with people screwing in animal costumes.

I you like to draw anthropomorphic animals, you're not a "furry", you're a cartoonist. Why would you want to be identified with those folks?

[Kid Omega]

Anyone who thinks the likes of Walt Kelly, Carl Barks, Stan Sakai and Art Spiegelman are somehow artistically lazy, or not completely and utterly competent... well, fuck, words fail me.

I continue to be astounded at that statement, because it's just so obviously so completely untrue.

Let's go ahead and add the Great Jeff Smith to that list, along with Don Rosa, Aaron Renier, Scott Morse, Joann Sfar, Lewis Trondhiem, Jason, Edward Gorey, Osamu Tezuka, and Craig Thompson.

Lazy my ass.

[Lubichev]

Well, that's going a bit ludicrously far. We are, after all, talking about imaginary beings that are depicted as being non-human.

You are right. I must remember that it is make believe. I guess it was the "genocidal maniac" phrase that prompted it.

It's not real.
It's not real.
It's not real.

I, personally, like the Kajiit. They can see in the dark. And can sneak around really well.

[Winslow]

Maybe I missed this somewhere earlier in the discussion, but why the hell are Barks, Kelly, Sakai, etc. involved in a discussion about Furries at all? I'm failing to see what drawing cartoon animals has to do with people screwing in animal costumes.

I you like to draw anthropomorphic animals, you're not a "furry", you're a cartoonist. Why would you want to be identified with those folks?

"furries" aren't just people that get it on in animal costumes.

Some really like anthropomorphic art. So it's related.

There's a Furry Convention here in Philly, and anthropomorphic artists are usually there to sign autographs and promote their work.

[Ed Cunard]

Here are some Carl Barks images.

A sample Scrooge McDuck splash page:

http://moneybin.at.infoseek.co.jp/american.jpg

A sample oil painting:

http://moneybin.at.infoseek.co.jp/san_jacinto.jpg

[Michael P]

Let's go ahead and add the Great Jeff Smith to that list,
I cannot believe I forgot Smith. My nerd-shame is great.

[Ed Cunard]

Here's more not-lazy images (if they go through--I never know when I'll be all red-x):

David Petersen, from Mouse Guard

http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/MG1page11.jpg

Jason, from The Left Bank Gang:

http://www.forbiddenplanet.co.uk/images/G/G9074.jpg

Craig Thompson, from Goodbye, Chunky Rice:

http://i.xanga.com/Neohapa/page5.jpg

[K'Nort]

Maybe I missed this somewhere earlier in the discussion, but why the hell are Barks, Kelly, Sakai, etc. involved in a discussion about Furries at all? I'm failing to see what drawing cartoon animals has to do with people screwing in animal costumes.

It doesn't. It's a tangent buried back a few pages. Blair basically said that all anthropomorphic art is lazy storytelling, so people are responding to that. Completely separate from the sex stuff.

[mervyn]

How about Maus

don't some people consider it to be the best Graphic novel ever?

[Charles RB]

If that's your stuff then fair enough, but I -personally- haven't got the time for any of them. I find their work to be -for the most part- lazy.

Have you seen how detailed Ladrönn's art on Comicraft's Hip Flask (www.hipflask.com) is? There is no logical way it could be called "lazy".

[cactusmaac]

I don't know if Blair has clarified this, but is it possible he means that using animals in fiction is a short-cut when it comes to giving them traits and personalities - cunning, evil tigers, wise owls, faithful dogs, shifty reptiles, noble lions etc. - and that's why its' artistically lazy?

[KameTen]

To which I say that there are always going to be shortcuts when dealing with characters in a story, regardless of who or what the characters are. A human being in a story has an equal chance of being used in a lazy manner just as much as an anthropomorphic character.

And nobody mentioning the Looney Tunes characters or the Ninja Turtles in this discussion? That makes me sad:(

[Adam Crocker]

If that's your stuff then fair enough, but I -personally- haven't got the time for any of them. I find their work to be -for the most part- lazy.

You do realize that Shirow uses barely any anthropomorphics in his art to begin with, right?

[Athena Bast]

I don't know if Blair has clarified this, but is it possible he means that using animals in fiction is a short-cut when it comes to giving them traits and personalities - cunning, evil tigers, wise owls, faithful dogs, shifty reptiles, noble lions etc. - and that's why its' artistically lazy?

I've seen owls be silly and aloof (much like a senior with senility).

Why are tigers evil? They can be noble creatures.

Foxes have been portrayed as heroes (Robin Hood).

Dogs can be just as shifty and bad as anyone else. Same with cats. I can bet purebred dogs also have haughty attitudes. RE: Lady and the Tramp.

Lions can also be lazy creatures (Scar from The Lion King).

It's just like we draw human beings. We draw them to fit ideals we want. We want them to be imposing the simplist way to do that is to draw them as large or as muscled as possible.

Shadowcat is slim and dancerlike in her shape because it's easier to believe she can slip through bulkheads rather than if she was proportioned like say She-Hulk.

It's just as easy to cast against type for animals as it is for humans. Have like a skinny kid be super-strong or an overweight person have lightning reflexes or super speed.

I'm using superhero skills to show my point. No malice intended.:(

[Charles RB]

Why are tigers evil?

Because Tony Jay voiced one.

[cactusmaac]

Why are tigers evil? They can be noble creatures.

Foxes have been portrayed as heroes (Robin Hood).

Dogs can be just as shifty and bad as anyone else. Same with cats. I can bet purebred dogs also have haughty attitudes. RE: Lady and the Tramp.

Lions can also be lazy creatures (Scar from The Lion King).

It's just like we draw human beings. We draw them to fit ideals we want. We want them to be imposing the simplist way to do that is to draw them as large or as muscled as possible.

Shadowcat is slim and dancerlike in her shape because it's easier to believe she can slip through bulkheads rather than if she was proportioned like say She-Hulk.

It's just as easy to cast against type for animals as it is for humans. Have like a skinny kid be super-strong or an overweight person have lightning reflexes or super speed.

I'm using superhero skills to show my point. No malice intended.:(

Those cats, dogs and lions you mention were part of pretty large casts which had a number of examples of the general archetype eg, Simba, Musafa and his mother in Lion King.

Tigers are evil because of Sher Khan from the Jungle Boook.

[Athena Bast]

Those cats, dogs and lions you mention were part of pretty large casts which had a number of examples of the general archetype eg, Simba, Musafa and his mother in Lion King.

Tigers are evil because of Sher Khan from the Jungle Boook.

If we were to colour everything because of one happenstance...

Whatever happened to the 5 levels of thought?

[Iangould]

You do realize that Shirow uses barely any anthropomorphics in his art to begin with, right?

I mainly threw in Shirow as a nod to the Puma Sisters from Dominion: Tank Police.

[Pól Rua]

That was me. oops.

[Hiromi]

Mouse Guard brings to mind Redwall (you might be able to accuse that guy of laziness, but only in milking the same idea for 20 years). And that brings to mind Watership Down and the NIMH books.

The series is 20 years old? Wow, thought it was much more recent than that. And so long as he keeps writing entertaining stories Brian Jacques can be as conceptually lazy as he wants.

[Rachel Grey]

I, personally, like the Kajiit. They can see in the dark. And can sneak around really well.

Me too. I would have like to see their Shifting Sands martial art expanded apon possibly in one of the in-game books. :)

[BlairH]

Aw crap! I didn't actually start this thread by the way, it was split from another thread "On furries..." so I'm left blindsided by the responses. I must say that I wouldn't normally start a thread using the statements and language of post number 1, at the time I was merely posting in agreement with the original poster of the "on furries" thread, who posted a far more in-depth analysis than I.

I'm not a troll, honest. One of the mods (whoever split the thread) will be able to confirm this.

[BlairH]

I don't know if Blair has clarified this, but is it possible he means that using animals in fiction is a short-cut when it comes to giving them traits and personalities - cunning, evil tigers, wise owls, faithful dogs, shifty reptiles, noble lions etc. - and that's why its' artistically lazy?

Yeah, that's what I was basically responding to in the old thread. However, now that the thread has been split, my post looks more than a tad out of it's proper context.

[Joe Rice]

Yeah, that's what I was basically responding to in the old thread. However, now that the thread has been split, my post looks more than a tad out of it's proper context.

I don't recall that context at all in that thread.

[Charles RB]

The series is 20 years old? Wow, thought it was much more recent than that. And so long as he keeps writing entertaining stories Brian Jacques can be as conceptually lazy as he wants.

I don't think I've ever gotten round to reading Jacques' Redwall.

I have got all of Robin Jarvis' Deptford Mice books, which have taught me that as long as the characters are talking animals, high levels of violence and brutality, cannibalism, Satanic practices, hopelessness and the wrath of primordial death-gods are all fine for children to read. (Those Deptford rats are vicious bastards!)

[Adam Crocker]

I mainly threw in Shirow as a nod to the Puma Sisters from Dominion: Tank Police.

I figured as much, but it also seemed worth bringing up.

Yeah, that's what I was basically responding to in the old thread. However, now that the thread has been split, my post looks more than a tad out of it's proper context.

So you're saying we should lynch Cronin...? ;)

Still I'm trying to fit this in your assessment of Barks, Rosa, or for that matter Shirow. As far as I know Barks and Rosa's anthropomorphism mostly doesn't fit the stereotypes Cact mentioned since their characters were largely limited to either ducks or these generalized canine types, which was set by Disney to a degree. And as for Shirow his use of anthropomorphism basically amounts to the Puma Sisters in Dominion (which are basically human looking androids with cat ears on the top of their heads) and possibly one genetically engineered creature that shows up in parts of the last two volumes of Appleseed. (I'm not familiar enough with the other artists to comment on them.)

[Slam_Bradley]

Still I'm trying to fit this in your assessment of Barks, Rosa, or for that matter Shirow. As far as I know Barks and Rosa's anthropomorphism mostly doesn't fit the stereotypes Cact mentioned since their characters were largely limited to either ducks or these generalized canine types, which was set by Disney to a degree.


I can't speak to many of the others, but Barks & Rosa's ducks clearly don't fit any set pattern. You have very divergent personalities between Scrooge, Donald, the Nephews, Daisy, Gladstone, Glomgold, etc.