Skip

Furry Art
November 26, 2004 10:11 AM   Subscribe

Making fun [banner ad may be NSFW] of Furries sure is fun, isn't it? Pointing out over and over again some of the worst examples of what the the fandom has to offer seems to be an activity almost as old as the Internet. In the rush to point and laugh , though, it's easy to miss entirely some of the more beautiful and amusing examples of what the culture's emphasis on art and imagination has wrought upon the world. And even if you aren't impressed by the talent on display, someone is -- Further Confusion, one of the largest Furry conventions in the world, has had for two years running an art show bringing in over $60,000 each year, with portions of the convention's proceeds going to organizations such as the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund , the Coyote Point Museum , and the Oakland Zoo.
posted by wolftrouble (74 comments total)

 
That doesn't make it any less goofy now, does it?
posted by Stan Chin at 10:20 AM on November 26, 2004


And let's not forget the Classic.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:21 AM on November 26, 2004


you really had to scrounge around for this, didn't you? don't lie.
posted by angry modem at 10:26 AM on November 26, 2004


From the second link: Proof that not all furries are bisexual pseudo-pagan morons: some of them are religious, right wing morons.
Succinctly put, if you ask me.

It is possible to do charitable deeds without dressing up as cartoon characters, too you know.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:36 AM on November 26, 2004


I'm always keeping my eyes open for these kinds of quality posts.
posted by naxosaxur at 10:46 AM on November 26, 2004


I'm afraid you're swimming upstream here, wolftrouble.

People meet others on the internet, share fantasies, discover safety in numbers, act out fantasy roles in public, defend selves against charges of infantilism and withdrawal into immature states of sexual play.

Film at eleven, as they say.
posted by jokeefe at 11:04 AM on November 26, 2004


*punches Wolftrouble & yells "SOMETHING AWFUL DOT COM!"*
posted by keswick at 11:17 AM on November 26, 2004


Oh come on! Isn't there anybody that we're still allowed to laugh at?!? Are the Plushies are off limits, or don't they donate enough to good causes? I'm sorry, but right or wrong, I'm gonna laugh at a guy in a tiger suit holding a light saber. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
posted by HifiToaster at 11:20 AM on November 26, 2004


I'm not a furry, and I would totally wear a tiger suit. Costumes are a priori cool.
posted by jb at 11:25 AM on November 26, 2004


Y'mean this is art? [nsfw]
posted by rxreed at 11:25 AM on November 26, 2004


I have no doubt that many furries are talented artists with good hearts. I once DPed a documentary on furries, and found all of the subjects to be very nice people who were aware that their interests lay outside the mainstream. They just wanted to do their own thing. And I respect that.

That said, once furrydom exists, it's just as much open to mockery as anything else that exists. And while you'll never see me making fun of the good-to-average-to-whatever furry art - at least, no more than anything else - you have to admit that Molatar is quite a character.

On preview: Tigers holding light sabers are funny. AND DANGEROUS.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:28 AM on November 26, 2004


Hahahahaha
posted by adampsyche at 11:34 AM on November 26, 2004


I never knew there was such a sub-culture as furries, until I read this post. I learned a lot. I'd be interested in what some intellegent analyst of psycho-cultural symbolism has to say about these pictures. They appear to be the products of great passion, and are drawing upon some ancient archtypal needs.
posted by shambles at 11:34 AM on November 26, 2004


My wording of my first comment just gave me an interesting theory:

Is it possible that Goofy (of Disney) was a furry? I mean, this may solve the whole Goofy / Pluto paradox. There is insurmountable evidence that Pluto is a real dog, but upon further consideration I am led to believe that Goofy was just someone in costume. Note the deep echoing voice, and lanky posture.

Oh god... could they all have been furries?
posted by Stan Chin at 11:39 AM on November 26, 2004 [1 favorite]


I think my kitten has cute furry paws, but that doesn't mean that I think it's hot.

I think it goes back to Bugs Bunny dressed up like a girl bunny and this culture that has become comfortable with expressing the sexiness of it.

That, or, people have just found a new way to get their kink on. More power to 'em.
posted by Arch Stanton at 11:43 AM on November 26, 2004


furries are the result of forcing disney animation on developing minds.
posted by quonsar at 11:47 AM on November 26, 2004


Yes... these people need help. [second link nsfw]
posted by rooftop secrets at 11:47 AM on November 26, 2004


Stan, I think you've stumbled onto something (or into something):
That would also explain why Mickey & Minnie Mouse are as tall as Donald & Daisy Duck. And why Clarabelle Cow wore a top.
OMG!
posted by wendell at 11:49 AM on November 26, 2004


Whoops, second link didn't work right. Click "Art" on the left and then any of the pages under colored to get an idea of what I was referring to.
posted by rooftop secrets at 11:49 AM on November 26, 2004


The intent was not to somehow claim that Furry as a sub-culture (or fandom, or whatever you want to call it) was entirely unworthy of mockery -- In response to hifitoaster, you can laugh at whatever you'd like; I'm not surprised most people find a great deal of it funny, weird, or both. It was to attempt to illustrate that not all artistic endeavors in the genre are 'tigers with lightsabers' or 'cats with boobs'. Some of these artists are legitimate professionals, supporting themselves entirely through their work (in some cases not even selling to Furry enthusiasts).

I think it's too bad when beautiful works of art get mentally tossed on the 'freak' pile and dismissed entirely simply because they feature anthropomorphic characters or themes.
posted by wolftrouble at 11:49 AM on November 26, 2004 [1 favorite]


I never knew there was such a sub-culture as furries, until I read this post.

Wow. All joking aside, that just boggles my mind. What internets have you been hanging out on?
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:00 PM on November 26, 2004


Dogs Playing Poker, buddy. It's too silly to be serious.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:02 PM on November 26, 2004


How about: When does subculture, fetish art become real art? Or, when does slash art (NSFW) become real art? How good does the art have to be until it's accepted as legitimate? When will naked Frodo and Legolas or paintings of furry-people be in the Guggenheim?
posted by Arch Stanton at 12:02 PM on November 26, 2004


And whatever you do, don't follow rxreed's link and click the fox on the left. [shudder]
posted by five fresh fish at 12:02 PM on November 26, 2004


When will naked Frodo and Legolas or paintings of furry-people be in the Guggenheim?
Arch

not for at least a hundred or more years. then someone one will see it, think it is great work , or pretend to think its great.
it will be seen out of context and on its own merits.

art is bullshit, art is god.
posted by nola at 12:27 PM on November 26, 2004


Okay. I should never have followed those links. Please. Somebody take my eyes. I don't want them anymore.
posted by RokkitNite at 12:29 PM on November 26, 2004


I get what you're trying to do, wolftrouble, and I think it's pretty cool that you'd go to the trouble of trying to pan out some of the gold from a very gravelly river even knowing the probable reactions.

I can't solve when art becomes art and don't know who can. I think the more interesting questions revolve around how artists work. If Henry Darger had some (somehow legal) messageboard to share and trade his art, it's improbable to me that he would have toiled away in his room writing and painting his thousands of pages. But there are many more artists who wouldn't have ever created art without collaboration and stable support. It doesn't seem a stretch to me at all to imagine a person with these obsessions creating highly skilled art inspired by them. But with all the chatter and nervous laughter around this subject, it might be a lot tougher to find. I think this post is an attempt to find some, so thanks.
posted by melissa may at 12:31 PM on November 26, 2004


I would give some unessential portion of my anatomy to be able to say I had never heard of furries.

It is pretty cool that Further Confusion donates some proceeds of the convention art sales to charities. I remain bewildered at how FurCon's parent company was able to obtain nonprofit status, though.
posted by crythecry at 12:41 PM on November 26, 2004


When does subculture, fetish art become real art?

Arch the hobbity slash stuff you've linked to just looks like photoshoppery to me. it's got to be a whole hell of a lot better than that or any of the examples linked to in this thread - none of it rises above the commonplace; lots of people can draw well enough.
posted by t r a c y at 12:53 PM on November 26, 2004


Dogs Playing Poker, buddy. It's too silly to be serious.

Speaking of which, what the fuck is the bulldog doing sitting on a pair of sevens when the schnauzer has a king/ace-high showing? Stupid dogs.

/derail
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:02 PM on November 26, 2004


Ah, it's just the subconscious desire for animal power, agility, and grace mixed with the same stuff that gave us playboy bunnies, 'she's a fox', 'shag like a mink', Catwoman, gay 'bears', and athletic shoes with puff-embroidery in the shape of an animal which represents alacrity.

Attracts lots of people without power, agility, or grace of any kind, but what the hell. Mostly Harmless.

That being said, I'd shag Catwoman. Did you know that lions have sex 20 times a day when the female is in heat?
posted by anthill at 1:42 PM on November 26, 2004 [1 favorite]


So... was I the only one that read the post as if it were sarcastic?
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:58 PM on November 26, 2004


The fact that they behave in a manner I find distasteful invalidates any good work they might possibly do. Charitable work, if not done in the main of the good old white-bread mainstream, is utterly meaningless.

(That is where some of you were going with this, right?)

But seriously, I don't think there's anything unnatural about fondness for anthropomorphized animals -- up to a point. Ultimately, I think it's an outgrowth of human tendencies to lend their pets or animals human behavior patterns that don't really exist. I think that because many (domesticated) animals are devoid of the baser emotional states that sometimes make humans a bit distasteful, that we lend them an air of nobility and grace that might be illusory, but is still compelling. It's all over the language -- crazy like a fox, happy as the cat who got into the cream, fly like an eagle... uhh... hungry like the wolf...

It's a deeply ingrained part of our culture, for God's sake. I can remember thinking the female mouse from The Rescuers was pretty cute -- of course, I was about six at the time, and incapable of prurience. It's when you want to grow up and start wanting to fuck anthropomorphized animals that it becomes a problem.

But I'm convinced that a lot of these furry fans are just working out repression issues anyway.

That said, furrydom is about as far from "my thing" as anything could possibly be -- while sometimes I think I would have a pretty good life as a housecat, that doesn't mean that dressing up as one holds any sort of appeal for me.

I don't have anything in common with these people, nor would I be interested in hanging out with them, but I do find their subculture, though bizarre, to be kind of fascinating. But then, I'm far more wary and suspicious of Just Plain Folks with a "we must mock and eradicate everything that is different from us" attitude than I am of people who want to dress up like cartoon animals. That's just me.

(On preview, anthill said it much more succinctly, but I put a lot of work into this post and I'm going ahead anyway.)
posted by ticopelp at 2:01 PM on November 26, 2004


everyone, fff wasn't kidding about that link. dear god.
posted by moonbird at 2:38 PM on November 26, 2004


>>It is pretty cool that Further Confusion donates some proceeds of the convention art sales to charities.

With Furries supporting/donating to charities that front protection/conservation of the animals they desperately wish to fuck, that makes about as much sense as pedophiles selling pictures of little kids, and then donating the proceeds to the local children's museum. WTF? This is absurd.

That said, when someone can rationalize 'seks with animuls' as a healthy, normal impulse, i guess i shouldn't expect any of this to make sense. Sorry Furries, you can't couch the legitimization of animal rape in philanthropy.
posted by naxosaxur at 2:39 PM on November 26, 2004


Naxo,

As far as I know, furrydom and bestiality are only tangentially related.
posted by Bugbread at 2:56 PM on November 26, 2004


I almost let my cat lick my tits once. Almost...
posted by naxosaxur at 3:04 PM on November 26, 2004


Yeah, about as tangentially related as the Olsen Twins.
posted by keswick at 3:05 PM on November 26, 2004


keswick, which one do you think is worse: furries or juggalos?
posted by naxosaxur at 3:07 PM on November 26, 2004


By which I mean, furries wish to have sex with anthropomorphic animal/human hybrid mutant things, not regular animals. If you check out furry art, you'll notice that it isn't pictures of animals, it's pictures of humans with animal traits, body parts, etc.

I'm not saying there are no furries into bestiality. It may be rare, it may be common, I don't know. But furrydom is not a synonym for zoophilia. They wouldn't be quite as funny if they were just folks who wanted to fuck donkeys.
posted by Bugbread at 3:10 PM on November 26, 2004


I'm glad the comeclean site was posted because I need it after following rxreed's link.
posted by euphorb at 3:14 PM on November 26, 2004


Naxosaxur et al, I hope I'm not the only one who thinks your leap from "people who are turned on by the concept of human/animal hybrids" to "people who want to fuck animals" is, shall we say, a bigger jump than you'd think. (On preview: glad I'm not.) (Most) BDSM fans don't long for rape, (most) sexual role-players greet the mailman in real life fully clothed, and (most) furries have no interest whatsoever in your dog. Reality and sexual fantasy have delightfully little to do with each other for those of us who like to experiment a bit in bed.

Anyway, I'm a little confused as to whether "furry" art can be great art is even an issue, since, you know, anthropomorphized animals have been present in great works of art and literature for decades and decades now. Maus, anyone? If you think it needs a sexual content to be furry, how about Omaha the Cat Dancer? The Krazy Kat novel? John Crowley's Beasts? Cerebus before Dave Sim went crazy? Maybe half of the short stories of Cordwainer Smith?

"Fetish" art becomes art as soon as it's made. It becomes good art when it's good, and great art when it's great. This can be debated? What on earth would the other side of the debate be?
posted by kyrademon at 3:14 PM on November 26, 2004


Scientists debate creation of hybrids of animals, humans. The anti-human-animal marriage amendment will be the hot-button, get-out-the-fundy-vote issue of 2008. And from the sound of things I'll expect to see most of you at the rally. (link courtesy of F*rk, ahead of the curve and on top of the culture)
posted by jfuller at 3:29 PM on November 26, 2004


keswick, which one do you think is worse: furries or juggalos?

Do I have to choose? Can't I hate them equally in different ways?
posted by keswick at 3:33 PM on November 26, 2004


I think Stan Chin's initial remark is surprisingly to the point. It is a little goofy, and there are decent furry types who are quite aware of how goofy they are, see some humor in it, and enjoy doing their thing anyway.

There are also -- as in any culture or subculture -- sensitive or humorless folks who don't see anything funny about what they're doing, or can't take even good-natured humor about it.

FWIW -- I think some furry art is pretty sexy (by far the PG rated stuff is more sexy than the flat out porn, which is usually just yuck). On the other hand I find the idea of making out with someone dressed in a fursuit pretty unattractive.
posted by Wolfdog at 3:35 PM on November 26, 2004


everyone, fff wasn't kidding about that link. dear god.
posted by moonbird at 2:38 PM PST on November 26


You know, when you click on a link that says 'Hand Job', you kinda have to figure that you've been warned. Just saying.
posted by jokeefe at 3:36 PM on November 26, 2004


I thought it meant "manual labor". You know, like digging a hole or pitching a tent.

Hey, wait...
posted by Bugbread at 3:41 PM on November 26, 2004


You know, Boris Vallejo, Julie Bell and Frank Frazetta have plenty of centaurs, mermaids, etc. in their portfolios, not to mention plenty of naked women sitting astride beasts and monsters. Their work is hardly what I'd characterize as asexual -- I guess they're all "animal rapists" too? I mean, since any depiction of human / animal hybrids in art == bestiality?
posted by ticopelp at 3:51 PM on November 26, 2004


"I think it's too bad when beautiful works of art get mentally tossed on the 'freak' pile and dismissed entirely simply because they feature anthropomorphic characters or themes."

wolftrouble - Come on. Change the last few words there and that sentence could be applied to anything.

You're really reaching. Beautiful works of art don't get tossed. Would you throw the Mona Lisa into the fire because you prefer blondes to brunettes?

What furry artists can't seem to realise is that the genre is scorned because most furry art is complete shite. It's not the subject, it's the mediocre pencil drawings on lined paper. It's the boring character sketches with no focus, presented as a complete piece. And, for me, it's the apparent lack of taste or willpower that the community in general shows when it comes to it's art and artists.

Anthropomorphic art was, is, and always will be important. No one is calling for it's end. We're just mocking the sludge, as we do with everything else.
posted by digifox at 4:22 PM on November 26, 2004


Wolftrouble - Let me agree with digifox. Some of the art linked was very technically adept. Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything for me. It's like really good drawings of wolves on t-shirts that I used to see hippy types wearing in the 90's. Very precise, very realistic, but somehow very...blah.

I suspect that's why this art gets overlooked. It isn't so much that it's of anthropomorphic animals, but because (perhaps) many people feel that it is well realized but emotionally uncompelling art.
posted by Bugbread at 4:29 PM on November 26, 2004


Apparently I've had it all wrong about how dolphins reproduce. The link rooftop secret provided showed me the way. Now can I please go rip my eyes out?

I agree some of it is technically superb but personally have no desire to buy it, give it as gifts or hang it on my wall, it doesn't do anything for me.
posted by squeak at 5:04 PM on November 26, 2004


Interesting the names this thread has brought in: Sticherbeast, moonbird, bugbread, wolftrouble, wolfdog, digifox; heh.
posted by abcde at 5:44 PM on November 26, 2004


What if even with these internets today, the Henry Dargers of the world still prefer to work in their closets?

Interesting the names this thread has brought in: Sticherbeast, moonbird, bugbread, wolftrouble, wolfdog, digifox; heh.

My secret shame: I do, in fact, dress up like a Sticher. Even for sex.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:58 PM on November 26, 2004


abcde: Purely coincidental for me, I assure you (check the profile).

Come to think of it, what do you call people who want hot steamy sex with insects? "Furry" doesn't exactly work. Or what about slug or leech-sex?
posted by Bugbread at 6:39 PM on November 26, 2004


Or what about slug or leech-sex?

"Slimies"
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:31 PM on November 26, 2004


Cronenburgundians?
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:35 PM on November 26, 2004


If I had the time and energy, it would be fun to start a Cronenburgundian website/meme.

A "Burrough" might be less ungainly word too.
posted by Bugbread at 7:47 PM on November 26, 2004


what do you call people who want hot steamy sex with insects?

Fans of the bondage fairies series?
posted by qDot at 7:56 PM on November 26, 2004


I just masturbated to a Flash zebra.
posted by orange clock at 8:33 PM on November 26, 2004


A "Burrough" might be less ungainly word too.

You win.

I just masturbated to a Flash zebra.

Turn this into a country western song, please.
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:44 PM on November 26, 2004


just found this comic [SFW] was too priceless to not add to this thread.

(I have an offbeat sense of humour)
posted by squeak at 9:22 PM on November 26, 2004


Can't remember the artist's name (of Stile Sux 'fame', amongst others) he draws a comic called 'purple pussy' featuring, you guessed it, cartoon animals.

Great comics here and there on the shit he's gotten from furries over the years... Here's a series: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
posted by anthill at 11:26 PM on November 26, 2004


Heh. Thanks, anthill. This one gets right to the heart of the matter.

MetaFilter: The Internet fucks up everything.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:50 PM on November 26, 2004


If somebody did furry art that successfully copped Egon Schiele I would worship them forever and ever.
posted by furiousthought at 12:01 AM on November 27, 2004


If you ever went to art school, you'd understand why furry art, even the technically nice stuff linked, just doesn't qualify as good art.

Honestly, you can't make a subculture out of a love for anthropropoprmororphic animals. Really. Sure, they might look cool and be fun in a computer game or something, but you really are a banal person on the most fundamental level when you dedicate that much time to drawing one fucking retarded thing over and over again.

Yiff off, furries.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 10:45 AM on November 27, 2004


A thorough deconstruction of the furry subculture, from its beginnings in actual comics fandom to the "lifestylers'" trolling for tail.

anthill: that would be one Dave "Shmorky" Kelly, who is currently doing the Flash Tub for, well, SA. Go convergence.
posted by darukaru at 12:26 PM on November 27, 2004


My theory is that the furry phenomenon doesn't come from a reverence towards animals, but rather is born out of reverence towards cartoons. The generation that picked up on this is one weaned on the teat of television, with these pure and innocent characters, brave and good of heart are/were the furries' role models. Probably a lot of the furries had poor social skills and thus could escape into these cartoons, and relied on them to fuel their imaginations.

While their peers grew up on these cartoons as well, they set them aside as they got older. The furries, however, didn't and clung to these cartoons throughout the wild ride of puberty and beyond. Since they were still stuck in cartoon land as their escape, they sexualised it, because their hormones were kicking into gear. From this was born this odd subculture of kind-hearted, nurturing porn.

The revering of animals is a smokescreen, some cut-rate mystical bologna to gloss over the being-attracted-to-Scrooge-McDuck thing. And it's trying to nab a little bit of coolness for a fetish that is anything but. That's my uneducated guess, anyhow.
posted by picea at 1:09 PM on November 27, 2004


darukaru: Link doesn't match up. Is this the article you had in mind? It is really interesting.
posted by crythecry at 2:09 PM on November 27, 2004


So, am I really the only here who, without self-identifying as furry, thinks the idea of sex with sentient non-humans is, well, pretty hot? Anthropomorphs, robots, aliens, talking animals, whatever?

(chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp)

I mean, not moreso than sex with humans. I think sex with humans is pretty darn hot, too. I just meant, you know, in addition to, it'd be neat to try it.

Right?

Anyone?

(chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp)

All righty then.
posted by kyrademon at 2:15 PM on November 27, 2004


There's nothing wrong with a little xenophilia, kyrademon. Just be sensible about it.
posted by Faint of Butt at 3:27 PM on November 27, 2004


I draw the line at a girl wearing cat ears or something. On Halloween.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 6:03 PM on November 27, 2004


Anyone here remember Cartoon Girls I Wanna Nail?
posted by acb at 6:09 PM on November 27, 2004


now this is what I would call furry art.
...and damn, some of those plushies sure can dance.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:50 AM on November 28, 2004


heh, madamjujujive.

And the links here, not so much, but I can imagine anything becoming art if one is gifted and obsessive enough in just the right combination. Most art is girls girls girls get your war on girls girls girls, anyway. Throw in the swan and you're done.
posted by melissa may at 7:35 AM on November 28, 2004


« Older Brasco the bear   |   Better art through computing Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post