[ furi ] [ Chat ]

/furi/ - Yaff

You messed with me~

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1610464764409.png (877.21 KB, 1104x866, EB81C584-088B-44AB-A1F7-11….png)

bef7f1b2 No.3599718

Hai lulz this is my new char

6e2d9120 No.3599719

OwO

fa7c9b23 No.3599723

Post feet

2fb80199 No.3599726

>>3599718

no stealy oc anteater
Anteater and anteaters (c) OP
Art (c) OP
Colors (c) OP
Mental recollection (c) to OP and subject to terms and usage.
By viewing and commiting to memory this image you agree to hereby….

3f86a370 No.3599727

>>3599726
Clearly an alpaca, not an anteater.

44c69600 No.3599743

>>3599718
It's a good, original character. Beats sparkledogs by a far margin.
Minus points for wearing clothes.
You need to flesh it out though. likes/dislikes/setting/etc.

6/10

>using a waterwark program instead of gimp/firealpaca/drawpile

9d05e6b2 No.3599798

You have to create the character yourself.

And draw the initial reference sheet yourself too: THAT reference sheet is the only canon illustration of your fursona, every illustration other artists make is unofficial fan art.

That's the point of fursonas. That YOU create the thing that represents YOU.

You can't outsource the creation of your identity to someone else, holy shit how is this not obvious. And "your" fursona is ESPECIALLY invalid if it's purchased from a list "pre-made fursonas for sale" some artist puts up.

If you're shite at drawing, then tough luck. Your shite reference drawing is how you look and how I will imagine you. If you want it to look better, then get better at drawing. How beautiful your fursona is comes directly from how skilled you are at drawing. Your furry identity IS your artistic skill.

Furry is an artists' subculture. Non-artists can observe from the sidelines, but they can't 'pay-to-play' their way into it. I mean, sure they can try, but they aren't valid participants.

Think of it like this: if Donald Trump bought the rights to Stars Wars from George Lucas, would the films now be Donald Trump's creation? Would they be Trump's films? Obviously not, they would still be George Lucas's films because he made them before Trump ever bought the rights to them.

7a3a8443 No.3599812

>another dipshit with an axe to grind makes a star-studded post on lulz dot net

3300386a No.3599819

File: 1610557717233.jpg (40.08 KB, 780x438, 210110001607-01-pakistan-p….jpg)

>>3599798
Who needs customers anyway?

76d438c5 No.3599837

Like Dan said, beats a sparkledog.

Imo it needs WAY more watermarks though. Watermarks everywhere, even the backstory. He travels a desert wasteland tagging everything he comes across with huge generic watermarks, like one of those dogs that piss every 5 seconds on walks.

3f86a370 No.3599845

>>3599798
>And draw the initial reference sheet yourself too
>If you're shite at drawing, then tough luck. Your shite reference drawing is how you look and how I will imagine you. If you want it to look better, then get better at drawing
>Your furry identity IS your artistic skill
>Furry is an artists' subculture
Look at this no-imagination artfag here. I don't even get art of my fursona or characters: I write up descriptions and stories about them on MUCKs.
Who needs art when you can read and write?
>"your" fursona is ESPECIALLY invalid if it's purchased from a list "pre-made fursonas for sale" some artist puts up
I agree with this part though. I've seen people with "fursonas" written by someone else.
Huh??? That's just a character, not a fursona, then.

5a0e662d No.3599899

File: 1610592095231.jpg (6.5 KB, 244x228, 1313193352493.jpg)

Nice watermark, faggot.

61d76564 No.3599903

Hey Cody, still having fun stalking people and being a general fucking psychopath? Where did you steal this artwork from? Also, stop messaging me, you fucking psycho. :)

afebdf06 No.3599904

File: 1610597731242.jpg (176.79 KB, 1280x906, 1609614470.chilledspace_mi….jpg)

drink my piss

0fb7afff No.3599971

>>3599845
> I write up descriptions and stories about them on MUCKs.

You know, that's one step sadder than writing them up in your secret diary - because you believe there's someone out there to read that shit.

9d05e6b2 No.3600000

File: 1610663710112.png (278.81 KB, 512x512, 7a8c1462eb1b289b1c7085be43….png)

>>3599845
I spent all day thinking about how to reply to you in order to win the argument, and I've finally got it. It's an argument so beautiful and brilliant you'll have no comeback and you will have to admit that visual art is the superior art form. Prepare yourself for the mental ass-kicking you're about to receive. Here goes…

"Literary art IS RELIANT ON the visual component - the type that visual artists create. Stories are written ABOUT the visual component, and when stories are read, they are done so while IMAGINING the visual component.

In the analogy of the puppet show, the puppet is the visual artist's work, and what the puppet says and does is the literary artist's work. The puppet can stand by itself as a visual artwork with no need for the puppeteer, but the puppeteer without the puppet is nothing."

As a further example: When reading the Harry Potter books, any reader who is aware of Daniel Radcliffe's role as Harry Potter will not be able to imagine Harry Potter in their mind as looking any other way. This is an example of how much stronger the visual component is over the literary component.

Boom, there you have it. That is my argument, in which I have full confidence of my certainty. After you've taken it all in and have recovered from the mental ass-kicking you've just received, you may begin to draft your apology and admission of being wrong.

76d438c5 No.3600003

>>3600000
>actors stuck as the image of characters in books

I remember reading harry potter before it was a movie, and later saying that I was glad I read it first, for that reason. But you're right, I've got the actor's image in my head now.

0fb7afff No.3600067

>>3600000
Are you saying it's impossible for congenitally blind people to enjoy written stories?

Your argument only works insofar as the text is attempting to portray something visual, like the appearance of a character or a scene. On aspects where appearances are irrelevant, such as the psychology and motivations of characters, it's the visual arts that fall short and have to rely on text to provide the context and content.

0fb7afff No.3600068

>>3600000
Or as in the movie business, setting the context defines what we see.

An actor having the same expression on their face can be sad, mad, indifferent, or anything depending on the surrounding information you have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect
>Kuleshov edited a short film in which a shot of the expressionless face of Tsarist matinee idol Ivan Mosjoukine was alternated with various other shots (a bowl of soup, a girl in a coffin, a woman on a divan). The film was shown to an audience who believed that the expression on Mosjoukine's face was different each time he appeared, depending on whether he was "looking at" the bowl of soup, the girl in the coffin, or the woman on the divan, showing an expression of hunger, grief, or desire, respectively. The footage of Mosjoukine was actually the same shot each time.

On the same effect, writing a single word on a picture can entirely change how it looks to you. That is the power of the word over the image.

30b8874e No.3600100

File: 1610729627005.jpeg (166.34 KB, 1152x2048, EoaroZCXIAALfIm.jpeg)

>>3600000

respecting those digits

3f86a370 No.3600143

>>3599971
>because you believe there's someone out there to read that shit
C'mon, I get good e-sex sometimes.
>>3600000
>Stories are written ABOUT the visual component
Doubt. You can certainly visualise a story you're reading if you have an imagination, but stories are written about things that happen. This can include all sorts of things that even people who've been blind from birth can appreciate.
>As a further example: When reading the Harry Potter books, any reader who is aware of Daniel Radcliffe's role as Harry Potter will not be able to imagine Harry Potter in their mind as looking any other way
True, I don't doubt this affects most people.
>the puppeteer without the puppet is nothing
How do radio dramas work? Those have no visual component at all, contrary to what this analogy implies.
>After you've taken it all in and have recovered from the mental ass-kicking you've just received, you may begin to draft your apology and admission of being wrong
Thanks for writing your post and posting a cute coyote. (:
>>3600067
>it's the visual arts that fall short and have to rely on text to provide the context and content
Sometimes. There've been entire comics without text though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_Images_of_a_Man%27s_Passion
>Your argument only works insofar as the text is attempting to portray something visual, like the appearance of a character or a scene.
I agree with you entirely here, though.

7d5071e3 No.3600172

File: 1610760999266.png (10.01 KB, 300x300, 11a1d56ceeb3b82c702037aaa7….png)

>>3600000
I think there's _something_ to this argument. But it's not the complete picture.

On one hand you have visual art that stands alone, looks impressive, needs no story behind it, other than something only the author knows (a dream, an unwritten story only in the author's head, or an unreleased story, random inspiration).

Then you have art that is designed to represent (scenes or characters from) a written story that already exists. Sometimes it may be what draws the most interest towards a story, other than word of mouth. Probably how half of us got into half the things we've ever read.

So you essentially got both of these, but for different purposes and in different situations. And if it's one or the other you often have to dig deeper. Well, unless it's blatant cover art.

f3a50d48 No.3600173

pfft, forgot to use new text formatting, whatever



[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ furi ] [ Chat ]