Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

Rusty · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 82

Decided to start a new thread for this.

There has been a lot of discussion on what level of furryism is acceptable and at which point a person is crossing the line and taking it too far.

Now, oviouslly this is going to be a matter of opinion.

So, the question is, at what point does an enjoyment of anthropomorphic art become taking it too far (sorry about the bad grammar with that sentence)?

As an example, I enjoy anthro art, even since I discovered it online, I always have.

It wasen't long after discovering it before I discovered the more adult stuff.

Is it wrong to enjoy mildly adult stuff? Is it wrong to find an anthro female character attractive? Of course, just how one defines finding something attractive varies from person to person.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with someone drawing an anthro character in the nude and even giving her breasts (and I'm talking realistically sized ones). I also acknoledge that in that case, it's basically a human body with fur, a tail and an animal head. The idea of cuddling up to such a creature on a cold night sounds like fun. Imagine how warm that would be, especially in the case of a species with luxorious soft fur? I know that basically, such a creature is basically a human with aspects of an animal, more then it is an animal person.

My point being, is it so wrong to find such a creature attractive? I mean, guys finding woman wearing fur atractive is hardly abnormal, so how is this any diffrent?

IMO, a person starts crossing the line when a guy starts losing interest real women and starts needing the fur etc to find one attractive.
I think it also becomes a problem when it becomes a lifestyle. Suddenly, they lose interest in getting a job, having a life etc and the fandom basically becomes their entire life. Suddenly instead of having real aspirations, their aspirations are along the lines of 'to become a skunkette porn star'.
When it gets to the point where the only time they get out is to go to conventions and they start letting themselves go big time. I think that is where it becomes a problem.

What does everyone else think?

MagKnightX · Coadjutor Joined: 04 Dec 2003 Posts: 137

I would say that there is a seperate line for everyone.

For me, I would have to say that, within semi-realism (realistic proportions, not taurs or herms or five-breasted things), and not engaged in deviant sexual activity, nude furs are not quite across the line. Nudity and sexuality are part of art. Some pornography can be considered art, even, I would say.

But not ten-legged fox hermtaurs with three-ton penises.

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

In my opinion, there isn't a clear line...

There are things anyone can accept, except a few closed-minded people.
There are things most people can accept while a few don't.
There are things "right in the middle".
There are things few people can accept while many don't.
And there are things nobody can't accept, except a few closed-minded people.

And then, there are two different "rulers" to measure this:

The one from the people outside furry fandom, who may find even an innocent furry pun-up as something disturbing and hard to accept,

And the one from the people inside furry fandom, who may find pretty kinky stuff as inoccent and harmless.

Therefore, my own opinion is skewed and only one of many possibilities... but, anyway, this is my own scale of values, from the stuff I accept the most to the one I accept the less:

1) Cartoony, funny anthro stuff with no sexual aspects whatsoever (Like the classic teatrical cartoon shorts from before the 60s. And the "cartoony" bit is just my own preference.)

2) Realistic stuff with serious themes, such as Art Spiegelman's Maus. (The art may not be realistic, but the history is).

3) Light parodies that make ocassional use of sexual innuendos. (mature comedy). I've got in mind something like, but not exactly, DeepFried. I haven't heard of anything like this featuring anthropomorphized chars).

So far, these are the things I openly like. And now, there are things that I tolerate even if I don't like.

4) Anthropomorphized nudes, on static, non-explicit poses, not showing naughty bits.

5) Anthropomorphized nudes, on static, non-explicit poses, exposing human-like naughty bits. (that's how deep I've publicly gone with my art, as you can see from this pic I drew in 1998.

6) Anthropomorphized nudes, on dynamic yet mild poses, exposing human-like bits.

And, well, anything beyond that, I don't like, nor I don't care. A long list, I'd say. However, there are a few things that outrage me:

N-4) Oversized genitalia.

N-3) Micro/macro/vorephilia.

N-2) Necrophilia.

N-1) rape, or any kind of pleasure that inflicts pain, death and/or destruction.

And, finally, on the bottom of the things I won't tolerate, and the thing that will make me the most outraged:

N) Pedophilia.

Not surprisingly enough, I'll react with the same outrage at any of these sexual activities be they furry or not.

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

For me, the 'too far' limit is where the character becomes a mere object of arousal rather than a real character with imagination put behind it. It's one thing to casually find an anthropomorphic character cute or sexy despite the animal features (which I really don't have a problem with), but when they're used to the point where their only purpose is cheap thrills is where I draw the line.

Rusty · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 82

4) Anthropomorphized nudes, on static, non-explicit poses, not showing naughty bits.

5) Anthropomorphized nudes, on static, non-explicit poses, exposing human-like naughty bits. (that's how deep I've publicly gone with my art, as you can see from this pic I drew in 1998.

6) Anthropomorphized nudes, on dynamic yet mild poses, exposing human-like bits.

How would #6 be defined? Do you have or know of images that would be an example?

As per your examples, if I were to say I'm fine with examples 4 and 5, does that make me a pervert? But I also very much like the G rated 'naughty bits not shown' cute type of stuff.

As an example of how I would interpret #4, a pose I would like is a female laying on her side on a bed, but she's covering her breasts and genital region with a 'ah ah ah no peeking' kind of look on her face but saying it playfully.

From what you've said, it looks like I draw the line a little bit further then you do, but compared to a lot of the stuff out there now, I'm still pretty tame, heck innocent even.

I'm not into the oversized genitaila or the really explicit stuff either, and definitly not into pedophillia.

For me, the 'too far' limit is where the character becomes a mere object of arousal rather than a real character with imagination put behind it. It's one thing to casually find an anthropomorphic character cute or sexy despite the animal features (which I really don't have a problem with), but when they're used to the point where their only purpose is cheap thrills is where I draw the line.

I tend to agree with that. I too much prefer characters that are developed and have a personality and being a person with emotions and intelligence. IMO, it makes the picture much more rewarding.

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

4) Anthropomorphized nudes, on static, non-explicit poses, not showing naughty bits.

5) Anthropomorphized nudes, on static, non-explicit poses, exposing human-like naughty bits. (that's how deep I've publicly gone with my art, as you can see from this pic I drew in 1998.

6) Anthropomorphized nudes, on dynamic yet mild poses, exposing human-like bits.

How would #6 be defined? Do you have or know of images that would be an example?

Alas, I've got no images. As I said on my post, it's stuff I tolerate even if I don't like. But I'll try to explain it: something where the intercourse isn't the center of the piece: if you see, say, a pic of couple snuggling together where the intercourse is more implicit than explicit, it's not the same than seeing a penetration in all its glory and detail, displaying every vein on the phallus and every droplet of assorted natural juices. Get it? :)

As an example of how I would interpret #4, a pose I would like is a female laying on her side on a bed, but she's covering her breasts and genital region with a 'ah ah ah no peeking' kind of look on her face but saying it playfully.

Yes, and it could be stuff like this one I drew a lot of time ago">. (Mind you, this and the former example I gave you are way old. I don't do this stuff anymore, so pardon its lameness).

As per your examples, if I were to say I'm fine with examples 4 and 5, does that make me a pervert? But I also very muck like the G rated 'naughty bits not shown' cute type of stuff.

Nopers. It's just stuff I accept but not feel attracted towards. And it only shows you've got a different scale than mine.

You also said that you like these things, but clearly dislike the same things I do, so we're close, yet slightly different.

Rusty · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 82

Alas, I've got no images. As I said on my post, it's stuff I tolerate even if I don't like. But I'll try to explain it: something where the intercourse isn't the center of the piece: if you see, say, a pic of couple snuggling together where the intercourse is more implicit than explicit, it's not the same than seeing a penetration in all its glory and detail, displaying every vein on the phallus and every droplet of assorted natural juices. Get it? :)

Yes, I see what you mean.

Let's just say that I'm not into the explicit full details stuff, in fact it's been known to make me feel ill.

I much prefer implicit. They say the mind is the most sensual organ in the body and I've found that to be true. It's much more fun when stuff is left up to the imagination.

Yes, and it could be stuff like this one I drew a lot of time ago. (Mind you, this and the former example I gave you are way old. I don't do this stuff anymore, so pardon its lameness).

I don't think their lame, I think their cute :)

Ethan A. Stanger · Rasophore Joined: 23 Oct 2003 Posts: 53

My viewpoint is, as soon as they created a fanbase, that crossed the line.

Fins · Qualificator Joined: 19 Dec 2003 Posts: 25

It's a tough call. I like drawing 'sexy' animal characters because it's fun, but I'm not into seeing them naked or 'getting it on' with each other. If I wanted to draw or view porn, there's already a lot of human stuff on the web... and human porn, while I'm idealogically opposed to it (yeah, I'm a prude), has more appeal for me since I'm human. I guess I like the animal stuff when it's more metaphorical... like a 'foxy lady' or a slinky 'cat woman.' There's something cute and/or sophisticated about it (at least, to me). Sort of like it's winking at human behavior. The animal characteristics don't make it more 'attractive' ... only more mysterious and/or whimsical... if that makes any sense.

So where do I draw the line? Basically, I'm not into drawing/looking at furry art that reveals more than a non-thong two-piece bathingsuit would, nor am I interested in huge bowling-ball looking breasts or characters that are supposed to be 'porn stars.'

Rusty · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 82

Well, personally, I do prefer the 'clean' stuff but the stuff like in the afromentioned examples doesen't bother me. I don't think of that example picture listed as porn, more like a nude of a humanish animal character. I actually think the picture is cute, it has a sort on innocence to it.

If it were drawn without the 'naughty bits' then I would prolly find it adorable and warm, like two cartoon animals cuddling up in an embrace.

The anatomy question is interesting. Would an animal person really have breasts? Most mammals don't unless their nursing, so in effect most probably woulden't, and even nipples should be hard to see, depending on the species and thinkness of their fur.

The ones with breasts, I like to think of as more human with animal characteristics, rather then humanoid animal.

For me the animal characteristics give the character a sort of exotic look. And I still feel it would be fun to cuddle up to on a cold night.

MagKnightX · Coadjutor Joined: 04 Dec 2003 Posts: 137

Miguel: Is your number four more like as in "Barbie and Ken" no-naughty-bits or closer to "Boticelli's 'Birth of Venus'" no-naughty-bits?

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

Miguel: Is your number four more like as in "Barbie and Ken" no-naughty-bits or closer to "Boticelli's 'Birth of Venus'" no-naughty-bits?

Both cases are appliable, I'd say. :)

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Everyone always say they perfer the clean stuff, but then nobody ever buys the clean stuff. That's why comics like Wild Life, which was a very good comedy slice of life anthology went under. They just didn't have the fanbase supporting their their dollars what their mouths kept saying.

To me, the line is crossed when people take the whole concept that it's just cartoons above and beyond that and start obsessing over it and the people in it either for or against furry. Some who post here would be on the "gone too far" scale cause it seems from volume of post that this makes up a greater part of their day than one would think a normal healthy person ought to bother with considering the source is, again, cartoons.

People who talk about lifestyles and talk in animal 'words' (like yipe, or yiff, or meow) bug me. But people who talk about how bad it is, yet seem to know more about it (especially the darker side of it) than you'd really think somebody who actually did hate it and wouldn't want to waist a moment of their lives on it bug me more cause it just seems to be hypocritical.

You either hate it, leave it alone and find something more constructive to do with your life, or you say okay, I like it but not this much to where it's an obssession in my life. Stop fronting that you're "not a furry" when you really are you're just not "That furry". I mean, when somebody can actually go out and find Land Before Time porn, which I'm sure many didn't know existed before being told about it, then post a post about it saying, "Oh my god, thos freaks made a Land Before Time porn site, come look" and post a link to it. Then I want to know, what were you doing looking for Land Before Time porn in the first place you perv. The so called anit furries can be just as bad as the furries sometimes.

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

but most of us aren't anti-furry, just anti the more fucked up parts of furry, me I can appreciate a well drawn anthro but the minute some person starts telling me they like to pretend to be a sexy vixen on IRC when in reality they are bob 30 yr old still at home fatboy, I make a quick exit.

As for the fascination, it's more akin to a car crash, most of us started in furry, some are still in it and we just can't look away from the horrors regurgitated by these morons.

Mitch · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 290

To me, the line is crossed when people take the whole concept that it's just cartoons above and beyond that and start obsessing over it and the people in it either for or against furry. Some who post here would be on the "gone too far" scale cause it seems from volume of post that this makes up a greater part of their day than one would think a normal healthy person ought to bother with considering the source is, again, cartoons.

Maybe so, but for some of us it's just a hobby, not a way of life...

People who talk about lifestyles and talk in animal 'words' (like yipe, or yiff, or meow) bug me. But people who talk about how bad it is, yet seem to know more about it (especially the darker side of it) than you'd really think somebody who actually did hate it and wouldn't want to waist a moment of their lives on it bug me more cause it just seems to be hypocritical.

Speaking personally I don't hate furry or furries, though there are a few fans I have a low opinion of, based on their behaviour. I am just totally fascinated by the whole phenomenon.

You either hate it, leave it alone and find something more constructive to do with your life, or you say okay, I like it but not this much to where it's an obssession in my life. Stop fronting that you're "not a furry" when you really are you're just not "That furry".

Exactly what makes someone a furry, seeing as how there's no Membership Committee? An affection for funny animals? An obsession with pantsless skunkettes? Dressing up in fursuits? Fooling about on MUCKs? I know people who like all those things but don't call themselves furries.

I mean, when somebody can actually go out and find Land Before Time porn, which I'm sure many didn't know existed before being told about it, then post a post about it saying, "Oh my god, thos freaks made a Land Before Time porn site, come look" and post a link to it. Then I want to know, what were you doing looking for Land Before Time porn in the first place you perv. The so called anit furries can be just as bad as the furries sometimes.

I found that LBT site purely from following links from one Yahoo Group to another to see what I could find, and I was more amused by it than horrified or disgusted. Only pedo/cruel/non consensual stuff really and honestly squicks me.

Pycnopodia · Coadjutor Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 72

Is it wrong to enjoy mildly adult stuff? Is it wrong to find an anthro female character attractive? Of course, just how one defines finding something attractive varies from person to person.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with someone drawing an anthro character in the nude and even giving her breasts (and I'm talking realistically sized ones). I also acknoledge that in that case, it's basically a human body with fur, a tail and an animal head. The idea of cuddling up to such a creature on a cold night sounds like fun. Imagine how warm that would be, especially in the case of a species with luxorious soft fur? I know that basically, such a creature is basically a human with aspects of an animal, more then it is an animal person.

My point being, is it so wrong to find such a creature attractive? I mean, guys finding woman wearing fur atractive is hardly abnormal, so how is this any diffrent?

IMO, a person starts crossing the line when a guy starts losing interest real women and starts needing the fur etc to find one attractive.
I think it also becomes a problem when it becomes a lifestyle. Suddenly, they lose interest in getting a job, having a life etc and the fandom basically becomes their entire life. Suddenly instead of having real aspirations, their aspirations are along the lines of 'to become a skunkette porn star'.
When it gets to the point where the only time they get out is to go to conventions and they start letting themselves go big time. I think that is where it becomes a problem.

What does everyone else think?

warning! mild yiff.. Proceed to your designated fallout shelters
http://yerf.com/areneuge/vixen-ea.jpg
http://yerf.com/andrkris/aurore.jpg
all clear!
Ehm, I think that depends. Check the above pics, some yiff has animals with human bodys and looks pretty similar to hentai (japanese cartoon p0rr). Without thinking to much about this I'd say the line goes when the animals look more like animals then humans.
Some hentai pics features "nekojins", nekojins are girls with animal ears, tail and maybe paws, they are part furries. I think theaw are accepted and even liked also among the "anti-furry" people.

"IMO, a person starts crossing the line when a guy starts losing interest real women and starts needing the fur etc to find one attractive."
I dont think I can agree with that. If someone likes child-pornography should they be allowed to watch it as long as they dont loose interest for the opposite sex? The answer is no, meaning I think you should redefine when you are crossing the line.
I draw furries, I recently drew a female furry for the first time and with breasts, I dont think she looks attractive but I admit I like her for her cuteness and funny look. I think furry-nudity is ok if it has a purpose.. I can stand to see a nude furry once in a while if it is important for the storyline in a comic.

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

warning! mild yiff.. Proceed to your designated fallout shelters
http://yerf.com/areneuge/vixen-ea.jpg
http://yerf.com/andrkris/aurore.jpg
all clear!
Ehm, I think that depends. Check the above pics, some yiff has animals with human bodys and looks pretty similar to hentai (japanese cartoon p0rr). Without thinking to much about this I'd say the line goes when the animals look more like animals then humans.
Some hentai pics features "nekojins", nekojins are girls with animal ears, tail and maybe paws, they are part furries. I think theaw are accepted and even liked also among the "anti-furry" people.

No, it crosses the line when you are using the word 'yiff'

I dont see what the problem is even with cheesecakey pinups if they have SOME sort of aestetic value - as these do

theres nothing 'yiff' about them
that word doesnt mean anything , like a bunch of furry fandom-originating terms its definition is hopelessly mush
to put it another way - its useless in any sort of real conversation or discussion

GalenLutra · Recusant Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 9

I love good art. Does not matter what kind of art it is. I got into furry because of my obession with comic art and pulp art (Sin City and Hellboy baby). I found furry art and liked what I saw. I also found Adult furry art and liked what I saw. I like porn. What good healthy American guy does not? I got a good collection of fur porn on my personal computer, I also have regular "hyooman" porn. I have many clean regular furry pictures and comics too. I love stuff like Havoc INC, Wild Side and stuff from Radio Comix and Antractic Press. Hell, The only convention I go to is AKON( An Anime con that how grown to be a con of EVERYTHING) and see Diana Sprinkle(furry artist) every year. She actually knew my name when I went to go drop another 100 bucks at her table for her art and comics.

Where do ya draw the line I guess? No where. Its all realitive. What I find tasteful and normal could be totally fucked up to someone else. I kiss my boyfriend public once, Normal to us, perverted and deprieved to a uber right-wing person. Pedo/Necro/Scat whatnot is just sick shit nuff said. But I can say that because I think its awful. I am not gonna look at it, not gonna support artists who do it and say less then stellar things about it. I do think its sad when a furry is competetly wrapped up in the fandom that he cannot be with another person because they are not a fur or are not some mythical fur creature in reality Its sad when ANY hobby becomes a lifestyle. I am a gamer, I love games and its my career of choice. However, its just a hobby. If you live from game to game and never get a job/signifgent other/life outside of it, thats just sad to me. Escapism is a two edge sword. Its fun to be someone else...for a little while. Dont make a life out of it.

but most of us aren't anti-furry, just anti the more fucked up parts of furry, me I can appreciate a well drawn anthro but the minute some person starts telling me they like to pretend to be a sexy vixen on IRC when in reality they are bob 30 yr old still at home fatboy, I make a quick exit.

Best quote I have seen yet 8)

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

Why thank you :D

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

warning! mild yiff.. Proceed to your designated fallout shelters
http://yerf.com/areneuge/vixen-ea.jpg
http://yerf.com/andrkris/aurore.jpg
all clear!
Ehm, I think that depends. Check the above pics, some yiff has animals with human bodys and looks pretty similar to hentai (japanese cartoon p0rr). Without thinking to much about this I'd say the line goes when the animals look more like animals then humans.
Some hentai pics features "nekojins", nekojins are girls with animal ears, tail and maybe paws, they are part furries. I think theaw are accepted and even liked also among the "anti-furry" people.

No, it crosses the line when you are using the word 'yiff'

I dont see what the problem is even with cheesecakey pinups if they have SOME sort of aestetic value - as these do

theres nothing 'yiff' about them
that word doesnt mean anything , like a bunch of furry fandom-originating terms its definition is hopelessly mush
to put it another way - its useless in any sort of real conversation or discussion

Let me rephrase that, Id say the line goes when the furries in pr0n lookes more like animals then humans. That is when Id say you should slow down a bit. I put hentai and much yiff in the same box/category (not literally), they look so similar.
I have always thought of furry nudity as "yiffy" even though I dont find that offensive, is that wrong?

MagKnightX · Coadjutor Joined: 04 Dec 2003 Posts: 137

For example, today's (January 2, 2004) College Roomies from H**l!!! crosses the line (IMO) without even involving actual nudity. In the first one, okay, it's a cat-woman, I can understand that. But why give it a face like an actual cat? On a human body, that is just plain ugly, and when crossed with near-porn, very, very freaky. Next, more of the same, but without near-nudity. Freaky, freaky, freaky. Oh, and of course, a comment about hyooman destructiveness thrown in. Not like other animals, like wolves, do things like eat *gasp* BAMBI AND THUMPER!!!! Or even just mauling them and letting them go around dying slowly... it happens a lot.

Ole Sparky · Qualificator Joined: 07 Nov 2003 Posts: 21

For the artwork, when the really grotesgue stuff becomes acceptable. And
by grotesgue, I am referring to the kind of artwork that if it used real people
instead of imaginary beings, would land folks in jail and is generally
unacceptable in any society.
I am referring primarily to the juvenile related art work with the animal
stuff running a close second.
For that matter, I am still trying to wrap my brain cells around the concept of
"Brother Bear" and "Land Before Time" porn.
Add the attitudes that there is something wrong with suggesting restraint.
Ole Sparky

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

I look at human porn out of curiosity and furry porn out of admiration for the artists' talent if its well drawn. Like alot of girls, I don't get aroused by just pictures like men do. I don't see anything wrong or offensive with furry orn, because its just a picture, drawn by a pen/tablet or whatever. I don't assume that the artist probably gets off on it either. I sometimes draw a character without clothes because I want to pratise my anatomy skills, just like when I draw in nude art classes.

when someone crosses the line is when they hurt those around them. and art doesnt cause any harm, pain or sufferenig at all.

If any of you had the power to make certain kinds of art illegal and forbidden, would you do it?

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

If any of you had the power to make certain kinds of art illegal and forbidden, would you do it?

What is art?

If I could however, I would have lord Saatchi detained without trial and denied habeas corpus FOREVER. And I would gloat.

How I would gloat.

Then, I think I'd probably ban conceptulism, just out of spite and hatred for tracy emin and the like.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

If any of you had the power to make certain kinds of art illegal and forbidden, would you do it?

What is art?

damn, i have to do an essay on 'what is art?' for the end of this month!
but what I meant was, what people were allowed to draw, paint or make sculptures/models of.

Banning any kind of art is kind of a Nazi thing to do in my opinion

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Things that I think are crossing the line
-Spooge
-Zoo
-Plushies
-Vore
-Macro
-Micro
-Orgys of more than three people
-Masterbation
-Rape
-Pedo
-Obese fetishes
-Herms
-blobs
-unmentionable affairs
-inanimate objects/plants
-super detailed close ups of privates
-huge breasts
-Huge Genitals
-toon style erotisms
and probly a shitload more

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

If any of you had the power to make certain kinds of art illegal and forbidden, would you do it?

What is art?

damn, i have to do an essay on 'what is art?' for the end of this month!

“Art is a cross cultural continuum.”

That is all you need know or write.

Also, Convention is an all-important concept to deal with.

Conceptualism is in itself, An eveil Dogma!

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

-Orgys of more than three people

why 3?

What is so special about 3 that if you have more than 3, you cross some kind of invisible line?

The number of Slaanesh is 6. 3 is two times 6, OMFG!

God bless one and all.

Charisma · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 158

huge breasts?
Huge Genitals?

some people do have these, why discriminate them by saying its a bad thing? my mums a 38G....so if someone drew her portrait, it would be crossing a line? nudity in art is quite common you know! it deosnt necessarily mean that it should be offensive just because someone's naked body is showing. its a beautiful thing. but i guess thats still your opinion of what you'd not like to see

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

What is art?

Art is a means of communication. :)

Communication is a word that means, literally, "putting in common".

An artist generates a message, and transmits it to the viewer thru a certain medium and using a number of rules that both transmitter and receiver should understand. That's precisely the basis of the communication theory, and as far as I can see, it applies perfectly to art.

Therefore, art is not the mere object but the success or failure of the experience of seeing the object. And, based on that experience, it's how we evaluate a certain craft from an artist, hence why something considered as "bad art" by one person is considered "good art" by another one.

This theory doesn't only apply to drawings and paintings, what people usually identify as art, but to the six classic arts (Painting, sculpture, literature, theatre, architecture and oratory) and the four more modern (pseudo?)arts (photography, cinematography, sequential art and graphic design).

Charisma · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 158

my god, i didnt think about it that well.....i didnt take into account litrature etc. bah! maybe choosing 'what is art' as an essay title isnt going to be so easy after all!

its mainly about my personal views though, and i agree that its all about communication. Definatly. I just have to back it up and argue against it for 2000 words =p

Shmorky · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 182

Banning any kind of art is kind of a Nazi thing to do in my opinion

I'm wondering if this is just an ironic statement or if you actually know something about history.

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

Banning any kind of art is kind of a Nazi thing to do in my opinion

I really love it when furry artists cry 'nazi!' at the slightest sign of content control.

Shmorky · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 182

Banning any kind of art is kind of a Nazi thing to do in my opinion

I really love it when furry artists cry 'nazi!' at the slightest sign of content control.

...but technically...

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

No, it crosses the line when you are using the word 'yiff'

THANK YOU.

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

Banning any kind of art is kind of a Nazi thing to do in my opinion

I really love it when furry artists cry 'nazi!' at the slightest sign of content control.

...but technically...

....Sigh. Who am I kidding. :(

Shmorky · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 182

Banning any kind of art is kind of a Nazi thing to do in my opinion

I really love it when furry artists cry 'nazi!' at the slightest sign of content control.

...but technically...

....Sigh. Who am I kidding. :(

Come on... am I the only one who knows why this is funny?

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

Sweet '61 Adolph, make that motherfucker HOP

Come on... am I the only one who knows why this is funny?

Uhm, i just figured it was because the Nazi's did ban art, except for pro nazi-party propaganda stuff

They also looted and hoarded art

So this sort of analogy gets kind of complicated the more you look at it (to me anyway)

IceCat · Coadjutor Joined: 31 Oct 2003 Posts: 81

Banning any kind of art is kind of a Nazi thing to do in my opinion

Well if you are talking about "degenerate art", which was baiscally anything the Nazi's did'nt like.
Stuff like this.
http://www.irondale.org/press/articles/DArt.htm

And that's a historic referemce, the other thing is that by defination there is alot of "Furry Art" that is just horrible, and ether nasty, or has subject matter of a questionable nature, And yes some of it would definately qualify as being degenrate too, by anyone's difination.

That's all for now...

Later

IceCat