Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AceSV]

Whether or not you're cool with anthros depends on whether you look at an anthro and see an animal with person features or a person with animal features.  If it's a fish, why would it have boobs?  But if it's a person, why wouldn't it have boobs? 

If you're actually familiar with the way animals look and behave, it's easy to see a lot more human features than animal features in an anthro character:


It doesn't help that we're often conditioned to identify clearly non-human characters as people:


Even the human characters in cartoons don't always look human:


But even then, a lot of anthro characters are fun because they are unnatural.  I don't like the goldfish woman because she's particularly well drawn or thought through but because she is weird and ridiculous and innovative.  The 21st century has opened up a lot of people to xenophilia, love of the new or love of the strange.  We're always looking for the latest updates and new experiences and fresh ideas, and anthro characters gives us a way to look at things in a new way and combine things that we don't usually combine.  And having something with one foot in comfortable territory and the other in uncomfortable territory tends to stay fresh longer as you continue to grapple with your own comfort level. 

[Calidovi]

-snip-

1. It is true that most "furry" depictions of anthros have human proportions and form. But are they humans playing genetic dress up, or are they a result of time and evolution (if that were ever to happen)? It depends on the viewer perspective, of course. Stating that since Bugs Bunny looks like a person and acts like one doesn't mean he is a person, or biologically similar to one.

2. Tusken Raiders. I don't identify them as people, as humanoid as they seem. Why? Because they have no personalities. All the characters you list have human-like personalities and ethics. They might be good or bad or somewhere in the middle, but their personalities drive the point home and carry their appearances with it. Unless that's the point you're making.

3. Artistic stylization has always existed. Arguing that cavemen stylized their characters with such long necks and thin limbs because they identified with giraffes is silly. These animators had drawing techniques and a budget they had to meet, so they drew differently. They animators featured here drew different, non-hyperrealistic people because it was more reasonable to do so.

I guess I can't argue about the appeal of furries, though. That's each to their own.

[AceSV]

The problem is that your brain has different levels of "person" recognition.  Your brain tries to simplify stimulus down for quick reaction times, so while you may be able to logically deduce that Bugs Bunny is a cartoon rabbit and therefore not a person, his features still check enough of your brains "person" boxes that at a quick glance, he appears human enough. 

Think for example, why do you see this as a face?
(;

There's nothing face-like about it, it's just a pair of dots and a curvy slit.  But you can put a pair of dots and a curvy slit on almost anything, and suddenly, it's a face. 


Likewise, adding a head/neck/shoulder and hips/butt to an object will humanize it further, which is often the difference between 21st century anthros and earlier cartoons. 

The Tusken Raiders are a good example of this actually because even though they are actual people, they don't check the brain's boxes for humanness.  Loose clothing and a mask hides them from us.  Bird anthros are also difficult because bird beaks don't look enough like human mouths without some extra work, except for duck bills, which is why there are so many cartoon ducks. 

[Alfrodo]

Of course... add just too much person and you get...

[Calidovi]

The problem is that your brain has different levels of "person" recognition.  Your brain tries to simplify stimulus down for quick reaction times, so while you may be able to logically deduce that Bugs Bunny is a cartoon rabbit and therefore not a person, his features still check enough of your brains "person" boxes that at a quick glance, he appears human enough. 

Think for example, why do you see this as a face?
(: (;

There's nothing face-like about it, it's just a pair of dots and a curvy slit.  But you can put a pair of dots and a curvy slit on almost anything, and suddenly, it's a face. 


Likewise, adding a head/neck/shoulder and hips/butt to an object will humanize it further, which is often the difference between 21st century anthros and earlier cartoons. 

The Tusken Raiders are a good example of this actually because even though they are actual people, they don't check the brain's boxes for humanness.  Loose clothing and a mask hides them from us.  Bird anthros are also difficult because bird beaks don't look enough like human mouths without some extra work, except for duck bills, which is why there are so many cartoon ducks.

What you're talking about, pareidoila, is an instinctual thing which I can assume passed down through humanity so that early man could recognize other early men, and therefore threats and friends at a glance without much more visual input.

But you're still talking about appearance, which diverts from the question of whether they are truly biologically or just aesthetically similar to humans. What I think you're saying is that, using the example Bugs Bunny, since he has a mostly human bone structure he must be biologically similar to humans. That is complete plausible, if not moreso than what I'm trying to say.

[SixOfSpades]

Relevant history: The Makapagansat pebble.

Basically, it's a small stone that, through natural happenstance, has depressions that suggest a humanoid face. One of our ancestors noticed this, and thought the pebble important enough to carry around--the pebble was found miles away from the nearest outcrop of that type of stone. Even more interesting, the ancestor(s) that did this weren't even members of the genus Homo--they were friggin' australopithecines. Art, or at least abstract pattern recognition, LONG predates humanity.

[AceSV]

But you're still talking about appearance, which diverts from the question of whether they are truly biologically or just aesthetically similar to humans. What I think you're saying is that, using the example Bugs Bunny, since he has a mostly human bone structure he must be biologically similar to humans. That is complete plausible, if not moreso than what I'm trying to say.

Ah, okay yes, you're right, I'm still in art mode.  I'm just trying to explain why people like anthros.  The kind of person who becomes an anthro-fan doesn't stop to think about the bone structure or evolutionary history.  They see a face, they sense emotions and they say, okay, that's the character.  The people who need to be analytical and try to place anthro characters into a scientific reality are going to be less comfortable with the Anthro Movement.  And for some, anthro characters are a way to play around with the laws of reality and say to ourselves "why do things have to be this way?" "what if things were that way?" typically focusing on the emotional impact rather than a logical one. 

We were also discussing DF specific animal people on the polygamy thread.  NW_Kohaku shared with me the Threetoe story "Root" which explains that animal people are created by wizardry or primordial Savage nature spirits out of normal animals.  So the question remains, if an animal is suddenly imparted with obvious human features like speech, thumbs and rational thought, why should the wizard or spirit stop there?  Would it also give them human features like RGB vision? sweat glands? molars? puberty?  and at that point, why not boobs? 

[Shazbot]

So yeah, paint.

[Calidovi]

But you're still talking about appearance, which diverts from the question of whether they are truly biologically or just aesthetically similar to humans. What I think you're saying is that, using the example Bugs Bunny, since he has a mostly human bone structure he must be biologically similar to humans. That is complete plausible, if not moreso than what I'm trying to say.

Ah, okay yes, you're right, I'm still in art mode.  I'm just trying to explain why people like anthros.  The kind of person who becomes an anthro-fan doesn't stop to think about the bone structure or evolutionary history.  They see a face, they sense emotions and they say, okay, that's the character.  The people who need to be analytical and try to place anthro characters into a scientific reality are going to be less comfortable with the Anthro Movement.  And for some, anthro characters are a way to play around with the laws of reality and say to ourselves "why do things have to be this way?" "what if things were that way?" typically focusing on the emotional impact rather than a logical one. 

We were also discussing DF specific animal people on the polygamy thread.  NW_Kohaku shared with me the Threetoe story "Root" which explains that animal people are created by wizardry or primordial Savage nature spirits out of normal animals.  So the question remains, if an animal is suddenly imparted with obvious human features like speech, thumbs and rational thought, why should the wizard or spirit stop there?  Would it also give them human features like RGB vision? sweat glands? molars? puberty?  and at that point, why not boobs?

You're right. I suppose I'm one of those furries that prefer anatomical correctness, be that a minority or a majority, and since we're discussing DF animal people, I can't see why that "magical humanization" explanation isn't plausible.

[AceSV]

So yeah, paint.

It is terrifying.