Furry Classification Proposal
Terry Wessner
license got me thinking about ways to describe the different types
of furry character designs. I offer my musings for others to ponder
and pick apart if they wish.
Taking my cue from earlier efforts such as Herman Miller's "Furriness
Quotient," I think there are three fields of character design we need
to consider:
1. Anthropomorphism:
- Visually: how close is the design to human body types
- Conceptually: how much of ourselves do we see in the character
2. Zoomorphism:
- Visually: how close is the design to other animal types
- Conceptually: how much of something else do we see
3. Cartoonism:
- Visually: how well would the design work in the real world
- Conceptually: how far removed from reality are we getting
Anthropomorphism is really about the familiar aspects of a character
design, what we can directly identify with. ("That looks just like me."
"I've felt like that sometimes.") Zoomorphism is about aspects we can't
directly identify with, but can compare to other real things ("She looks
like my cat." "Reminds me of a potato chip.") (I use "Zoomorphism"
because this is a.f.f. If we subsitute home appliances instead, we can
describe _The Brave Little Toaster._) Cartoonism describes the amount
of creative license, the extent to which the design would violate
physical laws if we tried to actually create it.
The three fields are all mutually exclusive of each other. The more
Anthro the design, the less Zoo it is. The more Cartoon, the less
Zoo or Anthro it can be as it becomes more abstract. Thus, we can draw
an axis from each field to the others and define a Character Design
Index space. It would look something like this:
Cartoony
(Unrealistic)
+
/ \
/ \
/ \
+ - - - - - - - +
Anthropomorphic Zoomorphic
(Familiar) (Unfamiliar)
At the Cartoony point we have Rob McClaren's sureal animations, such
as _Cosmic Zoom._ At the Anthro point are real human beings. At the
Zoo end are real critters. And within the triangle are all furries
and cartoons.
We can describe a character's CDI by assigning it/her/him a three
digit number of the form "Anthro.Zoo.Toon." Each field has a scale
from zero to ten. No combination of two fields in a CDI can add up
to more than ten. Here's some examples:
Real Human : 10.0.0
Real Fox : 0.10.0
Homer Simpson : 4.0.6
Bugs Bunny : 4.4.6
Daffy Duck : 3.5.6
Tasmanian Devil : 3.3.7
Erma Felna : 4.6.2
"Classic" Werewolf
- As Human : 9.0.1
- As Wolf : 0.9.1
Luxo Junior : 1.9.1
Ren Hoek : 3.3.8
Obviously this is still very inexact. I'm not sure yet how well a
three field space projects onto a two dimensional surface. And
what sort of guidelines can be developed for assigning a character
a value in each of the fields?
Opinions and comments are encouraged. Is this a useful tool,
or just another example of overanalyzing something?
Terry Wessner
tswe...@vnet.ibm.com .:::. __/\ .::.
____/. \
Toronto, ON, Canada \___ \
\ \
Andre' Heinonen
>The three fields are all mutually exclusive of each other. The
>more Anthro the design, the less Zoo it is. The more Cartoon, the
>less Zoo or Anthro it can be as it becomes more abstract. Thus,
>we can draw an axis from each field to the others and define a
>Character Design Index space. It would look something like this:
>
> Cartoony
> (Unrealistic)
> +
> / \
> / \
> / \
> + - - - - - - - +
> Anthropomorphic Zoomorphic
> (Familiar) (Unfamiliar)
>
>digit number of the form "Anthro.Zoo.Toon." Each field has a
>scale from zero to ten. No combination of two fields in a CDI can
>add up to more than ten. Here's some examples:
>
> Real Human : 10.0.0
> Real Fox : 0.10.0
Seems to me you only need *two* coordinates, since you're really
only describing two variables, namely the amount of zoomorphing,
and the amount of cartooning (how realistically the character is
drawn)
Like this:
(cartooniness) |
|
| c
| a b
+--------------- (zoomorphing)
Here, a real human would be at (a), a real fox at (b), and Erma
Felna at (c).
This is a somewhat simpler system, but I still don't know what it's
good for. Perhaps someone could assign all furry artists a position
in the coordinate system, and then we could all bicker about who
got placed correctly, and so on... For reference, I'd put *my*
toons above and slightly to the right of Erma Felna. :)
...Andre' Heinonen,
Royal Inst. of Technology (RIOT), Stockholm, Sweden
Internet: <e92...@e.kth.se>
--------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe I found the missing link between animal and civilized man.
It is us." -Konrad Lorenz
Terry Wessner
>Seems to me you only need *two* coordinates, since you're really
>only describing two variables, namely the amount of zoomorphing,
>and the amount of cartooning (how realistically the character is
>drawn)
>
>Like this:
>
>(cartooniness) |
> |
> | c
> | a b
> +--------------- (zoomorphing)
>
>Here, a real human would be at (a), a real fox at (b), and Erma
>Felna at (c).
Yes, that was my first approach. But I felt that it didn't fully
convey how, as a design gets more cartoony, it actually loses
features of being a human, fox, toaster, whatever. The design
gets forced into the middle of grid. Not because it's gaining
anthro or zoo features, but because it's losing them. So I had
my grid coming to a point at the top, with anthro/zoo numbers
dropping to zero.
>This is a somewhat simpler system, but I still don't know what it's
>good for.
Well, it's certainly not the first attempt at such system. There was
Herman Miller's Furry Quotient, and I just heard today about Noel
Tominak's TS-3 Anthropomorphic Classification Standards.
One way to use a classification scheme is to check the contents
for gaps. When elements were first arranged into the Periodic
Table, gaps appeared that told scientists there were "missing"
elements that were later discovered. Would a furry/toony
classification scheme reveal that some categories are empty
or sparsely filled? Could this inspire writers and artists to
create characters and stories that fill those gaps? Are they
_worth_ filling in? Does my own work cover ground that's
already been well worked by others? Do we care? :)
> Perhaps someone could assign all furry artists a position
>in the coordinate system, and then we could all bicker about who
>got placed correctly, and so on...
Oh, that's almost certainly what would happen. That's why I was
a little reluctant to bring it up in the first place. :) But my love for
analysis and data modelling won out over my common sense.
>For reference, I'd put *my* toons above and slightly to the
>right of Erma Felna. :)
I agree, and I really enjoy your work, Andre'! I think it's cleanly
drawn, expressive, and usually just plain fun! "arcfoxes.gif" is
my current favourite.
Steve Arlow
Terry Wessner <tswe...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>The three fields are all mutually exclusive of each other. The more
>Anthro the design, the less Zoo it is. The more Cartoon, the less
>Zoo or Anthro it can be as it becomes more abstract. Thus, we can draw
>an axis from each field to the others and define a Character Design
>Index space. It would look something like this:
>
> Cartoony
> (Unrealistic)
> +
> / \
> / \
> / \
> + - - - - - - - +
> Anthropomorphic Zoomorphic
> (Familiar) (Unfamiliar)
>
>as _Cosmic Zoom._ At the Anthro point are real human beings. At the
>Zoo end are real critters. And within the triangle are all furries
>and cartoons.
>
>digit number of the form "Anthro.Zoo.Toon." Each field has a scale
>from zero to ten. No combination of two fields in a CDI can add up
>to more than ten. Here's some examples:
>
> Real Human : 10.0.0
> Real Fox : 0.10.0
> Bugs Bunny : 4.4.6
> Daffy Duck : 3.5.6
> Tasmanian Devil : 3.3.7
> Erma Felna : 4.6.2
> "Classic" Werewolf
> - As Human : 9.0.1
> - As Wolf : 0.9.1
> Luxo Junior : 1.9.1
> Ren Hoek : 3.3.8
I think you need to restrict the whole sum, not just
pairwise. A human cannot become more cartoony wihtout
becoming less human in appearance, nor can a human
become more zoomorphic without becoming less human in
appearance. A fox cannot become more cartoony without
becoming less vulpine inn appearance, and so on.
>Obviously this is still very inexact. I'm not sure yet how well a
>three field space projects onto a two dimensional surface. And
>what sort of guidelines can be developed for assigning a character
>a value in each of the fields?
If you restrict the entire sum to a constant value of
ten, and allow no negatives, then the scheme projects
onto the plane *exactly* as you have drawn it, i.e.,
as the plane x+y+z=10 where x, y, and z are all >= 0.
If you instead stipulate that x+y+z <= 0, you get a
pyramid in the shape of a corner of a cube. What is
at 0,0,0 ? A dot? Since I think that "cartoonyness",
as you have described it, is essentially the degree of
abstraction, can one drawing which is not significantly
human or zoomorphic (which you have also described as
"recognizable", and by which I take you to mean
"recognizably 'other'") be more "cartoony" than another?
I am not sure. Likewise, is a drawing of a human with
no significantly "zoomorphic" or "cartoony" aspects be
"more human" than another? Again, I don't think so.
One cannot make someone look less human without either
abstraction or caricature. Look at any drawing meant to
depict an "inferior minority", viz., to depict a human
being as less human. One finds caricature of either
zoomorphism (Winsor MacCay's Africans who look like they
are half-monkey) or of abstraction (prominent features
exaggerated, etc., as in the typical anti-semetic
drawing, though no specific artists come to mind).
The pairwise restriction is essentailly the same corner
in space, only a little bit larger -- it bulges out to
the (5,5,5) point in a slighly pyramidal fashion. I
think the fact that several of your examples violate the
three-piece function of "no pair > 10" shows that it
doesn't quite work for you, either.
Also, is a "classic werewolf" really either "a slightly
cartoony human" (9.0.1) or a "slightly cartoony wolf"
(0.9.1) as you list? I would have thought that the
classic werewolf was either a "slightly lupine human"
(9.1.0) or a "slightly human wolf" (1.9.0), neither
with any significant cartoony aspect.
>Opinions and comments are encouraged. Is this a useful tool,
>or just another example of overanalyzing something?
It's *tres McCloud*. ;) *I* don't think you are
overanalyzing, but then I have a taxonomy of the four
fundamental axes along which furry material gets
eroticized, so I am probably not the one to make that
judgement. :)
-- Steve Arlow (yor...@msen.com)
(I don't think I have a .sig set up on this particular machine...)
Herman Miller
says...
>One way to use a classification scheme is to check the contents
>for gaps. When elements were first arranged into the Periodic
>Table, gaps appeared that told scientists there were "missing"
>elements that were later discovered. Would a furry/toony
>classification scheme reveal that some categories are empty
>or sparsely filled? Could this inspire writers and artists to
>create characters and stories that fill those gaps? Are they
>_worth_ filling in? Does my own work cover ground that's
>already been well worked by others? Do we care? :)
This sounds like a great use for a classification system. For example, you
could go to <http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/life.html>, the Tree of Life,
and fill each node of the tree (at least the animal branch of the tree) with
furry examples. For mammals, go to a mammal classification site (I saw one
recently, but I don't have its URL with me).
Sometimes it's hard to know ahead of time that there is a gap in the system,
though. Until I started drawing elfmice, I didn't think of the possibility of
combining animal and NON-human features (even though elves and fairies are
somewhat human-like, they're not quite human). I've been considering what
new kinds of furries to draw for my Infinite Difursity project, and
possibilities like feathery-winged fairy-gazelletaurs have come to mind.
And what about the Slinky dog from Toy Story? Classification is an
interesting, but very tricky, challenge.
--
new & improved home page! +----------<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/>----------
|"You have passed a law that will get less respect
Thryomanes (Herman Miller)| than the 55 m.p.h. speed limit dead bang in the
(hmi...@io.com) | middle of the First Amendment." - Steve Russell
The Mystic Mongoose
> Recent discussions on a.f.f about digitigrade legs and artistic
> license got me thinking about ways to describe the different types
> of furry character designs. I offer my musings for others to ponder
> and pick apart if they wish.
*knuckle-crack* Oh goody, a chance to nitpick. -1-)
> Taking my cue from earlier efforts such as Herman Miller's "Furriness
> Quotient," I think there are three fields of character design we need
> to consider:
>
> 1. Anthropomorphism:
> - Visually: how close is the design to human body types
> - Conceptually: how much of ourselves do we see in the character
>
> 2. Zoomorphism:
> - Visually: how close is the design to other animal types
> - Conceptually: how much of something else do we see
>
> 3. Cartoonism:
> - Visually: how well would the design work in the real world
> - Conceptually: how far removed from reality are we getting
Sounds good for a start...
> The three fields are all mutually exclusive of each other. The more
> Anthro the design, the less Zoo it is. The more Cartoon, the less
> Zoo or Anthro it can be as it becomes more abstract. Thus, we can draw
> an axis from each field to the others and define a Character Design
> Index space. It would look something like this:
>
> Cartoony
> (Unrealistic)
> +
> / \
> / \
> / \
> + - - - - - - - +
> Anthropomorphic Zoomorphic
> (Familiar) (Unfamiliar)
Okay, now *here* I'm about to jump in. This is highly reminiscent of
Scott McCloud's 'Comic Art Triangle', which attempts to do roughly the
same thing- point out the various 'characteristics' of Comic art, and
provide a sort of classification scheme. The book is called
'Understanding Comics", and I could it as a 'must read' for comic fans,
or *anyone* interested in visual art.
The Triangle:
>
> Abstract
> (Art as shapes)
> +
> / \
> / \
> / \
> + - - - - - - - +
> Realist Iconic
> (Art as nature) (Art as concept)
By Realism, Scott McCloud means the Real world, Nature: That which
seeks to come as close to 'Reality' as possible. A photograph-quality
picture is at the 'Realist' point.
By Iconic, McCloud means concepts, and things which are generic, or
can stand for multiple things: a plain smiley face :) is at the iconic
apex, since it can represent *any* face. (The book makes this point
better than I. You really should try to find it in your local library,
bookstore, or Comic shop.)
By Abstract, it's meant shapes, colors: An art form where the art form
becomes the most important thing, and presentation of 'objects' is
minimized. A Mondrain or Jackson Pollock work would be high on the
abstraction level.
> At the Cartoony point we have Rob McClaren's sureal animations, such
> as _Cosmic Zoom._ At the Anthro point are real human beings. At the
> Zoo end are real critters. And within the triangle are all furries
> and cartoons.
Understood. Your AZT scale seems to be a 'opposition' to McClous's
system.. by which I mean each of your points opposes one of McCloud's
points, as on a color system. Cartoonism is anti-realism;
Anthropomorphism is anti-Abstractism; and zoomorphism is anti-Iconism.
(Though this isn't a perfect parallel.)
Or perhaps to better express it: Cartoonism is Abstraction + Iconism;
Anthropomorphism is Realism + Iconism; Zoomorphism is Abstraction + Realism.
> We can describe a character's CDI by assigning it/her/him a three
> digit number of the form "Anthro.Zoo.Toon."
I'll toss on where these numbers might fall in McCloud's, in a
Realist.Iconist.Abstract system... those are the second column here.
> Real Human : 10.0.0 :10.0.0
> Real Fox : 0.10.0 :10.0.0
> Homer Simpson : 4.0.6 : 3.8.2
> Bugs Bunny : 4.4.6 : 2.7.2
> Daffy Duck : 3.5.6 : 3.7.2
> Tasmanian Devil : 3.3.7 : 2.8.3
> Erma Felna : 4.6.2 : 5.6.4
> "Classic" Werewolf
> - As Human : 9.0.1 : 9.1.1
> - As Wolf : 0.9.1 : 9.0.1
> Luxo Junior : 1.9.1 : 7.0.3
> Ren Hoek : 3.3.8 : 3.6.5
>
> Obviously this is still very inexact. I'm not sure yet how well a
> three field space projects onto a two dimensional surface.
Pretty well, IMHO. You and McCloud have a similar concept, and the
triangle mapping does quite well.
>And what sort of guidelines can be developed for assigning a character
>a value in each of the fields?
Aesthetic judgement. Not much else. "Um, well, this *looks*
abstract/toony/iconic/anthromorphic/realist/zoomorphic..." is as good as
it'll get. It's as good as we *need* to get, too. This is art; there's a
certain portion of it that can't be mechanically classified.
> Opinions and comments are encouraged. Is this a useful tool,
> or just another example of overanalyzing something?
I'm not sure about a useful 'tool'. I think it's a interesting concept
for thinking about the art form; I'm still considering it's realtionships
to Scott McCloud's theories. (Once more: "Understanding Comics", by Scott
McCloud, published by Tundra/Kitchen Sink Press. A excellent read, and a
*must* *have* for modern comic/illustration artists.)
The Mystic Mongoose, aka Robert W. Armstrong
"Contemplation is the fornication of the mind." -Gary Benson
Herman Miller
mong...@q.continuum.net says...
Maybe what we need is a furry Geek Code. Something like H+ somewhat
human-like, H++ very human-like, H+++ human, A+ somewhat animal-like, C--
not very cartoony, R--- extremely unrealistic, etc.
ethompso@janus0
> In article <Pine.BSF.3.91.960421...@q.continuum.net>,
> mong...@q.continuum.net says...
> >
> Maybe what we need is a furry Geek Code. Something like H+ somewhat
> human-like, H++ very human-like, H+++ human, A+ somewhat animal-like, C--
> not very cartoony, R--- extremely unrealistic, etc.
>
Speaking of Geek Codes and the like, where can I find the
explanations for Geek Codes, Cat Codes, and the like?
Eric the .5b
Terry Wessner
>I think you need to restrict the whole sum, not just
>pairwise.
<*snip*>
>If you restrict the entire sum to a constant value of
>ten, and allow no negatives, then the scheme projects
>onto the plane *exactly* as you have drawn it, i.e.,
>as the plane x+y+z=10 where x, y, and z are all >= 0.
Thanks, Steve! Your equation is exactly what I was trying
to figure out. I work more with visual data models, so I
appreciate your putting numbers to my chart.
<Many good arguements against x+y+z <= 0 snipped>
Nothing to add except that I agree.
>Also, is a "classic werewolf" really either "a slightly
>cartoony human" (9.0.1) or a "slightly cartoony wolf"
>(0.9.1) as you list? I would have thought that the
>classic werewolf was either a "slightly lupine human"
>(9.1.0) or a "slightly human wolf" (1.9.0), neither
>with any significant cartoony aspect.
With the werewolf I may have blurred the line about what
"design" means. The case I was trying to describe is one
where the werewolf has a normal looking human form and a
normal looking wolf form. But without saying so, I mixed in
the abilitities of the character. Normal humans and wolves
can't morph, so that suggested to me a degree of abstraction
for both forms for the werewolf. This raises the question of
whether talents and abilities should be considered part of
the design. I think they are, hence my 9.1.0 and 0.1.9
classifications for the werewolf.
>It's *tres McCloud*. ;)
Heh heh :) In hindsight I feel I should have acknowledged Mr.
McCloud as an inspiration in the original posting. Of course,
three coordinate systems are fairly common, but I freely admit
to being influenced by McCloud's _Understanding Comics._
>*I* don't think you are
>overanalyzing, but then I have a taxonomy of the four
>fundamental axes along which furry material gets
>eroticized, so I am probably not the one to make that
>judgement. :)
Now _that_ sounds interesting. Care to share it with us?
Michael J. Rider
ethompso@janus0 wrote:
> Speaking of Geek Codes and the like, where can I find the
> explanations for Geek Codes, Cat Codes, and the like?
I've found the geek codes and magick code (I think that one is at RPI
somewhere). They should be findable through search engines. I haven't
seen the Cat code yet.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael J. Rider, jag...@warwick.net (Jason_Jaguar on FurryMUCK) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brain> Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? |
| Pinky> I think so, Brain, but me and Pippi Longstocking... |
| I mean, what would the children look like? |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+