No Fun?
Lisa Jennings
Nate Patrin wrote:
*snipping of another long self-deprecating rant on furry artists*
You know, if you stopped harping on that subject, it would resolve
itself faster. Unless you really do like to troll for rants....
Now then, the 'problem' I see here is that you still seem to think that
discussions on AFF are indicitive of what all of furry fandom are
discussing. Which is a shame, since maybe 10% of fandom actually pays
attention to this group, seeing the rep it has. If flames and rants were
lowered to debates and meaningful discources in communications, we might
see a bigger chunk of fandom showing up here for a post or two.
Now, I've been out of the group for a few weeks, but I haven't seen
anything new regarding Nate Patrin and how He Should Be Like So-And-So.
Are you gettiing email-bombed by radical furs decrying that your art is
a joke or a rip-off or a take-off of someone more famous? I don't see
that here.
As to the SCFA and what _should_ or _shouldn't_ be there, that's up to
the Sysop. Period. It's _sahn's_ system, and the owner is final judge
about content. If you don't like that attitude, start your own Furry
Artist Website. Heaven knows that sites pop up by the score each week
(and vanish just as fast, but that's another matter). The internet is
about Freedom of Choice. I _choose_ to frequent Yiffco, because I like
the way Lycan has designed it. I _choose_ to have my artwork on Velan
Central Archives and someday will have my site on FurNation up and
running -- because I want my stuff out there, but I don't want to start
my own ISP to do it. If you don't like something you see, don't look at
it. If you don't want to listen to me, skip over this post. It's that
easy, and it's completely _up to you_.
I believe in Personal Responsibility. Maybe you should think about what
that means. Maybe _everyone_ should consider what that means. Maybe then
we can return to the pie-fights as a stress-reducing means of conflict.
Catch! (One coconut-creme pie with almond-slivers goes orbital....)
ermine
home email: Khr...@InOrbit.com
Mark Freid
Nate Patrin <patr...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in article
<01bcb820$99ef6ac0$873e5ea0@default>...
>
> I was sitting around last night listening to my brand-new copy of the
> Crystal Method's "Vegas" (it rocks like a mofo, BTW) and I got to
> thinking... thinking about the 'who I'd put on the SCFA calendar' thread,
<snip>
Yeah, "Vegas" is great. I also picked up the new Juno Reactor. It's pretty
good too... but I digress.
This realization about furry art snapped into me last week, as I was
sitting around contemplating why I haven't drawn anything much in a while.
Finally I realized... I'm getting nowhere thinking that I can get any money
out of this. Furry art is a hobby. It's fun, not serious, not business
except for those who publish (for you guys, I am very grateful)... So, I
changed my entire philosophy of art. I decided to draw, and just release
drawings to the zines and the net, why? because I like drawing, and I like
letting others see it. Nothing wrong with that, no?
-Mark
--
Mark Freid ("Canuss"), Anthropomorphic Cartoonist
-------------------------------------------------
can...@yiffco.com http://wolf.tierranet.com
-------------------------------------------------
Creator & Moderator of the FurRing
(http://wolf.tierranet.com/furring.html)
Furry Code: FCW3dm A+++ C+ D H- M+ P+ R T W- Z+++
Sm RLCT a Can++ d e+ f++ h# iwf p++ s
Matt J. McCullar
Nate Patrin's a telemarketer? Well, I won't hold that against you. Just
don't ever call my house. We both have enough stress as it is.
I draw strictly for fun. My job is totally outside the realm of science
fiction/fantasy, etc. I enjoy it and it allows me to indulge in my
hobbies, such as ham radio, anthropomorphics, etc. I love drawing funny
animal art for fanzines because we owe it to each other to share our
creativities. This is what separates us from the animals.
I can honestly say, though, that I have made some money with my art. I
did NOT set about getting it, though. It just literally fell into my lap
when I wasn't looking. And we're talking only fifteen bucks for just
over three years' worth of drawing. It's a good thing I'm NOT in this
for the money. Even Ken Sample, who's an artist if anyone ever deserves
to be called one, admitted point-blank on his web page some time back
that he'd starve to death if he depended on his artistry to carry him.
I can think of more than a few professional furry artists who depend on
their artistic talents to pay the bills. Throw offspring into the
equation and it really changes the playing field. "I'd love to draw this
for free," they want to say, "but I really need the money." I'm certain
that after a while it ceases to be fun.
This is the important thing to consider: when it stops being fun, quit.
This is SUPPOSED to be fun! If it isn't, then step back and re-evaluate.
Why am I doing this? What else would I rather be doing? This is -your-
life, not someone else's.
Everybody is entitled to some low periods in life. Take a break. No one
will hold it against you. I like to draw when I feel like it, not when I
must. I'd rather make $x at a job I love instead of $10x at a job I
loathe.
What keeps all artists going is feedback, positive and negative. PLEASE
REMEMBER THIS. All artists want to improve. Did you like this drawing?
Why not say so? Explain -why- you liked it. No one's accusing anyone
of feeding egos, it's just a matter of self-improvement. Even
well-established artists who've drawn for decades thrive on comments from
readers. Why not tell your favorite artist how much you like his/her
stuff? In many cases you'll make a friend for life.
It's supposed to be fun.
Matt J. McCullar
Nate Patrin
Lisa Jennings <Allthis@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com> wrote in article
<340D8167.2B58@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com>...
>
> Nate Patrin wrote:
>
> *snipping of another long self-deprecating rant on furry artists*
>
> You know, if you stopped harping on that subject, it would resolve
> itself faster. Unless you really do like to troll for rants....
Well, it's been bothering me... I dunno, I just felt like I had to say
*something*. Sort of to explain why I feel like this. Not sure if it helped
any, though. To be honest, if someone chews me out for the fact that I said
the fandom should get over itself and have fun, well... sorry, that's their
problem.
> Now then, the 'problem' I see here is that you still seem to think that
> discussions on AFF are indicitive of what all of furry fandom are
> discussing. Which is a shame, since maybe 10% of fandom actually pays
> attention to this group, seeing the rep it has. If flames and rants were
> lowered to debates and meaningful discources in communications, we might
> see a bigger chunk of fandom showing up here for a post or two.
Well, I'm not just going by a.f.f. but by a lot of the things I've found
about the fandom. A lot of artists I've contacted had become extremely
distraught at the way the fandom and the scene was treating them. I've
noticed a lot of elitist, fannish behavior on FurryMUCK ("What?! You don't
like Amy-Squirrel! Kill him!"), seen a LOT of ass-kissing and
back-scratching on furry websites, and of course there /are/ the con
reports...
> Now, I've been out of the group for a few weeks, but I haven't seen
> anything new regarding Nate Patrin and how He Should Be Like So-And-So.
> Are you gettiing email-bombed by radical furs decrying that your art is
> a joke or a rip-off or a take-off of someone more famous? I don't see
> that here.
Not lately. Which is something I'm grateful for, really. 8o)> This time I'm
not really trying to defend myself but point something out which I think a
lot of furs have neglected: that a lot of us who do this for fun are deeply
affected by the attitude of the fanboys, the cliques and the genre-pushers.
Being told 'there's no market for cartoonish art' was what sort of set me
off in the first place... why would someone care about a market more than
an artistic vision? This isn't an organized,
exhibited-in-the-Guggenheim-and-New-Art-Examiner big-time multi-million
dollar art industry. It's supposed to be fun. If you make some nice cash on
the side, cool. But if you depend on furry art as a means of income (the
saying goes: if you're an artist, you'd better have a 'day job') of a way
to become popular (as I've tried, rather stupidly, to do), I think
something gets lost- spontaneity, risk-taking, maybe even individuality.
> As to the SCFA and what _should_ or _shouldn't_ be there, that's up to
> the Sysop. Period. It's _sahn's_ system, and the owner is final judge
> about content. If you don't like that attitude, start your own Furry
> Artist Website.
<reasonable treatise on furry art webpages snipped>
I think the original post was complaining about having one's art bumped off
the "Recent Uploads" for sketches and doodles and such. What struck me is
that this artist was worried about- among other things- losing possible
commercial opportunities. Now I know these high-school students' doodles
aren't for that kind of thing, but rather a creative outlet. Maybe there's
some symbolic or sociopolitical thing in there, but I'm reading too much
into this. I don't think we should really complain about people doing
"crappy" art- at least they're /doing/ art. And art nowadays is something
that's becoming far less valued than it was, say, 30 years ago. The only
bad art is copyright infringement, and maybe some stuff that's really
obviously sick or something. ;o)>
> I believe in Personal Responsibility. Maybe you should think about what
> that means. Maybe _everyone_ should consider what that means. Maybe then
> we can return to the pie-fights as a stress-reducing means of conflict.
Well, I know things'd be a lot easier if we focused on ourselves and our
own problems first and foremost, but there's something to be said for
tossing ideas back and forth with friends or acquaintances on what to do to
help this or overcome that or whatever. As of Personal Responsibility
(initials: PR... what the?!) I know I'm responsible to (a) attend college-
I'm taking a second-level drawing class this upcoming quarter, (b) do art I
enjoy and (c) blow at least $10 a week on record albums.
> Catch! (One coconut-creme pie with almond-slivers goes orbital....)
Nate EEPS! and ducks, and the pie hits a matronly woman in an evening gown
and pearls standing right behind him...
-Nate "Groucho" Patrin
Nate Patrin
<snip>
> I'm not going to give up and quit, regardless of the impact- large or
> small- I could make with my art in the future. That'll mean the Asshole
> facet of the furry art scene will have won,
<snip>
By this I shoulda pointed out that the Asshole Facet would have won IF I
*did* quit. Erp.
-Nate "Doesn't proofread" Patrin
Kese
>
I can honestly say that I do art in a large part for the fun of it.
Once it becomes unenjoyable, why do it? As for going into fits of
jealousy when I see a better peice of work, nope, it only makes me want
to push my own work ahead. I like competion and think it can bring out
the best in an artist(or athlete, or writer, ect.) It's only when you
think you can't move ahead that these things bother you. Maybe what it
takes is moving away from furry art for a while and doing art in other
genres for a while. It gives you a chance to expand your skills and also
can bring a freshness to your furry stuff when you go back to it. This
is not to say you should stop doing furry, but working in other areas
can really bring a newness to your art. I do it myself quite often,
dropping away from furry to do work on ceramics, sculpture, fabrics,
ect.
You just need to relax a bit. Don't push so hard.
Kese
no one in particular
Nate Patrin wrote:
(snip)
I got your message loud and clear, Nate. I don't
know how many other did though.
The fact is, a lot of people presently regarded
as being at the top were where you are now at some point,
but many have a tendency to forget that and act like they
were born to fame in the fandom. Then they let it drop,
but have little tendency to apologize for not having thought
before charging in with a flamethrower.
Thus we end up killfiling each other, the traffic
in a.f.f goes down, and the so-called 'signal to noise
ratio' shoots up. It saddens me greatly to see a chance
such as the internet wasted on un-fun, and downright hurtful
nonsense.
This behaviour is worse here, because this fandom
is desperately in need of a face-lift. We furry fans are
regarded as twisted and perverse. This is no more or less
twisted than sci-fi or daytime talk tv. In fact, it is less
twisted than the latter.
Does anyone think that if Toon Girls Get The Blues
or Pain's End really does end up on tv that I would forget
the people who inspired me? Or think myself better than them?
NOT A CHANCE! Come on folks, let's remember that there's lots
of room for furry art of all qualities.
JDupont378
>seen a LOT of ass-kissing and
>back-scratching on furry websites,
First off I stand by Nate on most of his post, SO THERE!
Second I can agree with this part about ass-kissing.
doomedmm.gif
When I did a picture of Gene Catlow (You know, the GOD of SCFA, go figure)
I made sure I got his premission, and he agreed to let me post my picture
of him. I have nothing aginst Gene (well....) but Matthew Miller Comes
along and "Saves Gene the indignety of responding" to a picture He gave me
premission to post. I mean really. And from the looks of the picture, it
seems he put a LOT more time into ass-kissing than his art. WERE IS MY
TAIL! Who cares if the whole picture looks like it was drawn by a 8 year
old kid, I WANT A TAIL! :)
SMILE!
I guess not.
There is a moral here:
1. if you are going to draw me getting blow away do it because you want
to,not to kiss up to someone.
2. DO IT RIGHT! Actually draw me instead of drawing some crappy little
stick figure and sticking a badly drawn head on it.
3. And more importantly, GET YOUR HEAD WOUNDS RIGHT! I mean, there is no
way a shotgun is going to put a nice little hole in my head at that range.
or somthing.
BC so there/
Nate Patrin
CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970904035...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>
> In article <01bcb820$99ef6ac0$873e5ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>
> >How many of you
> >artists out there can HONESTLY say you do furry art for fun;
>
> I do.
Everyone claims to. I don't have any real proof to refute them; only they
can do that.
> that what
> >other people draw doesn't give you snarling fits of jealousy if they're
> >better or condescending egotism if they're not as good;
>
> I'm not bothered either way. There are always going to be artists
> better than I am, and I will always be better than some others. I
consider
> that to be a fact of life. There are some artists whose abilities I
admire
> enough to consider to be a personal challenge to me to try and match or
> surpass, but I am not jealous of them because I honestly do like what
they
> do, and wouldn't want to see them stop drawing.
That's good, at least. If there's one thing that makes me want to vomit
it's that "I look down upon your art because it's not as good as mine"
attitude. Who knows, that artist you (not 'Chuck' you but a generic 'you')
put down could wind up drastically improving and become damned good at
furry art. (There's a few different artists in the SCFA who're in their
teens or early 20s that are already showing promise... but I digress.)
> >that getting paid
> >is a side effect and not a main symptom;
>
> I'm a professional and therefore preferred to get paid for my
> work; that has nothing to do with whether or not I enjoy doing the art,
and
> it certainly doesn't prevent me from doing stuff for free in fanzines or
online.
Well, what if your paycheck began to rely on you doing stuff you didn't
like? What if the fandom decided that what you did, content-wise, was
boring and what they'd rather see is comics about psychopathic ferrets
blowing shit up? ;o)> I've been plagued with the exact opposite situation.
> >that you don't believe there's
> >something the "Fandom" really wants and all artists should feel
obligated
> >to fulfill that want at least part of the time;
>
> Of course they do; they want furry art.
Yes, but they want a specific kind, as you detail down below.
> >that you think people who
> >have problems need constructive, helpful and even friendly advice and
> >aren't just there to be sneered at and put down;
>
> That's an interesting way of putting it, considering what happened
> when several folks tried to give you helpful and friendly advice a couple
> of months ago. Remember what happened? They wound up getting sneered at
> and put down. The axe swings both ways, and if you're thinking there's a
> lack of effort in that department, there's your reason why: once bitten,
> twice shy.
I don't think "there's really no market for cartoony art" (Elf's posted
reply to my first message on the subject ever) is a good way to start off a
thread, much less count as "friendly and helpful advice" (to me, that reeks
of 'give it up if you're trying to get published'). In fact, most of the
"friendly advice" I got was a lot of the previously-mentioned "I've been in
the fandom far longer than you"-toned stuff that dripped with belittling
sentiment. I did get some advice that I took to heart, but I received most
of that via e-mail. Maybe they didn't want to jeopardize their rep by
siding with an "angsty whiner". ;oP>
> >that you'd rather have
> >friends than fanboys?
>
> Friends. I'd even take acquaintances. Even strangers.
Heehee.
> >Is this a scene where we all have a communal
> >interest- furry art- or is it one big fucking popularity contest?
>
> At the risk of it sounding facetious (it is not so intended), the
> answer is that it's both. (Although I think your use or 'popularity
> contest' is probably a bit different than mine in this case.) Yes, we
have
> an interest in furry art (and stories), but those interests, as well as
> tastes, aren't as egalitarian as you might prefer. There are general
> trends that are more popular with the majority than the other trends;
fans
> prefer the sensuality of Terrie Smith
Your sensuality is my "damn this looks familiar".
> or the big-eyed Good Girls of Michele
> Light,
I believe that is called "anime". And it's been done. Over and over and
over. One Michele light is more than enough...
> or even the sardonic humor of Doug Winger's spooge to anything more
> experimental in nature.
Uh... yeah. Then again, the Cowsills sold more albums in 1969 than the
Stooges or the Velvet Underground- yet who's influenced today's rock music?
You don't hear Sonic Youth covering 'Hair'... (maybe I shouldn't've pulled
that analogy. I'm one of the few furs here who knows about avant-garde
underground rock.)
I know the fandom wants Easily Accessible Stuff, but there could be a
backlash to that on the horizon. The thing I mentioned in this original
post about 'name-dropping' is all too true- you used the same three artists
EVERYONE seems to cling to like a pygmy marmoset to Jack Hanna's finger. At
least you didn't mention Er*c Schw*rtz... ehh. Same old, same old doesn't
create anything besides entropy. To put it bluntly, harshly and probably
offensively: Mainstream furry art bores me.
Personally I like the pencil work of Abe Groter, the expressions of J
McIntosh, and the coloring of David Cotelessa. They're good at what they
do- hell, they could even be called *better* at what they do than Winger or
Smith or Light. They're talented, enjoyable artists. But with all the
hoopla over the same four or five artists the fandom always seems to dwell
on, they more or less get lost in the shuffle. I mean, what would cinema be
like if the only directors you got to see the films of at your local
Cineplex Odeon were Quentin Tarantino and Mel Gibson? Sure, they're Oscar
nominees/winners who've done some incredible shit, but eventually I'd start
to miss Kevin Smith and Michael Moore...
> The fans in general aren't really concerned with
> the dynamics of composition, usage of negative space, employment of
visual
> metaphors, or intensity of contrasts; they're only interested in the
bottom
> line: what the picture is to them.
Seems that by these examples 'what the picture is to them' could be easily
replaced by 'whether or not they can get off to it'. That's not quite what
I set out to do the first time I got bored in a junior high class and
doodled out a cartoon fox with a baseball cap... how many people are going
to look at these examples- what's popular- and emulate (or should I say
copy) it? I know of several artists who did early in their careers... (you
want specifics, I can name them later.) Many were convinced (by themselves
or others) that furry=spooge and they fumbled around with it for a while
and found out just how problematical that scene is.
> The trend is always going to be to the visceral excitement the art
> generates, in the genre of the audience's preference, and, in this case,
> it's furry art as defined by Terrie, Michele, Wookiee, Doug, et al. It
> remains popular, and that's the way the wind blows.
I think I'll snip the "'s the way the" and just say "that blows". Crude
humor, yeah, but I'm a college student-slash-Carlin-fiend. You expected
better? ;o)> If I offended you by that, I apologize, but I suggest you read
those previous paragraphs about entropy and repetition... over and over and
over again if you need to. ;o)>
<snippin' my own stuff>
>> All I want to know
> >is... how can I make this fun again?
>
> There is only one way, seriously: DO IT FOR YOURSELF! Draw what
> amuses you, for therein lies the muse. Forget other people's opinions.
...including the opinion that furry art's main appeal lies in big-bosomed
fox babes? OK, I could do that. Now can several dozen other artists try and
do that as well?
> Don't do it to impress other people. Draw because you want to draw,
> because what you draw is what you -like- to draw. Draw to make other
> people laugh or cry, but don't do it for the sake of making them like it;
> if you touch them, they'll like it anyway. But amuse yourself first.
Well, after all that slogging through that 'what the fandom wants' stuff,
finally something that has merit- even though I've heard that statement
about three dozen times and practice that theory every day. I *like* to
draw, i.e. the process of visualizing a concept in my mind and then
illustrating it with simple media. What I don't like is the uneasy feeling
that people will point out all sorts of little technical details that will
make me feel like I wasted my time. It's one thing to post art and have it
produce practically no attention whatsoever. That I'm getting used to. It's
another thing entirely to /annoy/ someone with your art. I don't care how
strong an artist's will is, that /has/ to get to someone sometimes. I was
told once that I had no business comparing myself to the fandom's
artificial higher echelon. I never knew art had such strict rules. Sure,
you could look at the quality of some pics that are undeniably amateurish
(like the stuff most of us did before we got the nerve to show anyone). But
there's a level where people should look over a couple of mistakes and just
take in the picture's overall feeling. I've seen pics that looked like they
were done by an epileptic on a sugar buzz that I liked anyways because it
had a likeable feeling to it. Can we get over all this subjective "quality"
stuff and enjoy art instead of criticizing it?
> >How can we stop screwing each other
> >over? Can we please stop the backstabbing, the flaming, the
> >thinly-veiled-copyright-infringements-as-art (you know who you are...),
the
> >name-dropping, the condescending abuse and the elitism? Maybe not... but
> >I'm sure as hell trying to.
>
> Here's one other piece of advice: don't worry about what the other
> artists are doing. Keeping abreast is one thing, but obsessing is
useless
> and a waste of energy. Ignore EVERYTHING but drawing what you want to
> draw. Period.
Well, if that's the case, why are you (evidently) rubbing it in that doing
my own thing isn't going to get me very far? Like you, I someday hope to
get my stuff published (for free or for pay), but since the fandom "wants
things that follow the trend of Winger, Smith, Wookiee, etc.", where does
that get me? I'm getting mixed messages. I know this whole post and any of
the followups to it I made seems a bit hostile and defensive (at least to a
few of you), but this kind of thing hasn't cleared up things any. "Yeah, go
ahead and do what you like; enjoy yourself. Just don't try and do something
stupid like submitting your stuff to 'zines because the fandom may not like
it." I think one of the questions I wanted to pose before was, "Is there
room enough for all sorts of different artists from the mainstream to the
experimental to be appreciated or at least feel included?" Can us
shaggy-haired, Beck-listening, bugging-eyeball-drawing Groening/Breathed
fans share the same room with the pinup aficionados? Looks like the answer
is 'no'. No wonder I'm so annoyed.
-Nate Patrin
Maskwa
Nate Patrin wrote:
[bladed rubber chicken making surgcal cuts right and left]
> JDupont378 <jdupo...@aol.com> wrote in article
> > Well, I was going to post along and meaningful post, But I figured since
> > anything I write that actually has any meaning to me will end up blowing
> up
> > in my face (Like when I state my opinion and get a E-mail about how I am
> > an asshole and my art sucks shit).
> TRANSLATION: Buster has been flamed- a lot- mostly by people who assume
> that "non-sequitorial" and "spontaneous" equals "stupid" and "pointless".
> Many of the members of the group don't, well, "get" him.
Hell, most times I can't pick out exactly what's going on in the mind of
BC. But then, that's good, because I don't live in his head. At least
I *hope* I don't. I get confused enough trying to decide between white
and whole-wheat bread for my sandwich, a BusterCharlieLand would make my
brain melt! But then, when it congealed, it'd prolly be better...
Besides all that, what's wrong with being an asshole, BC? I *like*
being an asshole! The hours are good and there's no heavy lifting!
> TRANSLATION: The artist in question (N. Patrin) is, while aesthetically
> inferior in some areas to more popular artists, provides content that is
aesthetically inferior? What the hell does that mean? (I *know* what it
means, but it has no meaning in its meaning. See what I mean?)
> more important to the more disenfranchised members of the fandom than
> endless pinups. (NOTE: I have not seen a "flushing the toilet" pic in
From some of the situations I've seen, a toilet may not be that much of
a stretch!
> > my BUSTERFIED pictures arte okay.
I like 'em, lots!
> > and my ferrets are
> > all depressed and I seem to be out of touch with both AFF and ALF. I am
> > wrong, everything I write and draw is wrong, I am the most wrong person
> > ever, There is noone who is more wrong than me.
...about being wrong.
> TRANSLATION: Buster's opinion does not count for shit to alt.fan.furry or
> alt.lifestyle.furry.
That's *his* opinion! (put it together, you'll see what I mean. Or
not.)
> > ALSO FACTS! YOU ARE THE SOLE VOICE OF THE FURRY FANDOME
ALRIGHT! Does this mean I get a raise? I mean, um, of fuck it,
nevermind.
> TRANSLATION: This group uses scapegoats instead of figuring out just how to
> structure a civilized exchange of ideas.
And I blame YOU! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahaa*inhale*aaaaa!
> TRANSLATION: Buster is a loser, baby. So why don't you kill him?
'Cause he'd kill me back. Repeatedly.
-- kaskitewaw maskwa -- Blakbehr -- Andrew Steppan -- DijitlToiz
-- Feeling goofy, and prone to make light of serious matters.
-- You should've heard the shit I was spouting off in class!
no one in particular
Lisa Jennings wrote:
(snip)
> So says the ermine with the Nomex bodysuit. ;3
(snip)
I wondered why Wendy was making suits that
small. The only question is, did she sell them directly
or did she do an OEM supply thing again and ship them
to one of the big name brands? And if she did, how did
she keep the profit off the books(and thus out of this
shareholder's paws)?
And why didn't I have access to a Nomex suit
when she spilled lighter fluid on me when I was standing
next to the barbecue last summer?
Ermines have all the luck...
Nate Patrin
WARNING: The following message from Buster Charlie may be offensive to
some, incoherent to most and stupid to far too many. Therefore, for the
rantspeak-impaired, I will supply closed-captioning. If you are easily
annoyed or offended by rants I suggest you ignore the main section and look
at the "TRANSLATION" passages to try and get an idea of what the man's
sayin'.
JDupont378 <jdupo...@aol.com> wrote in article
> Well, I was going to post along and meaningful post, But I figured since
> anything I write that actually has any meaning to me will end up blowing
up
> in my face (Like when I state my opinion and get a E-mail about how I am
> an asshole and my art sucks shit).
TRANSLATION: Buster has been flamed- a lot- mostly by people who assume
that "non-sequitorial" and "spontaneous" equals "stupid" and "pointless".
Many of the members of the group don't, well, "get" him.
> So I give up, I guess If I post some
> goofy post that makes no sense, people just killfile me, ignore me, or
tell
> me off. But if post something serious that doesn't go along with your
> perfect little furry world of perfect artist and billions of toaster post
> about how great (Insert artist who is okay but for some reason people
treat
> like GOD here) I get nothing but shit.
TRANSLATION: Fun and uniqueness are ignored, complaints are addressed only
to be insulted.
> I mean, sure Nate is not as good as
> some other artist (He is in fucking collage people!) but he his pictures
> have TWICE the MEANING of some "LOOK AT ME! I AM A POPULAR ARTIST WHO
GETS
> HIS ELITE ASS KISSED EVERYDAY SO I CAN POST SOME STUPID PICTURE OF ME
> FLUSHING THE TOILET" Picture.
TRANSLATION: The artist in question (N. Patrin) is, while aesthetically
inferior in some areas to more popular artists, provides content that is
more important to the more disenfranchised members of the fandom than
endless pinups. (NOTE: I have not seen a "flushing the toilet" pic in
question but I wouldn't doubt one's existence given the kinks they'll
commission.)
> Me on the other hand, My older art SUCKS (I
> don't take it down because, at the time it was the best I can do, and it
> shows my progress) and my new art (while nicely colored) its still not
that
> good. I mean, my BW pictures suck, my color pictures arn't that great and
> my BUSTERFIED pictures arte okay.
TRANSLATION: Buster admits mediocrity, yet he still draws. This means
something, and if you need that 'something' explained to you, forget it.
The "busterfied" pictures in question are re-colored versions of furry
artists' works (done as a sort of practice and posted only with permission,
if at all), sort of the equivalent of a music "remix".
> But compared to some people, I am damn
> lucky, at least some people like my stuff. I have seen alot of great
artist
> out there that don't get any credit and they have been drawing longer
than me.
TRANSLATION: None needed.
> OTher stuff to keep you people from e-mailing me about how much I suck
and
> I should stop drawing: My life sucks (excpet for the fact that I finnaly
> found my Beck Mellow Gold CD that was lost for a year)
TRANSLATION: Buster has better musical taste than half the furs here. ;o)>
> and my ferrets are
> all depressed and I seem to be out of touch with both AFF and ALF. I am
> wrong, everything I write and draw is wrong, I am the most wrong person
> ever, There is noone who is more wrong than me.
TRANSLATION: Buster's opinion does not count for shit to alt.fan.furry or
alt.lifestyle.furry.
> There is noone more right
> than you! YOU THE READER ARE THE RIGHTEST PERSON EVER! ALL YOU OPINOINS
ARE
> ALSO FACTS! YOU ARE THE SOLE VOICE OF THE FURRY FANDOME
TRANSLATION: That statement can vary depending on who reads it, and may
piss off some people more than others.
> (Unless you are
> Nate, then you are a Angsty little nihilist who does nothing but complain
> about how you are pissed because of the eLiTe, HOW DARE YOU EXPRESS YOUR
> OPNION! And of course we will always drag up your previous post and use
> them against you! AHA!)
TRANSLATION: This group uses scapegoats instead of figuring out just how to
structure a civilized exchange of ideas.
> AND THEN SOME!
>
> I must aplogise for going after everyone in my previous posts (NOT THIS
> POST), If I upset you in a previous post I apologize, if I upset you in
> this post, TOO BAD, I SUCK, so THERE!
TRANSLATION: Buster sounds irrational and self-deprecating. Actually he's
just relaying what others have said about him.
> -Buster "Nightmare Hippy Goth*" Charlie
>
> *If you even get what this is a parody of, you are cool.
TRANSLATION: "Nightmare Hippy Girl" is a song off the aforementioned Beck
CD "Mellow Gold".
> cuz one's got a weasel and the other's got a flag
> one's on the pole, shove the other in a bag
TRANSLATION: Buster is a loser, baby. So why don't you kill him?
-Nate "Jackass" Patrin
CMelvi6195
In article <01bcb820$99ef6ac0$873e5ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>How many of you
>artists out there can HONESTLY say you do furry art for fun;
I do.
that what
>other people draw doesn't give you snarling fits of jealousy if they're
>better or condescending egotism if they're not as good;
I'm not bothered either way. There are always going to be artists
better than I am, and I will always be better than some others. I consider
that to be a fact of life. There are some artists whose abilities I admire
enough to consider to be a personal challenge to me to try and match or
surpass, but I am not jealous of them because I honestly do like what they
do, and wouldn't want to see them stop drawing.
>that getting paid
>is a side effect and not a main symptom;
I'm a professional and therefore preferred to get paid for my
work; that has nothing to do with whether or not I enjoy doing the art, and
it certainly doesn't prevent me from doing stuff for free in fanzines or online.
>that you don't believe there's
>something the "Fandom" really wants and all artists should feel obligated
>to fulfill that want at least part of the time;
Of course they do; they want furry art.
>that you think people who
>have problems need constructive, helpful and even friendly advice and
>aren't just there to be sneered at and put down;
That's an interesting way of putting it, considering what happened
when several folks tried to give you helpful and friendly advice a couple
of months ago. Remember what happened? They wound up getting sneered at
and put down. The axe swings both ways, and if you're thinking there's a
lack of effort in that department, there's your reason why: once bitten,
twice shy.
>that you'd rather have
>friends than fanboys?
Friends. I'd even take acquaintances. Even strangers.
>Is this a scene where we all have a communal
>interest- furry art- or is it one big fucking popularity contest?
At the risk of it sounding facetious (it is not so intended), the
answer is that it's both. (Although I think your use or 'popularity
contest' is probably a bit different than mine in this case.) Yes, we have
an interest in furry art (and stories), but those interests, as well as
tastes, aren't as egalitarian as you might prefer. There are general
trends that are more popular with the majority than the other trends; fans
prefer the sensuality of Terrie Smith or the big-eyed Good Girls of Michele
Light, or even the sardonic humor of Doug Winger's spooge to anything more
experimental in nature. The fans in general aren't really concerned with
the dynamics of composition, usage of negative space, employment of visual
metaphors, or intensity of contrasts; they're only interested in the bottom
line: what the picture is to them.
The trend is always going to be to the visceral excitement the art
generates, in the genre of the audience's preference, and, in this case,
it's furry art as defined by Terrie, Michele, Wookiee, Doug, et al. It
remains popular, and that's the way the wind blows.
>I don't mean to be crass, even though right now I'm being *crass as hell*
>and am probably provoking a lot of you to toss off lots of angry e-mails
>telling me what a snotty little dickhead I am. (Since I'm probably a lot
>younger than most of you, maybe you'll feel justified.) But ignore the tone
>(which has been brought on by a long, hard night of working as a
>telemarketer- no wonder I'm so stressed) and ignore the messenger (who, at
>least here, has put his footpaw into his muzzle way too often) and look at
>the message itself. There's a reason I look at my art and feel bad about
>it, there's a reason artists sneer behind each others' backs, there's a
>reason people have forgot the reason they draw furries in the first place.
>Because to me, to them, to many of us, this shit just ain't fun anymore.
>
>I'm not going to give up and quit, regardless of the impact- large or
>small- I could make with my art in the future. That'll mean the Asshole
>facet of the furry art scene will have won, and I will have either faded
>away or turned to the Dark Side (in this case, not anger and fear but cash
>and the loss of identity). I'll do what I want to do. All I want to know
>is... how can I make this fun again?
There is only one way, seriously: DO IT FOR YOURSELF! Draw what
amuses you, for therein lies the muse. Forget other people's opinions.
Don't do it to impress other people. Draw because you want to draw,
because what you draw is what you -like- to draw. Draw to make other
people laugh or cry, but don't do it for the sake of making them like it;
if you touch them, they'll like it anyway. But amuse yourself first.
How can we stop screwing each other
>over? Can we please stop the backstabbing, the flaming, the
>thinly-veiled-copyright-infringements-as-art (you know who you are...), the
>name-dropping, the condescending abuse and the elitism? Maybe not... but
>I'm sure as hell trying to.
Here's one other piece of advice: don't worry about what the other
artists are doing. Keeping abreast is one thing, but obsessing is useless
and a waste of energy. Ignore EVERYTHING but drawing what you want to
draw. Period.
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
Arved
Nate Patrin wrote:
> ...how god-damned *seriously* people take the concept of furry art.
What's serious in this respect? If an artist is seriously trying to
improve, there's nothing wrong with it. If you have serious art with
deep emotional involvement, it's also OK. The more content in the
art, the more I can relish it.
> How many of you
> artists out there can HONESTLY say you do furry art for fun;
I don't consider myself to be an artist, rather a draughtsfur, but I do
have a lot of fun and do it only for that.
> that what
> other people draw doesn't give you snarling fits of jealousy if they're
> better or condescending egotism if they're not as good
I admire other people's stuff and try to reach their heights, however
that doesn't mean I have evil feelings towards them. There will always
be someone who is better at something than me, so why should I break
my mind over that?
> that getting paid is a side effect and not a main symptom
Oh, there's money involved? Didn't know that, but I also don't care
much about that. I buy my share of furry comics, that's it. From the
size of furry fandom, I can't imagine you could live on furry-only art.
> that you don't believe there's something the "Fandom" really wants
Uhm, there's spooge which people definitely want.
> that you think people who
> have problems need constructive, helpful and even friendly advice and
> aren't just there to be sneered at and put down
I do. The problem here is how to tell people what they could improve.
That's even more difficult if English is not your native language and
if you're not very good yourself. Words can hurt if they're not well
chosen.
> (Since I'm probably a lot younger than most of you, maybe you'll feel
> justified.)
What's the average age in furrydom? From what I've observed, you're
quite
in the main stream. But I could be totally wrong here :o)
> Because to me, to them, to many of us, this shit just ain't fun anymore.
I'm eagerly awaiting second opinions here. Need to follow this thread,
I'm wondering what's going on...
> I'll do what I want to do.
Stick to this. AFAIK, best attitude you can have to sustain fun.
Frankly, I'm a bit surprised about this mail. Is there something going
on which I missed?
Arved
Huskee
On 3 Sep 1997 04:20:46 GMT, "Nate Patrin" <patr...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>. How many of you
>artists out there can HONESTLY say you do furry art for fun;
Since you asked, and since it's a subject very dear to me -
I do my art for the joy and and magic of just doing it, and I know
others who do the same.
Lots of us drew the kind of things we draw for years and decades
before ever knowing there was a "furry community". If I'd never found
this community, I'd still be drawing what I draw, (and still
occasionally thinking about how nice it would be to actually SHOW the
stuff to someone, and meet other people, including artists, who enjoy
and appreciate the stuff!) So for me, it has been only positive and a
total pleasure to find this community.
> that what
>other people draw doesn't give you snarling fits of jealousy if they're
>better or condescending egotism if they're not as good; that getting paid
>is a side effect and not a main symptom;
Really inspired and/or very well done art does have an effect on me,
but it's only positive.
Any artist who displays "condescending egoism" toward someone "not as
good" is probably just a very unpleasant and unbalanced individual.
About getting paid :
I have nothing against making money from my art, but I'm not going to
try very hard, I don't care for that side of it. I've sold a few
portfolios at CF8, and probably will have one at CF9, but I prefer
just having a webpage.
>that you don't believe there's
>something the "Fandom" really wants and all artists should feel obligated
>to fulfill that want at least part of the time;
I don't know if there is or not, and I don't think anyone (artists or
other) is obligated to do anything except what they feel like doing.
>that you think people who
>have problems need constructive, helpful and even friendly advice and
>aren't just there to be sneered at and put down;
Anyone who would sneer at and put down anyone else who is sincerely
doing their best would be, once again, a very unpleasant individual.
I don't think anyone who has "problems" automatically needs advice,
but I'll try if someone asks for some, and I appreciate it when
someone I ask can give me helpful advice.
>I'm not going to give up and quit, regardless of the impact- large or
>small- I could make with my art in the future. That'll mean the Asshole
>facet of the furry art scene will have won,
I think I know what you mean by that, but my suggestion would be to
just make art, and don't think about who might like it or if it fits
into a definition of "furry" art or anything else.
>All I want to know
>is... how can I make this fun again?
By doing what you love, probably : )
--
email <wo...@NOSPAMcapmedia.fr> (remove NOSPAM)
webpages:
<http://www.furnation.com/huskee>
<http://www.saxophone.org/woof>
<http://rat.org/pub/furry/drakebob/index.htm>
Lisa Jennings
Nate Patrin wrote:
>
> Matt J. McCullar <sat...@isrc.net> wrote in article
> <340DF2...@isrc.net>...
> > Nate Patrin's a telemarketer? Well, I won't hold that against you. Just
> > don't ever call my house. We both have enough stress as it is.
>
> people's desire to get goods and services, I feed on people's guilt for not
> supporting the arts. Woowoo! (The "arts" in question being the Minnesota
> Orchestra. Surprise, surprise... 8o)> Never pegged me for a Stravinsky
> fiend, eh?)
True... I thought you'd be more into Beethoven (thinking of Clockwork
Orange, don't mind me....)
> > I can honestly say, though, that I have made some money with my art.
So have I -- and I'm doing a little better each convention I go to, as I
learn the business end of illustrations within fandom. But I'm not
drawing just for the sake of making money, I'm making money because the
hobby I find enjoyable happens to result in work that others find
enjoyable enough to pay for. :3
> I guess I have, too- i.e. some gratis pizza and a copy of Manos: Hands Of
> Fate on MST3K. I've gotten offers for money as well, and the furs who made
> the offers were startled as hell when I told them I couldn't really accept
> money yet until I really knew what I was doing (and got a PO Box so my
> parents didn't nag me with questions about where all this money was coming
> from. BTW, I'll have both a box and scanner access hopefully before
> September 18).
Good luck! (No, honestly, no sarcasm in there at all... I _always_ wish
other artists luck. We can all use it.)
> > I did NOT set about getting it, though. It just literally fell into my
> lap
> > when I wasn't looking. And we're talking only fifteen bucks for just
> > over three years' worth of drawing. It's a good thing I'm NOT in this
> > for the money. Even Ken Sample, who's an artist if anyone ever deserves
> > to be called one, admitted point-blank on his web page some time back
> > that he'd starve to death if he depended on his artistry to carry him.
I still remember the look on my mother's friend's face when I was a
rambunctious 6 or 7 year old and this lady saw my doodles of Okey the
space frog and Zfinge (the flying Nilla Wafer). She asked me in that
condescending tone adults have with the very young, "Ooh, are you gonna
be an artist when you grow up?"
"NO!" I shouted, frowning furiously.
The lady, completely taken aback at this vihement response, asked, "Why
not?"
"Artists starve. I won't starve."
I've never tried to depend on my art to make a living, and I never want
to. I got plenty of other skills to give me a career to pay the bills
and let my art remain fun... I don't want to burn out and I don't want
to pander, I just want to draw.
> > for free," they want to say, "but I really need the money." I'm certain
> > that after a while it ceases to be fun.
>
> And you can see the quality and creativity of the content go straight
> down... Chuck was (sadly) right, the same-ol' pinup/spooge stuff sells and
> when you're so strapped for cash there's the chance you might try to play
> to the lowest common denominator to keep yerself in Spaghetti-Os.
So you are left in a quandry of either following the market's accepted
interests and sacrifice your vision, or draw your vision and risk
starvation at the hands of an uncaring narrow-thinking customer base? I
think you might be missing a point here....
Ken Sample's art looks nothing like Terrie Smith's. Wookiee's art looks
nothing like Ken Samples. My art looks nothing like Wookiee's. Nobody's
art looks like Conrad Wong's. Wookiee got recognized 'late in the game'
as it were, compared to Ken and Terrie and Steve Galacci... yet his art
is among the top-10 favorite artists among furry fen. Why? Because his
art _is_ different, and appeals to a different kind of clientele. I've
seen some of Wookiee's earlier works and in spite of obvious flaws in
anatomy (yes, my mantra), there was a life and humor there that held
great promise... and then he really dove into computer-aided art and his
work kept improving.
Here, you want a different example than the same old Ken-Terrie-Michelle
saw? How about Christine Markel. Never heard of her? How about her name
as she first appeared on the science-fiction scene: Christine Mansfield.
This woman never touched a pencil until she was 27 and didn't try to
make marketable art until she was 30. In spite of this handicap, she got
interested in art and went out and _inhaled_ every book on Techniques
and Processes about artwork she could find. Her artwork has graced book
covers and become jigsaw puzzles, and she is in the same 'field' as
Michael Whelan in terms of art projects and her clientele... not bad for
someone who took 3 years to learn her craft, eh?
Oh yea, and last I chatted with her, she had a day job as a CAD
cartographer for the Orange County Fire Department.
> > Why am I doing this? What else would I rather be doing? This is -your-
> > life, not someone else's.
>
> Exactly.
I don't think anyone with a granule of sense would argue that point. :3
> > Everybody is entitled to some low periods in life. Take a break. No one
> > will hold it against you. I like to draw when I feel like it, not when I
> > must. I'd rather make $x at a job I love instead of $10x at a job I
> > loathe.
>
> Yeah!...
*sigh* I agree completely... I just wish I could get a $1x job that's
closer to home rather than going to a $10x job so far afield that I'm
going nuts on the commute (the part I loathe).
> > What keeps all artists going is feedback, positive and negative. PLEASE
> > REMEMBER THIS. All artists want to improve. Did you like this drawing?
> > Why not say so? Explain -why- you liked it. No one's accusing anyone
> > of feeding egos, it's just a matter of self-improvement. Even
> > well-established artists who've drawn for decades thrive on comments from
> > readers. Why not tell your favorite artist how much you like his/her
> > stuff? In many cases you'll make a friend for life.
>
> The problem is, in the case of "negative feedback", a lot of it isn't
> fueled by artistic knowledge or the desire to help a fellow artist improve.
> Sometimes there's too much of a bias on the part of the critic to be
> impartial. When I asked for critiques a while back, it was in a somewhat
> caustic, self-deprecating tone. Many of the responses consisted of the last
> things I wanted to hear. I got a lot of the "follow what (so-and-so hotshot
I'm sorry if you found _my_ critique to have the 'last things you wanted
to hear'. It's the lack of vision that causes the problems -- I can't
always see _my_ errors until someone points them out to me. Alas, my
truely impartial critique almost assuredly sounded cold to your ears,
but you can't have it both ways -- you can get fuzzy-pats on your back
and watch your art go _nowhere_, or you can get a jab in the tail that
makes you think and improve on what you _claim_ to want to improve.
> artists) are doing right; the main problem is those aren't artists I look
> up to, much less want to emulate. And the fanboyish/cliquish name-dropping
The 'name-dropping' is illustrative of your problem. Unless you can SEE
what we're talking about, you can't understand where we suggest
improvements. The 'most known artists' in fandom happen to have a ton of
artwork out there that you can look at, hence we all can grab Ken's
"MacroTraci" picture and see how he does extreme perspectives and know
that we are all looking at the same picture. It helps in
commmunications... but that means that communications are desired. If
all you want to do is bitch that you are avante garde and hate all the
status-quo commentary, then stop _asking_. The true Avante Garde don't
continuously get online to throw the Angst of the Week out there...
they're too busy putting the angst into their work and let _that_ speak
the volumes of ideas they want.
As you seem so intent on seeing the names and not 'listening' to _why_
those names are being brought up, I can only assume it's because you
want to 'prove' that those artists are meaningless. Sadly, that won't
get the flames off your back as many people (rightly or wrongly) put a
lot of emotional ties into their favorite artist.
> didn't help either. One fur went so far as to tell me to "go to art school"
> (uh... sure. Got 20 grand I can borrow over the next four years?). I know
The fur who told you to go to Art School meant well, even if the
suggestion is impractical. Art School costs a lot of money (although not
$20K if you get a scholarship) and the results aren't always in the
artist's best interests. Instead, you could take art classes at a local
community college or buy books on the subject from an Art Store -- there
are even technique videos for some stuff like airbrushing, if that's
what you want.
> I'm supposed to study anatomy and practice and all that, but these critics
> in question automatically assumed I was some naive kid who was in need of
> divine wisdom. In fact, I could even go so far as to say that these
I hate to be blunt, Nate, but if you act like a child you will be
treated like a child, whether you are 15 or 51.
A beginner is by definition naive, even if sahn has some knowledge.
Believe me, I was irked beyond reason when Steve Martin tried to 'wow
me' into being a starry-eyed protoge by telling me I _had_ to create my
own colored pencils starting with the pigments! Excuuuuuse me, but when
I'm using Mead Pencils and onion-skin Typing Paper, the _last_ thing I
want or need to do is hand-mix my own fleshtones. I was definitely naive
about all the possibilities, but that didn't mean I _needed_ to know all
that crap starting Day 1. Steve meant well, but he went about it all the
wrong way... what I needed back _then_ was an actual sketchpad, some
decent pencils, and several books on Drawing.
> responses weren't intended to help my art but to "put me in my place".
> That's what I /really/ wanted to get at, one of the main roots of the
> problem: people are so damned snobbish and hostile and impatient with one
> another that eventually we all wind up "twisted firestarters". (Ooo, the
> trendy kid brings up a Prodigy lyric. So? It fits... especially the line
> about 'the danger illustrated'.) Guess it's sadly appropriate that I'm
> being singled out and napalmed with the "angst" label for even bringing
> that one issue up.
I'm not pinning the 'angst' label on you because you are pointing out
snobbery. I'm pinning the 'angst' label on you because you believe in
fighting fire with gasoline, calling people names and putting words and
attitudes in their mouths that aren't there, ignoring advice kindly
given and exploding at advice less-than-kindly given. Angst is nihilism
in a violent form, which your posts show: nothing is right, everyone is
f***ing wrong, I'm being persecuted, It's not my fault, it's all the
fault of _them_ (government, religion, status-quo, other thinkers,
whatever).
It makes me get the urge to call over some of the BritPunks to
demonstrate to you what nihilism _really_ is... they have _nowhere_ to
go, the government really _has_ been suppressing them and their chances
to make a better life.
(Micole stops that train of thought before Fayetville nightmares start
returning.)
> > It's supposed to be fun.
> Then why- regardless of how much you make- can it be so difficult? We've
> brought up the concept of whether it's important to get paid or not. What
> I'm itching to know is, how can you get /respect/? (And no, 'giving it'
> doesn't always work.)
You're wrong. Giving respect _does_ work, but only if you do it in a
sincere manner. Respect includes personal responsibility of your faults
instead of heaping them on another person. Respect includes tolerance of
the other's differences in opinion and lifestyle. Respect includes
concientious discource, paying attention to _how_ your words might be
interpreted not just what your words mean. Respect includes
"Professionalism" in business, being honest with your goals and
requirements, being honest with your client and partners in a project.
When I respect another individual, they can either respect me or insult
me. Insults are ignored or persecuted (depending on the intent), and
respect gains me another friend/partner/client, who then spreads the
word to others. You have nothing to lose being respectful, and everyting
to gain.
ermine
Nate Patrin
Lisa Jennings <Allthis@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com> wrote in article
> Nate Patrin wrote:
> > Never pegged me for a Stravinsky
> > fiend, eh?)
>
> True... I thought you'd be more into Beethoven (thinking of Clockwork
> Orange, don't mind me....)
Funny, I never saw myself as the be-jumpsuited, bowler-wearing, homeless
man-beating serial rapist gangbanger type. Though I dig the dialect... real
horrorshow. ;o)>
<snip>
> I'm not
> drawing just for the sake of making money, I'm making money because the
> hobby I find enjoyable happens to result in work that others find
> enjoyable enough to pay for. :3
This is the who-knows-how-many-th time I've heard this. I guess the 'money
or enjoyment?' question has been officially answered.
> > BTW, I'll have both a box and scanner access hopefully before
> > September 18).
>
> Good luck! (No, honestly, no sarcasm in there at all... I _always_ wish
> other artists luck. We can all use it.)
Yeh... hope to make my 'zine debut in an upcoming Pawprints. And no, the
art will not be all gothic and depressed, nor will it be cynical, nihilist
and violent. I don't try to bring a frustrated attitude over to my art- at
least, not an obvious one that people will find annoying.
> I still remember the look on my mother's friend's face when I was a
> rambunctious 6 or 7 year old and this lady saw my doodles of Okey the
> space frog and Zfinge (the flying Nilla Wafer). She asked me in that
> condescending tone adults have with the very young, "Ooh, are you gonna
> be an artist when you grow up?"
ROTFL! You musta been a far-out kid (--->compliment). Flying Nilla Wafer...
that's cool. 8o)>
> "NO!" I shouted, frowning furiously.
> The lady, completely taken aback at this vihement response, asked, "Why
> not?"
> "Artists starve. I won't starve."
> I've never tried to depend on my art to make a living, and I never want
> to. I got plenty of other skills to give me a career to pay the bills
> and let my art remain fun... I don't want to burn out and I don't want
> to pander, I just want to draw.
Same here- till my fingers're numb.
> > And you can see the quality and creativity of the content go straight
> > down... Chuck was (sadly) right, the same-ol' pinup/spooge stuff sells
and
> > when you're so strapped for cash there's the chance you might try to
play
> > to the lowest common denominator to keep yerself in Spaghetti-Os.
>
> So you are left in a quandry of either following the market's accepted
> interests and sacrifice your vision, or draw your vision and risk
> starvation at the hands of an uncaring narrow-thinking customer base? I
> think you might be missing a point here....
What point is that? <8o/>
> Ken Sample's art looks nothing like Terrie Smith's. Wookiee's art looks
> nothing like Ken Samples. My art looks nothing like Wookiee's. Nobody's
> art looks like Conrad Wong's. Wookiee got recognized 'late in the game'
> as it were, compared to Ken and Terrie and Steve Galacci... yet his art
> is among the top-10 favorite artists among furry fen. Why? Because his
> art _is_ different, and appeals to a different kind of clientele. I've
> seen some of Wookiee's earlier works and in spite of obvious flaws in
> anatomy (yes, my mantra), there was a life and humor there that held
> great promise... and then he really dove into computer-aided art and his
> work kept improving.
I guess I was being kinda stoopid there. Yeah, more people will remember
you if you're different than if you're the same-old, same-old.
> Here, you want a different example than the same old Ken-Terrie-Michelle
> saw? How about Christine Markel. Never heard of her? How about her name
> as she first appeared on the science-fiction scene: Christine Mansfield.
Still never heard of her. Ehh.
> This woman never touched a pencil until she was 27 and didn't try to
> make marketable art until she was 30. In spite of this handicap, she got
> interested in art and went out and _inhaled_ every book on Techniques
> and Processes about artwork she could find. Her artwork has graced book
> covers and become jigsaw puzzles, and she is in the same 'field' as
> Michael Whelan in terms of art projects and her clientele... not bad for
> someone who took 3 years to learn her craft, eh?
Well, I may not have heard of her but that sounds inspirational enough.
8o)>
<snip>
> > > Why am I doing this? What else would I rather be doing? This is
-your-
> > > life, not someone else's.
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> I don't think anyone with a granule of sense would argue that point. :3
Yay! I have a granule of sense! ...uh, waitasec. Whassa granule? ;o)>
> *sigh* I agree completely... I just wish I could get a $1x job that's
> closer to home rather than going to a $10x job so far afield that I'm
> going nuts on the commute (the part I loathe).
Are the drivers where you are as bad as the ones in Minnesota? I've seen
people driving at 60 MPH on the freeway shoulder. No wonder I ride the bus.
> > The problem is, in the case of "negative feedback", a lot of it isn't
> > fueled by artistic knowledge or the desire to help a fellow artist
improve.
> > Sometimes there's too much of a bias on the part of the critic to be
> > impartial. When I asked for critiques a while back, it was in a
somewhat
> > caustic, self-deprecating tone. Many of the responses consisted of the
last
> > things I wanted to hear. I got a lot of the "follow what (so-and-so
hotshot
>
> I'm sorry if you found _my_ critique to have the 'last things you wanted
> to hear'.
Well, it kinda was the first time, though I kinda brought it on myself. The
second one was less bothersome to me.
> It's the lack of vision that causes the problems -- I can't
> always see _my_ errors until someone points them out to me. Alas, my
> truely impartial critique almost assuredly sounded cold to your ears,
> but you can't have it both ways -- you can get fuzzy-pats on your back
> and watch your art go _nowhere_, or you can get a jab in the tail that
> makes you think and improve on what you _claim_ to want to improve.
True. But the latter jab in the tail doesn't have to be augmented with
vitriolic remarks. (And I'm not necessarily referring to you.) Lynx,
f'rinstance, pointed out that my art was too static and needed dynamicism.
That's it. No 'go to art school!', no name-calling. After a bit of fuming
to myself I actually noticed he was right and now I do a /lot/ of stuff
that looks like it's gonna fly off th' page. Even negative crit helps if
it's impartial and not condescending. (BTW, thanks to your advice I've cut
down on the Photoshop a lot and have begun to work with colored pencils
more often. Looks a lot cooler.)
> > artists) are doing right; the main problem is those aren't artists I
look
> > up to, much less want to emulate. And the fanboyish/cliquish
name-dropping
>
> The 'name-dropping' is illustrative of your problem. Unless you can SEE
> what we're talking about, you can't understand where we suggest
> improvements. The 'most known artists' in fandom happen to have a ton of
> artwork out there that you can look at, hence we all can grab Ken's
> "MacroTraci" picture and see how he does extreme perspectives and know
> that we are all looking at the same picture.
Well, yeah... good point. Though I'm sure you could get good examples from
lesser-known artists as well. If someone asks me who to check out to show
an example of, say, color in composition, I direct 'em towards Sonny
Windstrup or Al Mackey- just like you can get as good an example on how to
play the guitar from Sonic Youth's Thurston Moore as well as Jimi Hendrix.
That doesn't really mean slagging off other more popular artists and
ignoring them will get you anywhere...
> It helps in
> commmunications... but that means that communications are desired. If
> all you want to do is bitch that you are avante garde and hate all the
> status-quo commentary, then stop _asking_. The true Avante Garde don't
> continuously get online to throw the Angst of the Week out there...
Blergh. I'm hoping that this thread is the last you'll hear from my mopey
side for a long, long while.
> they're too busy putting the angst into their work and let _that_ speak
> the volumes of ideas they want.
I actually did that a while back- I was pissed off and took it out on this
brush-and-ink illo of an apprehensive-looking fox. It's one of the best
works I've ever done.
> As you seem so intent on seeing the names and not 'listening' to _why_
> those names are being brought up, I can only assume it's because you
> want to 'prove' that those artists are meaningless.
To me, many of them are. I'm not really trying to belittle them, just
saying that they're not the only thing in the fandom. Though I don't know
if I expressed that accurately enough... <8oP>
> Sadly, that won't
> get the flames off your back as many people (rightly or wrongly) put a
> lot of emotional ties into their favorite artist.
Well, I've noticed that quite a bit recently, thanks to a rather voracious
defender of my work. (Not that having my work defended is a bad thing...
<G>)
> The fur who told you to go to Art School meant well, even if the
> suggestion is impractical. Art School costs a lot of money (although not
> $20K if you get a scholarship) and the results aren't always in the
> artist's best interests. Instead, you could take art classes at a local
> community college or buy books on the subject from an Art Store -- there
> are even technique videos for some stuff like airbrushing, if that's
> what you want.
This quarter I'm taking Drawing II. I'm itching to see how taking that
class will affect my work.
> > I'm supposed to study anatomy and practice and all that, but these
critics
> > in question automatically assumed I was some naive kid who was in need
of
> > divine wisdom. In fact, I could even go so far as to say that these
>
> I hate to be blunt, Nate, but if you act like a child you will be
> treated like a child, whether you are 15 or 51.
I guess not taking oneself or others that seriously doesn't help much,
either.
> A beginner is by definition naive, even if sahn has some knowledge.
<snip>
> I was definitely naive
> about all the possibilities, but that didn't mean I _needed_ to know all
> that crap starting Day 1. Steve meant well, but he went about it all the
> wrong way... what I needed back _then_ was an actual sketchpad, some
> decent pencils, and several books on Drawing.
Geez. I hate it when that happens.
> I'm not pinning the 'angst' label on you because you are pointing out
> snobbery. I'm pinning the 'angst' label on you because you believe in
> fighting fire with gasoline,
<snip>
> Angst is nihilism
> in a violent form, which your posts show: nothing is right, everyone is
> f***ing wrong, I'm being persecuted, It's not my fault, it's all the
> fault of _them_ (government, religion, status-quo, other thinkers,
> whatever).
Damn, do I really sound like that? Urgh. Guess I should be a lot more
careful...
> It makes me get the urge to call over some of the BritPunks to
> demonstrate to you what nihilism _really_ is... they have _nowhere_ to
> go, the government really _has_ been suppressing them and their chances
> to make a better life.
And worse yet, the Pistols sold out and are doing Mountain Dew ads... <j/k>
> (Micole stops that train of thought before Fayetville nightmares start
> returning.)
Do I even want to know what that's about?
> You're wrong. Giving respect _does_ work, but only if you do it in a
> sincere manner.
<snip>
> When I respect another individual, they can either respect me or insult
> me. Insults are ignored or persecuted (depending on the intent), and
> respect gains me another friend/partner/client, who then spreads the
> word to others. You have nothing to lose being respectful, and everyting
> to gain.
It actually kind of saddens me to wonder how things could've been different
if I'd've given some people more space and acted a lot less put-out...
damn.
-Nate "Embarrassed" Patrin
CMelvi6195
In article <01bcb8f3$21c42e40$8d1a5ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>> >that you don't believe there's
>> >something the "Fandom" really wants and all artists should feel
>obligated
>> >to fulfill that want at least part of the time;
>>
>> Of course they do; they want furry art.
>
>Yes, but they want a specific kind, as you detail down below.
You're generalizing. If that specific kind was -all- they wanted,
there wouldn't be 'zines (past and present) like STEAM VICTORIAN, TALES OF
THE TAI-PAN UNIVERSE, or PAWPRINTS, and people like Amara Telgemeier
wouldn't be pulling in as many downloads as she does. (Last week, her
folder on Tau-Ceti was third most accessed, behind Doug Winger and The
Magician -- and there was no spooge content amongst her work.) None of
these have more than a smal bit of cheesecake to them. The conditional
phrase is that they want -furry- art; the rest sorts itself out.
>> >that you think people who
>> >have problems need constructive, helpful and even friendly advice and
>> >aren't just there to be sneered at and put down;
>>
>> That's an interesting way of putting it, considering what happened
>> when several folks tried to give you helpful and friendly advice a couple
>> of months ago. Remember what happened? They wound up getting sneered at
>> and put down. The axe swings both ways, and if you're thinking there's a
>> lack of effort in that department, there's your reason why: once bitten,
>> twice shy.
>
>I don't think "there's really no market for cartoony art" (Elf's posted
>reply to my first message on the subject ever) is a good way to start off a
>thread, much less count as "friendly and helpful advice" (to me, that reeks
>of 'give it up if you're trying to get published'). In fact, most of the
>"friendly advice" I got was a lot of the previously-mentioned "I've been in
>the fandom far longer than you"-toned stuff that dripped with belittling
>sentiment. I did get some advice that I took to heart, but I received most
>of that via e-mail. Maybe they didn't want to jeopardize their rep by
>siding with an "angsty whiner". ;oP>
More likely they didn't want to waste their time trying to -deal-
with one; life's too short to suffer the aggravation.
>> >that you'd rather have
>> >friends than fanboys?
>>
>> Friends. I'd even take acquaintances. Even strangers.
>
>Heehee.
>
>> >Is this a scene where we all have a communal
>> >interest- furry art- or is it one big fucking popularity contest?
>>
>> At the risk of it sounding facetious (it is not so intended), the
>> answer is that it's both. (Although I think your use or 'popularity
>> contest' is probably a bit different than mine in this case.) Yes, we
>have
>> an interest in furry art (and stories), but those interests, as well as
>> tastes, aren't as egalitarian as you might prefer. There are general
>> trends that are more popular with the majority than the other trends;
>fans
>> prefer the sensuality of Terrie Smith
>
>Your sensuality is my "damn this looks familiar".
You experience a lot of sensuality in your life, then? Or are you
saying that Terrie's work is just more grist in the mill along with all of
the rest of the cheesecake illustrations, in and out of furrydom? Even
within the parameters of cheesecake art, there is good and bad, and there
is superlative.
>> or the big-eyed Good Girls of Michele
>> Light,
>
>I believe that is called "anime". And it's been done. Over and over and
>over. One Michele light is more than enough...
>> or even the sardonic humor of Doug Winger's spooge to anything more
>> experimental in nature.
>
>Uh... yeah.
You miss my point. These artists are popular because they do what
the fans like, and because it's what -they- enjoy doing; you may feel that
the art isn't trying to be anything more than what it is, but neither is it
-pretending- to be. It is what it is, and all concerned are happy with it
that way. It's pointless to criticize artists for not living up to -your-
expectations; if you aren't happy with the state of furry art, then you
have to produce what you want yourself, and set the example.
>Then again, the Cowsills sold more albums in 1969 than the
>Stooges or the Velvet Underground- yet who's influenced today's rock music?
Buddy Holly, Bob Dylan, Lennon & McCartney, and Allan Freedman.
And I'll take the Cowsills, thanks.
>You don't hear Sonic Youth covering 'Hair'... (maybe I shouldn't've pulled
>that analogy. I'm one of the few furs here who knows about avant-garde
>underground rock.)
>I know the fandom wants Easily Accessible Stuff, but there could be a
>backlash to that on the horizon. The thing I mentioned in this original
>post about 'name-dropping' is all too true- you used the same three artists
>EVERYONE seems to cling to like a pygmy marmoset to Jack Hanna's finger.
Of course I did; they epitomize the fandom's interests. Why would
I name artists who were diametric to the point I was making?
>At
>least you didn't mention Er*c Schw*rtz... ehh. Same old, same old doesn't
>create anything besides entropy. To put it bluntly, harshly and probably
>offensively: Mainstream furry art bores me.
But that's purely a subjective opinion, and is not proof that
there is a problem of any sort with the state of furry art. It bores
-you-. (And probably Buster Charlie.) But not the majority of us. Nor do
most of us see the same deficiencies or problems with it that you do. (I
can temporize because I -do- certain problems here and there; but not where
you see them, and not to the same degrees as you do.)
>Personally I like the pencil work of Abe Groter, the expressions of J
>McIntosh, and the coloring of David Cotelessa. They're good at what they
>do- hell, they could even be called *better* at what they do than Winger or
>Smith or Light. They're talented, enjoyable artists. But with all the
>hoopla over the same four or five artists the fandom always seems to dwell
>on, they more or less get lost in the shuffle. I mean, what would cinema be
>like if the only directors you got to see the films of at your local
>Cineplex Odeon were Quentin Tarantino and Mel Gibson? Sure, they're Oscar
>nominees/winners who've done some incredible shit, but eventually I'd start
>to miss Kevin Smith and Michael Moore...
I've never heard of either Smith or Moore, and I've never seen
Tarantino. You make a good point, but not a good analogy. It isn't as
though we're dealing with a limited repertoire here; there are literally
hundreds of furry artists out there now. Why are only a few very hot?
Because a) they've been around longer and are firmly established; b)
they've developed a professional discipline over their work; c) they know
how to produce what the fans like, and they do it well; d) they are
remarkably prolific. Terrie, in particular, manages to submit to nearly
every single fanzine out there.
And the most important reason of all: e) very few people are
trying as hard as they did to do the same thing.
>
>> The fans in general aren't really concerned with
>> the dynamics of composition, usage of negative space, employment of
>visual
>> metaphors, or intensity of contrasts; they're only interested in the
>bottom
>> line: what the picture is to them.
>
>Seems that by these examples 'what the picture is to them' could be easily
>replaced by 'whether or not they can get off to it'.
You're right; it -seems- that way. And sometimes it's true. The
truth of it is that it is -not- always that way.
>That's not quite what
>I set out to do the first time I got bored in a junior high class and
>doodled out a cartoon fox with a baseball cap... how many people are going
>to look at these examples- what's popular- and emulate (or should I say
>copy) it? I know of several artists who did early in their careers... (you
>want specifics, I can name them later.) Many were convinced (by themselves
>or others) that furry=spooge and they fumbled around with it for a while
>and found out just how problematical that scene is.
>
>> The trend is always going to be to the visceral excitement the art
>> generates, in the genre of the audience's preference, and, in this case,
>> it's furry art as defined by Terrie, Michele, Wookiee, Doug, et al. It
>> remains popular, and that's the way the wind blows.
>
>I think I'll snip the "'s the way the" and just say "that blows". Crude
>humor, yeah, but I'm a college student-slash-Carlin-fiend. You expected
>better?
Yes. I -always- expect better.
>
>>> All I want to know
>> >is... how can I make this fun again?
>>
>> There is only one way, seriously: DO IT FOR YOURSELF! Draw what
>> amuses you, for therein lies the muse. Forget other people's opinions.
>
>...including the opinion that furry art's main appeal lies in big-bosomed
>fox babes? OK, I could do that. Now can several dozen other artists try and
>do that as well?
What does it matter what -they- think? What -they- think is
irrelevant. What do -you- think? Follow through on -that-; less talk,
more action.
>> Don't do it to impress other people. Draw because you want to draw,
>> because what you draw is what you -like- to draw. Draw to make other
>> people laugh or cry, but don't do it for the sake of making them like it;
>> if you touch them, they'll like it anyway. But amuse yourself first.
>
>Well, after all that slogging through that 'what the fandom wants' stuff,
>finally something that has merit- even though I've heard that statement
>about three dozen times and practice that theory every day. I *like* to
>draw, i.e. the process of visualizing a concept in my mind and then
>illustrating it with simple media. What I don't like is the uneasy feeling
>that people will point out all sorts of little technical details that will
>make me feel like I wasted my time.
Get over it. Seriously. First off, if you're really about
-that-, then you're far too oversensitive to people's opinions and don't
have enough confidence in your own abilities. You'll be forever paralyzed
if you let those things be a concern to you. Put it out of your mind and
-draw-.
>It's one thing to post art and have it
>produce practically no attention whatsoever. That I'm getting used to.
Good. Because you're not the only one in that position; very few
of us hear anything at all, and usually it's from friends or acquaintances,
if at all. If you need feedback, take it to people you trust to be honest
and forthcoming, but don't expect it to come as a matter of course.
I -do- sympathize on this point; I'm always astounded to encounter
an artist whose work I admire and discover that he or she too is working in
a vaccuum, with little immediate or heartfelt feedback from any other fans.
I do wonder at the silence. But it can't be a factor in actually
producing; it's draw or die.
>It's
>another thing entirely to /annoy/ someone with your art. I don't care how
>strong an artist's will is, that /has/ to get to someone sometimes. I was
>told once that I had no business comparing myself to the fandom's
>artificial higher echelon. I never knew art had such strict rules. Sure,
>you could look at the quality of some pics that are undeniably amateurish
>(like the stuff most of us did before we got the nerve to show anyone). But
>there's a level where people should look over a couple of mistakes and just
>take in the picture's overall feeling. I've seen pics that looked like they
>were done by an epileptic on a sugar buzz that I liked anyways because it
>had a likeable feeling to it. Can we get over all this subjective "quality"
>stuff and enjoy art instead of criticizing it?
Pardon me? Get over the subjective quality!? And what was all
that back a few paragraphs when you dismissed Terrie, Eric, and Michele!?
Perhaps you need to reexamine this phrase a little bit.
>> >How can we stop screwing each other
>> >over? Can we please stop the backstabbing, the flaming, the
>> >thinly-veiled-copyright-infringements-as-art (you know who you are...),
>the
>> >name-dropping, the condescending abuse and the elitism? Maybe not... but
>> >I'm sure as hell trying to.
>>
>> Here's one other piece of advice: don't worry about what the other
>> artists are doing. Keeping abreast is one thing, but obsessing is
>useless
>> and a waste of energy. Ignore EVERYTHING but drawing what you want to
>> draw. Period.
>
>Well, if that's the case, why are you (evidently) rubbing it in that doing
>my own thing isn't going to get me very far?
I'm not. I have no idea where your own thing will take you. But
it won't get you to the same levels as Terrie et al... which isn't where
you want to be anyway. Pushing for your own muse is the only way you're
going to carve your own niche in the fandom.
>Like you, I someday hope to
>get my stuff published (for free or for pay), but since the fandom "wants
>things that follow the trend of Winger, Smith, Wookiee, etc.", where does
>that get me? I'm getting mixed messages.
They set the general trend, true enough; but they are not the
entire sum of furry fandom, nor are furries the only ones who read and
enjoy furry material. There are numerous cross-over interests, such as
Elfquest, SF, wildlifers, anime, music, etc. There are several pockets
they enjoy a life unto themselves and have several followings of their own.
You might wind up within one of these or create your own; who knows? If
that sounds unlikely, so was a Furry Fandom at one time, not so long ago.
>I know this whole post and any of
>the followups to it I made seems a bit hostile and defensive (at least to a
>few of you), but this kind of thing hasn't cleared up things any. "Yeah, go
>ahead and do what you like; enjoy yourself. Just don't try and do something
>stupid like submitting your stuff to 'zines because the fandom may not like
>it."
No one said that. It's true the fandom might not like it, but no
one said you shouldn't do it.
>I think one of the questions I wanted to pose before was, "Is there
>room enough for all sorts of different artists from the mainstream to the
>experimental to be appreciated or at least feel included?"
Yes, no, and maybe. Yes, there's always room to experiment; do
it. Being appreicated and included? Quite likely; I'm sure you're likely
to find others with the same interests as you -- the group isn't as
homogenous as you presume.
But there are never any guarantees, and likely never will be.
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
Lisa Jennings
Nate Patrin wrote:
>
> Lisa Jennings <Allthis@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com> wrote in article
> <34100036.2B8F@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com>...
> > Nate Patrin wrote:
> > > Never pegged me for a Stravinsky
> > > fiend, eh?)
> >
> > True... I thought you'd be more into Beethoven (thinking of Clockwork
> > Orange, don't mind me....)
>
> Funny, I never saw myself as the be-jumpsuited, bowler-wearing, homeless
> man-beating serial rapist gangbanger type. Though I dig the dialect... real
> horrorshow. ;o)>
Hmm... would you have rathered I said Wagner? :3
> > I'm not
> > drawing just for the sake of making money, I'm making money because the
> > hobby I find enjoyable happens to result in work that others find
> > enjoyable enough to pay for. :3
>
> This is the who-knows-how-many-th time I've heard this. I guess the 'money
> or enjoyment?' question has been officially answered.
<grin>
> > I still remember the look on my mother's friend's face when I was a
> > rambunctious 6 or 7 year old and this lady saw my doodles of Okey the
> > space frog and Zfinge (the flying Nilla Wafer). She asked me in that
> > condescending tone adults have with the very young, "Ooh, are you gonna
> > be an artist when you grow up?"
>
> ROTFL! You musta been a far-out kid (--->compliment). Flying Nilla Wafer...
> that's cool. 8o)>
Oh, yea... I was the far-out kid alright. I'm the one raised by a cat
and made animal noises. The local pets always seemed to hang around me
and I was never in danger of a vicious beast. I also was playing piano
when I was 3, but my mother burned that creative spark right out of my
system... thank stars she didn't mind my silly doodles or I wouldn't be
an artist today, either. >:/
As to the Flying Nilla Wafer, I was very particular about that drawing,
as a 4 year old can be. I can still draw him, too... Maybe I should toss
up a silly "My first characters" picture on the net for display.... :3
> > "NO!" I shouted, frowning furiously.
> > The lady, completely taken aback at this vihement response, asked, "Why
> > not?"
> > "Artists starve. I won't starve."
> > I've never tried to depend on my art to make a living, and I never want
> > to. I got plenty of other skills to give me a career to pay the bills
> > and let my art remain fun... I don't want to burn out and I don't want
> > to pander, I just want to draw.
>
> Same here- till my fingers're numb.
Fingers, wrists, eyes, brain.... you name it.
> > > And you can see the quality and creativity of the content go straight
> > > down... Chuck was (sadly) right, the same-ol' pinup/spooge stuff sells
> and
> > > when you're so strapped for cash there's the chance you might try to
> play
> > > to the lowest common denominator to keep yerself in Spaghetti-Os.
> >
> > So you are left in a quandry of either following the market's accepted
> > interests and sacrifice your vision, or draw your vision and risk
> > starvation at the hands of an uncaring narrow-thinking customer base? I
> > think you might be missing a point here....
>
> What point is that? <8o/>
The point is that there are more ways to look at a problem than the
obvious ones. :3
*snipping of name-dropping*
>
> I guess I was being kinda stoopid there. Yeah, more people will remember
> you if you're different than if you're the same-old, same-old.
EXACTLY!!! :D
I mean, I'm starting to get noticed, but I'm _still_ getting the "Gee
your art resembles Ken Sample's stuff" comments... I can't see the
resemblanced myself. Then again, websurfing found someone's 'favorite
artists links' with the description: Lisa Jennings, another name for
Wolf Kidd? WTFO??? I don' get some folks...
> > Here, you want a different example than the same old Ken-Terrie-Michelle
> > saw? How about Christine Markel. Never heard of her? How about her name
> > as she first appeared on the science-fiction scene: Christine Mansfield.
>
> Still never heard of her. Ehh.
I dunno if she's got web-access at this time.... maybe I'll just call
her and get permission to put up one of her pictures as an example. :3
> > This woman never touched a pencil until she was 27 and didn't try to
> > make marketable art until she was 30. In spite of this handicap, she got
> > interested in art and went out and _inhaled_ every book on Techniques
> > and Processes about artwork she could find. Her artwork has graced book
> > covers and become jigsaw puzzles, and she is in the same 'field' as
> > Michael Whelan in terms of art projects and her clientele... not bad for
> > someone who took 3 years to learn her craft, eh?
>
> Well, I may not have heard of her but that sounds inspirational enough.
> 8o)>
Good. That's the whole idea. :3
> > > > Why am I doing this? What else would I rather be doing? This is
> -your-
> > > > life, not someone else's.
> > >
> > > Exactly.
> >
> > I don't think anyone with a granule of sense would argue that point. :3
>
> Yay! I have a granule of sense! ...uh, waitasec. Whassa granule? ;o)>
5 grams. :3
> > *sigh* I agree completely... I just wish I could get a $1x job that's
> > closer to home rather than going to a $10x job so far afield that I'm
> > going nuts on the commute (the part I loathe).
>
> Are the drivers where you are as bad as the ones in Minnesota? I've seen
> people driving at 60 MPH on the freeway shoulder. No wonder I ride the bus.
Errr... I'm driving the New Joisey ParkingLot --err, Parkway. Where it
goes from 85 to 0 in 6 seconds. :6
> > I'm sorry if you found _my_ critique to have the 'last things you wanted
> > to hear'.
>
> Well, it kinda was the first time, though I kinda brought it on myself. The
> second one was less bothersome to me.
That's good... the first one was just a commentary about your written
attitude, the second one was an impartial critique of your stuff online.
:3
> > It's the lack of vision that causes the problems -- I can't
> > always see _my_ errors until someone points them out to me. Alas, my
> > truely impartial critique almost assuredly sounded cold to your ears,
> > but you can't have it both ways -- you can get fuzzy-pats on your back
> > and watch your art go _nowhere_, or you can get a jab in the tail that
> > makes you think and improve on what you _claim_ to want to improve.
>
> True. But the latter jab in the tail doesn't have to be augmented with
> vitriolic remarks. (And I'm not necessarily referring to you.) Lynx,
> f'rinstance, pointed out that my art was too static and needed dynamicism.
> That's it. No 'go to art school!', no name-calling. After a bit of fuming
> to myself I actually noticed he was right and now I do a /lot/ of stuff
> that looks like it's gonna fly off th' page. Even negative crit helps if
> it's impartial and not condescending. (BTW, thanks to your advice I've cut
> down on the Photoshop a lot and have begun to work with colored pencils
> more often. Looks a lot cooler.)
Coolness! Any of it up yet? :3
> > The 'name-dropping' is illustrative of your problem. Unless you can SEE
> > what we're talking about, you can't understand where we suggest
> > improvements. The 'most known artists' in fandom happen to have a ton of
> > artwork out there that you can look at, hence we all can grab Ken's
> > "MacroTraci" picture and see how he does extreme perspectives and know
> > that we are all looking at the same picture.
>
> Well, yeah... good point. Though I'm sure you could get good examples from
> lesser-known artists as well. If someone asks me who to check out to show
> an example of, say, color in composition, I direct 'em towards Sonny
> Windstrup or Al Mackey- just like you can get as good an example on how to
> play the guitar from Sonic Youth's Thurston Moore as well as Jimi Hendrix.
> That doesn't really mean slagging off other more popular artists and
> ignoring them will get you anywhere...
Well, in this instance I'm at a bit of a disadvantage... most of my
friends and associates just happen to be among the more widely known
artists in Fandom. Not intentionally, mind you, it's just the way it
worked out. I've known Tygger, Terrie, Ken, Jim Groat, Karno, Steve
Martin, Christine, Patty Ortega, Ed and Kishma, and Talin for over a
decade (oh stars, that's a scary thought...) and some 30-plus other
artists between 1 and 10 years. New artists are popping up everywhere,
and I only really get a chance to look at their stuff at cons or if they
mention something where I can see it.... I mean, there are several
_hundred_ artists listed on Yiffco, I can't know all of them! :3
> > It helps in
> > commmunications... but that means that communications are desired. If
> > all you want to do is bitch that you are avante garde and hate all the
> > status-quo commentary, then stop _asking_. The true Avante Garde don't
> > continuously get online to throw the Angst of the Week out there...
>
> Blergh. I'm hoping that this thread is the last you'll hear from my mopey
> side for a long, long while.
Hey, that would be a nice change... Freak out the lurkers by being a
happy-go-lucky Nate! :D
> > they're too busy putting the angst into their work and let _that_ speak
> > the volumes of ideas they want.
>
> I actually did that a while back- I was pissed off and took it out on this
> brush-and-ink illo of an apprehensive-looking fox. It's one of the best
> works I've ever done.
Is that the one I mentioned having some really nice inkwork? :3
> To me, many of them are. I'm not really trying to belittle them, just
> saying that they're not the only thing in the fandom. Though I don't know
> if I expressed that accurately enough... <8oP>
The essential point is that while those artists don't hold your creative
spark, don't stir your interest, and don't inspire you to emulate or
borrow techniques from them, that doesn't make them meaningless, just
'not for you'. That's _fine_... I can appreciate Donna Barr's biting
commentary and not like her inking style, but that doesn't make her a
bad artist.
> > Sadly, that won't
> > get the flames off your back as many people (rightly or wrongly) put a
> > lot of emotional ties into their favorite artist.
>
> Well, I've noticed that quite a bit recently, thanks to a rather voracious
> defender of my work. (Not that having my work defended is a bad thing...
> <G>)
No, it's never a bad thing to discover that someone out there likes your
artwork enough to defend your character.
*snipping of Art School suggestions and better ideas*
>
> This quarter I'm taking Drawing II. I'm itching to see how taking that
> class will affect my work.
I noticed the few classes I had did help in my art later... even if I
had to out-attitude the Teacher a couple of times.
> > I hate to be blunt, Nate, but if you act like a child you will be
> > treated like a child, whether you are 15 or 51.
>
> I guess not taking oneself or others that seriously doesn't help much,
> either.
You aren't taking them _lightly_ enough, either. Free Advice is worth
exactly what you pay for it.
> > I was definitely naive
> > about all the possibilities, but that didn't mean I _needed_ to know all
> > that crap starting Day 1. Steve meant well, but he went about it all the
> > wrong way... what I needed back _then_ was an actual sketchpad, some
> > decent pencils, and several books on Drawing.
>
> Geez. I hate it when that happens.
What, you were being hit on by Martin?? :D
> > Angst is nihilism
> > in a violent form, which your posts show: nothing is right, everyone is
> > f***ing wrong, I'm being persecuted, It's not my fault, it's all the
> > fault of _them_ (government, religion, status-quo, other thinkers,
> > whatever).
>
> Damn, do I really sound like that? Urgh. Guess I should be a lot more
> careful...
In your angst-ridden posts, yes. When you are discussing things like
this last post, no. Remember, all we see is words. WHEN I TYPE LIKE THIS
it could mean I'm yelling... or that my caps key got stuck. The readers
out that can't tell but _will_ form an opinion quickly about it. Trying
your best to not _look_ volitile will help in not getting vitrol back.
> > It makes me get the urge to call over some of the BritPunks to
> > demonstrate to you what nihilism _really_ is... they have _nowhere_ to
> > go, the government really _has_ been suppressing them and their chances
> > to make a better life.
>
> And worse yet, the Pistols sold out and are doing Mountain Dew ads... <j/k>
NOoooooo! Well, I still miss Nude Otter Sex Toy. :3
> > (Micole stops that train of thought before Fayetville nightmares start
> > returning.)
>
> Do I even want to know what that's about?
A world created by Mick Collins... very good writer, very dark visions.
> > You're wrong. Giving respect _does_ work, but only if you do it in a
> > sincere manner.
> > When I respect another individual, they can either respect me or insult
> > me. Insults are ignored or persecuted (depending on the intent), and
> > respect gains me another friend/partner/client, who then spreads the
> > word to others. You have nothing to lose being respectful, and everyting
> > to gain.
>
> It actually kind of saddens me to wonder how things could've been different
> if I'd've given some people more space and acted a lot less put-out...
> damn.
The nice thing is that there's _always_ time to change the path you're
on. You just gotta make the effort.
ermine
CMelvi6195
In article <01bcb8f3$21c42e40$8d1a5ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19970904035...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>
>> I'm a professional and therefore preferred to get paid for my
>> work; that has nothing to do with whether or not I enjoy doing the art,
>and
>> it certainly doesn't prevent me from doing stuff for free in fanzines or
>online.
>
>Well, what if your paycheck began to rely on you doing stuff you didn't
>like? What if the fandom decided that what you did, content-wise, was
>boring and what they'd rather see is comics about psychopathic ferrets
>blowing shit up?
To the first question: so what if it did? Many art jobs done by
commercial artists are not what they personally -want- to do; fantasy
artist Boris Vallejo spent his early years drawing and painting
refrigerators for newpaper ads. It's a cash job, and it pays the bills.
More importantly, you're still drawing, and that beats doing nine-to-five
in the foundry every day. (I speak firsthand on that experience.)
To the second question: if the fandom wants to see ferrets blowing
things up, then either I need to learn to draw that sort of stuff and learn
to enjoy it, or ignore it and continue to do what I want to do. Or find
another gig. I prefer to do the latter, but am practical enough to know
the rent must be paid. (At any rate, where fanzine are concerned, there's
no money involved anyway, so I can choose to do what I want and submit to
whoever will take my work.)
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
Nate Patrin
Lisa Jennings <Allthis@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com> wrote in article
> Nate Patrin wrote:
> > Funny, I never saw myself as the be-jumpsuited, bowler-wearing,
homeless
> > man-beating serial rapist gangbanger type. Though I dig the dialect...
real
> > horrorshow. ;o)>
>
> Hmm... would you have rathered I said Wagner? :3
Ack, no!
<snip>
> I also was playing piano
> when I was 3, but my mother burned that creative spark right out of my
> system... thank stars she didn't mind my silly doodles or I wouldn't be
> an artist today, either. >:/
I s'pose I'm lucky to've grown up with artsy parents.
> As to the Flying Nilla Wafer, I was very particular about that drawing,
> as a 4 year old can be. I can still draw him, too... Maybe I should toss
> up a silly "My first characters" picture on the net for display.... :3
I was pondering putting up my first-ever pic of "Bill" online (he's
one-half of the dynamic duo in my comic strip, "Bill and Dave")... scary
thought.
> The point is that there are more ways to look at a problem than the
> obvious ones. :3
D'oh...
> > I guess I was being kinda stoopid there. Yeah, more people will
remember
> > you if you're different than if you're the same-old, same-old.
>
> EXACTLY!!! :D
Wheee!
> I mean, I'm starting to get noticed, but I'm _still_ getting the "Gee
> your art resembles Ken Sample's stuff" comments... I can't see the
> resemblanced myself. Then again, websurfing found someone's 'favorite
> artists links' with the description: Lisa Jennings, another name for
> Wolf Kidd? WTFO??? I don' get some folks...
I was told once that my stuff looked like J McIntosh's. (he's the one that
did the "Schizofurnia" comic a while.) It doesn't. I still like his stuff,
tho.
> I dunno if she's got web-access at this time.... maybe I'll just call
> her and get permission to put up one of her pictures as an example. :3
Not here... you'd get flamed for that. ;o)>
<snip>
> > > I'm sorry if you found _my_ critique to have the 'last things you
wanted
> > > to hear'.
> >
> > Well, it kinda was the first time, though I kinda brought it on myself.
The
> > second one was less bothersome to me.
>
> That's good... the first one was just a commentary about your written
> attitude, the second one was an impartial critique of your stuff online.
> :3
Yeh. Looking back, I'm really embarrassed over some of the stuff I said, or
at least the way I said it.
<snip>
> > (BTW, thanks to your advice I've cut
> > down on the Photoshop a lot and have begun to work with colored pencils
> > more often. Looks a lot cooler.)
>
> Coolness! Any of it up yet? :3
Nope, though I've done a "sequel" to the dunking wolverine pic I think you
might've mentioned in the crit, and it looks pretty nice.
<snip>
> > That doesn't really mean slagging off other more popular artists and
> > ignoring them will get you anywhere...
>
> Well, in this instance I'm at a bit of a disadvantage... most of my
> friends and associates just happen to be among the more widely known
> artists in Fandom.
<snip>
> New artists are popping up everywhere,
> and I only really get a chance to look at their stuff at cons or if they
> mention something where I can see it.... I mean, there are several
> _hundred_ artists listed on Yiffco, I can't know all of them! :3
Good point.
> > Blergh. I'm hoping that this thread is the last you'll hear from my
mopey
> > side for a long, long while.
>
> Hey, that would be a nice change... Freak out the lurkers by being a
> happy-go-lucky Nate! :D
Crank up the Partridge Family!
> > I actually did that a while back- I was pissed off and took it out on
this
> > brush-and-ink illo of an apprehensive-looking fox. It's one of the best
> > works I've ever done.
>
> Is that the one I mentioned having some really nice inkwork? :3
Nope. This pic isn't online yet. The one you mentioned was my oldold pic of
"Heatstroke", the one sans Photoshop overkill. (Though I still like the
second one.)
> The essential point is that while those artists don't hold your creative
> spark, don't stir your interest, and don't inspire you to emulate or
> borrow techniques from them, that doesn't make them meaningless, just
> 'not for you'. That's _fine_... I can appreciate Donna Barr's biting
> commentary and not like her inking style, but that doesn't make her a
> bad artist.
Yeh... (that speaks for itself)
> No, it's never a bad thing to discover that someone out there likes your
> artwork enough to defend your character.
It actually kind of boggles me.
> I noticed the few classes I had did help in my art later... even if I
> had to out-attitude the Teacher a couple of times.
<smirk> I had a /terrible/ art teacher in high school... I'll spare you the
gory details, though.
> You aren't taking them _lightly_ enough, either. Free Advice is worth
> exactly what you pay for it.
Jack diddly squat? (chuckle) No, did that joke already.
> > Geez. I hate it when that happens.
>
> What, you were being hit on by Martin?? :D
If I was, I sure as hell didn't notice. O_O
> > Damn, do I really sound like that? Urgh. Guess I should be a lot more
> > careful...
>
> In your angst-ridden posts, yes. When you are discussing things like
> this last post, no. Remember, all we see is words. WHEN I TYPE LIKE THIS
> it could mean I'm yelling... or that my caps key got stuck. The readers
> out that can't tell but _will_ form an opinion quickly about it. Trying
> your best to not _look_ volitile will help in not getting vitrol back.
Some people mistake my humor for insults, sometimes...
> > And worse yet, the Pistols sold out and are doing Mountain Dew ads...
<j/k>
>
> NOoooooo! Well, I still miss Nude Otter Sex Toy. :3
Huh?
> > Do I even want to know what that's about?
>
> A world created by Mick Collins... very good writer, very dark visions.
Hmm.
> > It actually kind of saddens me to wonder how things could've been
different
> > if I'd've given some people more space and acted a lot less put-out...
> > damn.
>
> The nice thing is that there's _always_ time to change the path you're
> on. You just gotta make the effort.
Which, in my case, will take a whoooole lotta effort.
-Nate "Damned smartass kid!" Patrin
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
having only just dropped in to the thread, sounds too much like old art
school rants.
Visual entertainment is very subjective over all. What is "good" and
"bad" is often up to the tastes of the audiance, rather than any
quantifiable detail of subject or technique (though to some extent,
"formulas" do work, though the artist usually falls into the trap of
relying too much on one and a clever trick becomes a worn gimmick).
being successful ultimately has more to do with anticipating what will
work with an audiance rather than simply mastering a technique. Sometimes
its the technique itself that sells, you could draw rocks to rave reveiws.
Sometimes its the subject and how its handled, even bad sex-art will sell
to someone. But if you have a target audiance in mind and waht you are
doing isn't clicking with that audiance, you have got to reexamine what
it is you are doing relative to what the audiance might acutally want.
If you are after the furry cheesecake market, you don't have to copy
Terrie, but you will have to be as provokative and techically competent
if you want to compete. But if you are doing something else and wonder
why the furry cheesecake market isn't interested, it is because you are
not serving that very specific interest.
Ultimately, if you are trying for a clear market and are not hitting it,
it is not the market's fault. Most editors in small press are desparate
for work that will sell, period. If they think what you have will do the
deed, you're in. "Name" or "reputation" only goes so far, the acid test
is will a fan like the stuff enough to part with his money over it.
Nate Patrin
> >> Of course they do; they want furry art.
> >
> >Yes, but they want a specific kind, as you detail down below.
>
> You're generalizing. If that specific kind was -all- they wanted,
> there wouldn't be 'zines (past and present) like STEAM VICTORIAN, TALES
OF
> THE TAI-PAN UNIVERSE, or PAWPRINTS, and people like Amara Telgemeier
> wouldn't be pulling in as many downloads as she does.
<snip>
> The conditional
> phrase is that they want -furry- art; the rest sorts itself out.
Well, why didn't you tell me that in the first place? It woulda saved a lot
of trouble...
> >I don't think "there's really no market for cartoony art" (Elf's posted
> >reply to my first message on the subject ever) is a good way to start
off a
> >thread, much less count as "friendly and helpful advice" (to me, that
reeks
> >of 'give it up if you're trying to get published'). In fact, most of the
> >"friendly advice" I got was a lot of the previously-mentioned "I've been
in
> >the fandom far longer than you"-toned stuff that dripped with belittling
> >sentiment. I did get some advice that I took to heart, but I received
most
> >of that via e-mail. Maybe they didn't want to jeopardize their rep by
> >siding with an "angsty whiner". ;oP>
>
> More likely they didn't want to waste their time trying to -deal-
> with one; life's too short to suffer the aggravation.
You're missing the point. Some people go out of their way to be assholes.
And what's this 'they didn't want to waste their time trying to deal' with
me? The people I got support from were understanding and helpful and in
some cases became good friends. Pay attention instead of biting at the
first statement that offends you.
> >fans
> >> prefer the sensuality of Terrie Smith
> >
> >Your sensuality is my "damn this looks familiar".
>
> You experience a lot of sensuality in your life, then?
Ha ha.
> Or are you
> saying that Terrie's work is just more grist in the mill along with all
of
> the rest of the cheesecake illustrations, in and out of furrydom?
Hell yeah. I'm getting sick and tired of people getting away with doing the
same boring-as-hell "vixen pulling the lower hem of her shirt over her
crotch" pose. I don't care if it's in oils or acrylics and looks
photorealistic, it's still cliche. I hate to say it, but... and I will
become unpopular for this:
*Nothing* in Terrie's art really stands out to me.
> Even
> within the parameters of cheesecake art, there is good and bad, and there
> is superlative.
But what if cheesecake is so damned prevalent that you don't care how good
it is?
<snip>
> >> or even the sardonic humor of Doug Winger's spooge to anything more
> >> experimental in nature.
> >
> >Uh... yeah.
>
> You miss my point. These artists are popular because they do what
> the fans like, and because it's what -they- enjoy doing;
Or in a few cases it's what they were /told/ the fans like... just ask Drew
Vaughan (oh, wait, you've probably never heard of him). He tried drawing
like Lance Rund and got disillusioned with the whole thing.
> you may feel that
> the art isn't trying to be anything more than what it is, but neither is
it
> -pretending- to be. It is what it is, and all concerned are happy with
it
> that way. It's pointless to criticize artists for not living up to
-your-
> expectations; if you aren't happy with the state of furry art, then you
> have to produce what you want yourself, and set the example.
Set the example for what?
> >Then again, the Cowsills sold more albums in 1969 than the
> >Stooges or the Velvet Underground- yet who's influenced today's rock
music?
>
> Buddy Holly, Bob Dylan, Lennon & McCartney, and Allan Freedman.
> And I'll take the Cowsills, thanks.
Allan Freedman? Don't you mean Alan Freed? And yeah, Holly and Dylan and
the Beatles have influenced a lot (justifiably so, along with Neil Young
and the Stones), but so have the aforementioned Velvets and Stooges, as
well as Can, Kraftwerk, Brian Eno and other commercially overlooked acts
(they've been a major influence on a lot of the '90s most acclaimed
artists, like Sonic Youth, Nirvana, the Chemical Brothers, Radiohead and
the Orb). The point being, mainstream art isn't the only thing that
influences people. And you can /have/ the Cowsills... artificial hippies if
I've ever heard 'em.
>> The thing I mentioned in this original
> >post about 'name-dropping' is all too true- you used the same three
artists
> >EVERYONE seems to cling to like a pygmy marmoset to Jack Hanna's finger.
>
> Of course I did; they epitomize the fandom's interests. Why would
> I name artists who were diametric to the point I was making?
Ehh. They don't epitomize my interests. Or a lot of my friends' interests.
Maybe you don't know as much about what the fandom wants as you think.
(Another point I made in the original post that was completely
overlooked...)
> >To put it bluntly, harshly and probably
> >offensively: Mainstream furry art bores me.
>
> But that's purely a subjective opinion, and is not proof that
> there is a problem of any sort with the state of furry art. It bores
> -you-. (And probably Buster Charlie.)
And, like I mentioned before, a couple /dozen/ other friends I've talked
to.
> But not the majority of us. Nor do
> most of us see the same deficiencies or problems with it that you do.
Yeah, a lot of people didn't see the deficiencies or problems with disco,
either.
> >Personally I like the pencil work of Abe Groter, the expressions of J
> >McIntosh, and the coloring of David Cotelessa. They're good at what they
> >do- hell, they could even be called *better* at what they do than Winger
or
> >Smith or Light. They're talented, enjoyable artists. But with all the
> >hoopla over the same four or five artists the fandom always seems to
dwell
> >on, they more or less get lost in the shuffle. I mean, what would cinema
be
> >like if the only directors you got to see the films of at your local
> >Cineplex Odeon were Quentin Tarantino and Mel Gibson? Sure, they're
Oscar
> >nominees/winners who've done some incredible shit, but eventually I'd
start
> >to miss Kevin Smith and Michael Moore...
>
> I've never heard of either Smith or Moore,
"Clerks" and "Roger & Me", respectively. Great films, if a bit cynical.
> and I've never seen
> Tarantino. You make a good point, but not a good analogy. It isn't as
> though we're dealing with a limited repertoire here; there are literally
> hundreds of furry artists out there now. Why are only a few very hot?
Hype, hype, hype. Remember, the analogy /does/ hold up- there's also
hundreds of indie directors out there who despite incredible films go
unnoticed, while so-so stuff like "Face/Off" rakes in huge publicity... and
cash.
> Because a) they've been around longer and are firmly established;
Ah, the old seniority deal. That's fair. >8oP>
> b) they've developed a professional discipline over their work;
So have plenty of unpopular artists...
> c) they know how to produce what the fans like, and they do it well;
Well, one for two.
> d) they are remarkably prolific.
I've done some fifty sketches, illustrations, portraits, action pieces, et.
al in the last month (not posted yet due to lack of scanner access). Am I
popular yet? Albert Temple has well over 200 images on the SCFA in the last
year- do you even know who he is?
> Terrie, in particular, manages to submit to nearly
> every single fanzine out there.
Because every single fanzine knows that publishing her will sell a lot of
copies...?
> And the most important reason of all: e) very few people are
> trying as hard as they did to do the same thing.
You don't know how many reams of paper I've wasted trying to hone down my
style, get my proportions more accurate, work with postures and poses and
motions. You don't know how long it takes for me to get a picture /just
right/. If you want me to try hard to develop a discipline, that I can do.
If you want me to try and be prolific and oft-published, that I can do. But
there's no instant way I can acheive seniority, it seems (sure, I'll be
damned good in seven years but Terrie Smith will just have seven years'
worth of work to pass my stuff up in favor of). And if you want me to draw
what the fandom "wants", well... get bent. Hate to be harsh, but the whole
point of this thread was to try to find a way for myself and others to make
drawing furries fun again and CONFORMITY is not a good way.
> >Seems that by these examples 'what the picture is to them' could be
easily
> >replaced by 'whether or not they can get off to it'.
>
> You're right; it -seems- that way. And sometimes it's true. The
> truth of it is that it is -not- always that way.
Which is a relief...
> >I think I'll snip the "'s the way the" and just say "that blows". Crude
> >humor, yeah, but I'm a college student-slash-Carlin-fiend. You expected
> >better?
>
> Yes. I -always- expect better.
Even from me? Wow, I'm flattered. 8o)>
> What does it matter what -they- think? What -they- think is
> irrelevant. What do -you- think? Follow through on -that-; less talk,
> more action.
Well, alright. Fine. I just hope what /I/ say doesn't get to you. <8oP>
> Get over it. Seriously. First off, if you're really about
> -that-, then you're far too oversensitive to people's opinions and don't
> have enough confidence in your own abilities. You'll be forever
paralyzed
> if you let those things be a concern to you. Put it out of your mind and
> -draw-.
OK... (shrug)
> Good. Because you're not the only one in that position; very few
> of us hear anything at all, and usually it's from friends or
acquaintances,
> if at all. If you need feedback, take it to people you trust to be
honest
> and forthcoming, but don't expect it to come as a matter of course.
In other words, don't ask for it here... heh. ;o)>
> I -do- sympathize on this point; I'm always astounded to encounter
> an artist whose work I admire and discover that he or she too is working
in
> a vaccuum, with little immediate or heartfelt feedback from any other
fans.
> I do wonder at the silence. But it can't be a factor in actually
> producing; it's draw or die.
I've heard that same bit of advice a while back and I still let it slip my
mind, really. I guess some of us are not only overwhelmed with other
artists' successes but frustrated with our own lack of it.
> >It's
> >another thing entirely to /annoy/ someone with your art. I don't care
how
> >strong an artist's will is, that /has/ to get to someone sometimes. I
was
> >told once that I had no business comparing myself to the fandom's
> >artificial higher echelon. I never knew art had such strict rules. Sure,
> >you could look at the quality of some pics that are undeniably
amateurish
> >(like the stuff most of us did before we got the nerve to show anyone).
But
> >there's a level where people should look over a couple of mistakes and
just
> >take in the picture's overall feeling. I've seen pics that looked like
they
> >were done by an epileptic on a sugar buzz that I liked anyways because
it
> >had a likeable feeling to it. Can we get over all this subjective
"quality"
> >stuff and enjoy art instead of criticizing it?
>
> Pardon me? Get over the subjective quality!? And what was all
> that back a few paragraphs when you dismissed Terrie, Eric, and Michele!?
> Perhaps you need to reexamine this phrase a little bit.
I should've cleared that up, though you could have benefited from reading
the crux of that paragraph Get rid of the last sentence and read that
again. I don't mean people insulting quality of content or subject matter,
I mean quality of aesthetics. My problem was that people overlook the basic
mood of a drawing to point out how bad this line looks or how "anatomically
inaccurate" the pose is. It completely goes against the reason one draws in
the first place; instead of the viewer enjoying some aspect of the pic they
dismiss it over some technical slipup.
> >Well, if that's the case, why are you (evidently) rubbing it in that
doing
> >my own thing isn't going to get me very far?
>
> I'm not. I have no idea where your own thing will take you. But
> it won't get you to the same levels as Terrie et al... which isn't where
> you want to be anyway.
Oh, nooooooo... I don't want assloads of money and instant name recognition
and whole 'zines devoted to my work. What a silly concept. 8oP> Sure, I've
heard the fanboys can be hell, but we all want some sort of fame... admit
it.
> Pushing for your own muse is the only way you're
> going to carve your own niche in the fandom.
I've been doing that, really...
> >Like you, I someday hope to
> >get my stuff published (for free or for pay), but since the fandom
"wants
> >things that follow the trend of Winger, Smith, Wookiee, etc.", where
does
> >that get me? I'm getting mixed messages.
>
> They set the general trend, true enough; but they are not the
> entire sum of furry fandom, nor are furries the only ones who read and
> enjoy furry material. There are numerous cross-over interests, such as
> Elfquest, SF, wildlifers, anime, music, etc. There are several pockets
> they enjoy a life unto themselves and have several followings of their
own.
> You might wind up within one of these or create your own; who knows? If
> that sounds unlikely, so was a Furry Fandom at one time, not so long ago.
Yeah, good point- crossover is a distinct possibility. Personally I think
the crossover types have more important roles than the mainstreamers. If a
techno enthusiast saw some of my drawings, if b-movie sci-fi fans saw
Spaceroo's, if a skater saw Drew Vaughan's, and they liked it... well, we
could be 'recruiting' furry fans and not even know it.
> No one said that. It's true the fandom might not like it, but no
> one said you shouldn't do it.
I guess it feels sometimes that the risks outweigh the personal gain. If
the fandom hates my stuff I'll be embarrassed, but at least I'd get stuff
done. It's a win-lose situation.
> >I think one of the questions I wanted to pose before was, "Is there
> >room enough for all sorts of different artists from the mainstream to
the
> >experimental to be appreciated or at least feel included?"
>
> Yes, no, and maybe. Yes, there's always room to experiment; do
> it. Being appreicated and included? Quite likely; I'm sure you're
likely
> to find others with the same interests as you -- the group isn't as
> homogenous as you presume.
I've already found quite a few furs with similar interests. Oddly, we all
feel isolated. ;o)>
> But there are never any guarantees, and likely never will be.
Oh well.... eh, life doesn't have guarantees. Might as well strap on my
helmet, grab my pen and kick out the jams...
-Nate "Rama Lama, Fa Fa Fa" Patrin
Charlie Luce
In article <340DF2...@isrc.net>, sat...@isrc.net says...
>
>Nate Patrin's a telemarketer?
Suddenly I get this vision...
The Scene: A couple is sitting down to their evening meal. On the walls can
be seen several works by whichever popular furry artist you loathe. As they
start to eat, the phone shrills.
Furry #1 (picking up the phone): "Hello? What? You again?"
Furry #2: "Who is it?"
F1 (covering the mouthpiece): "It's Nate Patrin, wanting to know if we'd
like to switch furry artists."
F2 (sighs): "Why do they *always* call during dinner?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aplogies for those outside the U.S. who aren't familiar with the ongoing
chaos concerning the various competing phone companies. I'm not trying to
make fun of Nate Patrin in particular or telemarketers in general, but the
idea of artists trying to market themselves like AT&T, MCI, and Sprint
struck me as awfully funny.
Say, you don't suppose if a method was discovered to tranform humans into
furries that they'd end up being marketed like that do you? "The offices of
Doctor M. Row: Liposuction, Breast Enlargement, Furry tranformation."
Nate Patrin
Charlie Luce <luc...@REMOVE.TO.REPLY.eisner.decus.org> wrote in article
<5upj3s$2...@usenet.pa.dec.com>...
> Suddenly I get this vision...
>
> The Scene: A couple is sitting down to their evening meal. On the walls
can
> be seen several works by whichever popular furry artist you loathe. As
they
> start to eat, the phone shrills.
>
> Furry #1 (picking up the phone): "Hello? What? You again?"
>
> Furry #2: "Who is it?"
>
> F1 (covering the mouthpiece): "It's Nate Patrin, wanting to know if we'd
> like to switch furry artists."
>
> F2 (sighs): "Why do they *always* call during dinner?"
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh damn! (LOL!) I'm not in that racket exactly, but that's
funny as hell. My field's not sales but fundraising for the arts (how
appropriate ;o)> ). Here we go, yo, so what so what so what's the
scenario?*
(Similar setting as above, phone rings...)
Unwitting Victim: Hello?
Me: Yes, is Mr. or Mrs. Furfen there?
UV: This is Mr. Furfen.
Me: Hello, my name's Nate, and I'm a professional fundraiser from SCFA and
Associates calling on behalf of the Underrated Furry Artists Association.
UV: I'm not intereste-
Mrs Furfen (in the background): Who is it?
UV (faintly, paw over mouthpiece): It's some Nate from the UFAA or
whatever.
Mrs: Let me talk to him.
UV: (paw removed from mouthpiece) Oh. Uh, my wife handles that kind of
thing. (brief silence while phone changes paws)
Mrs: Yes, hello?
Me: Mrs. Furfen?
Mrs: Yes?
Me: Hi, this is Nate from the Underrated Furry Artists Association. And how
are you tonight?
Mrs: Uh, well, okay.
Me: That's good. I'm calling first of all to thank you for your previous
support. Your purchase of an Abe Groter original back in 1995 has helped
him and us strike a blow for underrated artists. Have you heard of some of
the great contributions underrated artists have made recently?
Mrs: Well, not really...
Me: Well, OK... thanks to support from people like you, Buster Charlie has
strived to improve his portraiture, Kyle Wallpe has been doing a great job
with computer-assisted art, and Drew Vaughan's been given a chance to
experiment with colored pencils.
Mrs: Oh, that's nice.
Me: Yeah, it is. Unfortunately we've been facing some difficulty recently.
The "most popular files" index on YiffCo is full of cookie-cutter pinups
and cheesy in-jokes, some artists have come under fire for uploading
"sketchy" work to rat.org and many of them have even resorted to making
angry, frustrated posts to alt.fan.furry.
Mrs: Oh my.
Me: Yeah, and that's where you come in. I'd like to thank you again for
supporting us in the past, and we're hoping to regain your support for
further years to come. For a fully tax-deductible donation of $250 you can
supply a striving furry artist with "how-to" books, top-notch pens and
brushes, even a new art pad.
Mrs: Yes, well, things have been tight lately, and my husband supports the
Overrated Furry Artists Association.
Me: (dryly) Well, yes, I can understand why you would be short of money
there, seeing as how some people charge $200 for a hand-colored print...
*aherm*. Sorry. You know, not all donations have to be so large. We have
some nice benefits at the $100 level, including a color print of Eli
McIlveen's "Feline Dub Wizard", a "Limpidity" t-shirt and three free issues
of "The Masked Prankstas"...
Mrs: When are those issues coming out?
Me: Uh, well, in a while. I'm still working on the first issue's splash
page.
Mrs: Hrm. Well, I don't know...
Me: Well, at the $25 level you can supply an artist with a bottle of
Mylanta, a six-pack of Dr. Pepper and a CD copy of the Ramones' "Road To
Ruin"...
Mrs: I'm afraid we can't... we just bought a Daphne Lage portfolio and
spent a lot of money at Albany AnthroCon... maybe next year we can.
Me: (sigh) All right... thank you for your past support, and have a good
evening. (hangs up and looks at the name on the next lead...) Roz Gibson?
Oh damn...
NOTE: The preceding was not intended to be insulting against Daphne Lage or
Roz Gibson, since this is humor, and if they're offended by it, tough.
Neener neener neener! Any resemblance to this dialogue and the kinds of
things Nate does at his RL job aren't really coincidental but satirical, so
what can ya do?
*"Scenario" by A Tribe Called Quest from the 1992 album "The Low End
Theory". Wheee!
Nate Patrin
<stuff snipped>
Oh no... I forgot to sign my post with a wacky quotation-mark-laden remark!
The last days must be coming... repent your sins, or at least return your
videos...
-Nate "Year of the Dragon" Patrin
Tim Gadd
In article <01bcb8f3$21c42e40$8d1a5ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>You don't hear Sonic Youth covering 'Hair'...
No, but you see hair covering Sonic Youth...
--
Tim Gadd
Hobart, Tasmania
'People are under the misapprehension that the brain
is situated in the human head. Nothing could be further
from the truth. It is carried by the wind from the
Caspian Sea'
- Gogol: 'Diary of a Madman'
Fhaolan
"Nate Patrin" <patr...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh damn! (LOL!) I'm not in that racket exactly, but that's
>funny as hell. My field's not sales but fundraising for the arts (how
>appropriate ;o)> ). Here we go, yo, so what so what so what's the
>scenario?*
>(Similar setting as above, phone rings...)
>Unwitting Victim: Hello?
>Me: Yes, is Mr. or Mrs. Furfen there?
>UV: This is Mr. Furfen.
>Me: Hello, my name's Nate, and I'm a professional fundraiser from SCFA and
>Associates calling on behalf of the Underrated Furry Artists Association.
Fhaolan grins, "How do ye join this UFAA? Wha' kinda qualifications do
ye need? Or is it a select membership by invitation only? Do ye have a
newsletter? A secret handshake?" *wink*
The wolfen chuckles, "Nae tha' I would even qualify for UFAA. Only a
verra, verra limited number o' people are aware o' tha fact tha' I
draw. An' only a verra small percentage o' those people think I should
continue tae draw..." :)
-(I'm one of those who uploads pencil sketches to SCFA. Because that's
pretty much all I do, outside of a couple of colour pencils, and the
rare india inkwork. I have this problem that my animal portraits look
much, much better than my anthro portraits, and I can't figure out why
I'm doing them different, they just seem to turn out that way....)
Fhaolan the Celtic Wolfie
ark...@istar.ca
http://rat.org/pub/furry/kempal/index.htm
"An nae! I dinn'a have tae eat Dr. Ballards tae have a nice shiny coat!" - Fhaolan
FurryCode: FCW3admrswA++CD+H++M+PR+T+++W-ZSm+ RLCTacw++d+e++f+h*i+psm-
Jack Furlong - HillBluffer
In article <34100036.2B8F@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com>, Khr...@REMOVE.InOrbit.com wrote:
>Nate Patrin wrote:
>> Matt J. McCullar <sat...@isrc.net> wrote in article
>> <340DF2...@isrc.net>...
>> > Everybody is entitled to some low periods in life. Take a break. No one
>> > will hold it against you. I like to draw when I feel like it, not when I
>> > must. I'd rather make $x at a job I love instead of $10x at a job I
>> > loathe.
>>
>> Yeah!...
>
>*sigh* I agree completely... I just wish I could get a $1x job that's
>closer to home rather than going to a $10x job so far afield that I'm
>going nuts on the commute (the part I loathe).
*Nods*
That's why I took the job at 'Feather Fine', even tho the pay's not
as wonderful as I'd like. It's a NICE place, decent folks, and not
as much pressure.
I had a job once at ABR, and _that_ was a horror, even though
the $$$ were excellent.... I _dont_ want to repeat that... :P
Jack Furlong - Artist / MUCKer
Home: http://www.netcom.com/~jfurlong
Email: http://www.netcom.com/~jfurlong/contact.html
Skytech
Huskee wrote:
>
> On 3 Sep 1997 04:20:46 GMT, "Nate Patrin" <patr...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> >. How many of you
> >artists out there can HONESTLY say you do furry art for fun;
>
> Since you asked, and since it's a subject very dear to me -
> I do my art for the joy and and magic of just doing it, and I know
> others who do the same.
Huskee, after reading your post, I feel as if you were my twin!
My artwork has always been a hobby. It really took off out of sheer
boredom at work and this was years before the fandom I'd experience on
GEnie and, later, here. I've given my artwork away to those who wanted
it and even made money a few times when my company wanted my Skytech
character featured on several safety posters. People have told me I
should make a living at it. If only I was *that* good but I honestly
tell them I do it because it makes me feel good, besides the fact that
the pay is lousy.
I really respect and envy the professional fur artist. I've seen
enough of their work around here to feel quite inadequate (picture
person with humble handful of daisies next to people with exquisite
bouquets) but I'll always draw nonetheless. I suggest others do it as
well.
--
La kasigada vulpo
Skytech
Doodles
Lisa Jennings wrote:
> Micole ponders asking Wendy for a metallic red Nomex suit so she could
> portray Beatrix at the next con...
Blinking rapidly, the rabbit considers seeing the ermine dressed as the
Maroon Maiden...
"I'd never survive..."
JDupont378
In article <01bcba9c$08adbe80$2c175ea0@default>, "Nate Patrin"
<patr...@tc.umn.edu> writes:
> Buster Charlie has
>strived to improve his portraiture
Hey! Thats none of your business! Whatever I do with my Portraiture in the
privacy o my home is.. Oh wait, nevermind.
Nate Patrin
Tim Gadd <tjg...@southcom.com.au> wrote in article
<5urg1i$ng3$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
> In article <01bcb8f3$21c42e40$8d1a5ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>
> >You don't hear Sonic Youth covering 'Hair'...
>
ROTFL!........
-Nate "Violence" Patrin
Lisa Jennings
Nate Patrin wrote:
>
> Lisa Jennings <Allthis@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com> wrote in article
> <34106D66.7CF8@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com>...
> > Nate Patrin wrote:
>
> > I also was playing piano
> > when I was 3, but my mother burned that creative spark right out of my
> > system... thank stars she didn't mind my silly doodles or I wouldn't be
> > an artist today, either. >:/
>
> I s'pose I'm lucky to've grown up with artsy parents.
My mom was artsy... sort of. She did some oil painting and model work in
her college days, nothing really grabbing but technically decent. The
problem was my grandma was a piano teacher and refused to teach my mom
and she held that grudge for the rest of her life it seems. So when I
showed this natural talent, she trying stuffing me into a little mold
without regard to _how_ to encourage me... so I rebelled.
> > As to the Flying Nilla Wafer, I was very particular about that drawing,
> > as a 4 year old can be. I can still draw him, too... Maybe I should toss
> > up a silly "My first characters" picture on the net for display.... :3
>
> I was pondering putting up my first-ever pic of "Bill" online (he's
> one-half of the dynamic duo in my comic strip, "Bill and Dave")... scary
> thought.
Ocassionally I look back into my 'morgue' and see how I progressed from
a happy-kindergartner through to a very depressed pre-teen to an
escapist teen to a young adult with better ideas... to now. It's very
humbling. Then again, recently Ken found a box in the basement with a
stack of old 3x5 cards of his art. I'm not alone. :3
> > I mean, I'm starting to get noticed, but I'm _still_ getting the "Gee
> > your art resembles Ken Sample's stuff" comments... I can't see the
> > resemblanced myself. Then again, websurfing found someone's 'favorite
> > artists links' with the description: Lisa Jennings, another name for
> > Wolf Kidd? WTFO??? I don' get some folks...
>
> I was told once that my stuff looked like J McIntosh's. (he's the one that
> did the "Schizofurnia" comic a while.) It doesn't. I still like his stuff,
> tho.
Hey, I _like_ Ken's stuff... and Wolf's as well. I just don't understand
the confusion. I mean, my stuff is lacking the backgrounds and inking
and stuff.... not to mention I still have problems with my
foreshortening. :q
> > > (BTW, thanks to your advice I've cut
> > > down on the Photoshop a lot and have begun to work with colored pencils
> > > more often. Looks a lot cooler.)
> >
> > Coolness! Any of it up yet? :3
>
> Nope, though I've done a "sequel" to the dunking wolverine pic I think you
> might've mentioned in the crit, and it looks pretty nice.
Ooh, neat... I'll be waiting. :3
> > New artists are popping up everywhere,
> > and I only really get a chance to look at their stuff at cons or if they
> > mention something where I can see it.... I mean, there are several
> > _hundred_ artists listed on Yiffco, I can't know all of them! :3
>
> Good point.
An _important_ point. I want to see more artists succeed... but part of
that means that the new artists learn what it takes to succeed and get
their names and pictures out there to people to appreciate. I haven't
even seen all of the "J" directory on Yiffco, let alone the rest of the
database, yet I've pointed non-furfolk to that site and have gotten rave
reviews about "All that artwork" that's out there, and _that_ is how
people become known.
> > > Blergh. I'm hoping that this thread is the last you'll hear from my
> mopey
> > > side for a long, long while.
> >
> > Hey, that would be a nice change... Freak out the lurkers by being a
> > happy-go-lucky Nate! :D
>
> Crank up the Partridge Family!
Actually, I always liked the opening animation for that series....
> Nope. This pic isn't online yet. The one you mentioned was my oldold pic of
> "Heatstroke", the one sans Photoshop overkill. (Though I still like the
> second one.)
Hey, how about you try a Phase 3, and redo it with your newer coloring
techniques? Something between the black and white and the Photoshop
overkill might make the picture more expressive and satisfy the
'objective' view I look at it with. :3
> > The essential point is that while those artists don't hold your creative
> > spark, don't stir your interest, and don't inspire you to emulate or
> > borrow techniques from them, that doesn't make them meaningless, just
> > 'not for you'. That's _fine_... I can appreciate Donna Barr's biting
> > commentary and not like her inking style, but that doesn't make her a
> > bad artist.
>
> Yeh... (that speaks for itself)
I just wished it'd speak for itself a lot more often... with more bite.
> > I noticed the few classes I had did help in my art later... even if I
> > had to out-attitude the Teacher a couple of times.
>
> <smirk> I had a /terrible/ art teacher in high school... I'll spare you the
> gory details, though.
Ooh, my high-school art teachers were actually pretty cool. Mr.
Otterline (that's his name) was the one who looked at me funny my first
day of class and loudly asked me why I was in Art I... because I didn't
have the prereqs for the others. He saw my art in the Art Club, however,
and promptly bumped me up to Art II... a really observant teacher, too.
No, it was the teachers at Community College I had to fight with. My 2D
Design teacher who was really a painting teacher and was forcing us to
hand-mix fleshtones for projects (many of the students would never use
these skills again, as they were DESIGNERS, not artists), and the
Drawing teacher who wanted us to learn in the old Samurai style: do as I
do, don't think. He and I butted heads several times, and he was
befuddled at the fact that some of his 'pets' backed me up on it each
time. The final straw was when I told him I'd be late for a project
because I had to finish my Ren Faire outfit for that weekend and he
bissed a pitch (pardon my french) saying "Well, we all have our little
problems, don't we?" I got so mad I came into the next class _wearing_
my Ren Faire outfit -- full upper class, no hem on the underskirt or
split overskirt, no sleeves, but undeniably a lot of work. I literally
shut the class down... it felt good. :3
> > > Geez. I hate it when that happens.
> >
> > What, you were being hit on by Martin?? :D
>
> If I was, I sure as hell didn't notice. O_O
Don't worry... you're not his type. You're male. :3
> > > Damn, do I really sound like that? Urgh. Guess I should be a lot more
> > > careful...
> >
> > In your angst-ridden posts, yes. When you are discussing things like
> > this last post, no. Remember, all we see is words. WHEN I TYPE LIKE THIS
> > it could mean I'm yelling... or that my caps key got stuck. The readers
> > out that can't tell but _will_ form an opinion quickly about it. Trying
> > your best to not _look_ volitile will help in not getting vitrol back.
>
> Some people mistake my humor for insults, sometimes...
Ah, but that's was emoticons and <grins> and <j/k> are _supposed_ to be
for....
> > > And worse yet, the Pistols sold out and are doing Mountain Dew ads...
> <j/k>
> >
> > NOoooooo! Well, I still miss Nude Otter Sex Toy. :3
>
> Huh?
Something Kelly Otter got me hooked on a lot time ago... them and Devo.
> > The nice thing is that there's _always_ time to change the path you're
> > on. You just gotta make the effort.
>
> Which, in my case, will take a whoooole lotta effort.
>
> -Nate "Damned smartass kid!" Patrin
Or at least a whole lotta time.... consistancy is important, too. :3
ermine
Matthew Miller
JDupont378 (jdupo...@aol.com) wrote:
: >seen a LOT of ass-kissing and
: >back-scratching on furry websites,
: Second I can agree with this part about ass-kissing.
: doomedmm.gif
Oh my goodness, there *are* people who notice my little scribblings!
[faints]
: When I did a picture of Gene Catlow (You know, the GOD of SCFA, go figure)
: I made sure I got his premission, and he agreed to let me post my picture
: of him. I have nothing aginst Gene (well....) but Matthew Miller Comes
: along and "Saves Gene the indignety of responding" to a picture He gave me
: premission to post.
This was merely commenting on how it seems to be accepted, even expected,
that Albert Temple almost invariably draws up a response for every
picture that mentions his characters however tangentially. You've
probably noticed this, no?
: I mean really. And from the looks of the picture, it
: seems he put a LOT more time into ass-kissing than his art. WERE IS MY
: TAIL! Who cares if the whole picture looks like it was drawn by a 8 year
: old kid, I WANT A TAIL! :)
Lost in the tangle. That positioning was misery to get right. I could
redo it if you don't want to forget the darn thing. :)
: There is a moral here:
: 1. if you are going to draw me getting blow away do it because you want
: to,not to kiss up to someone.
Kissing up was never intended. Go fig.
The basic reason why I stupidly left Buster Charlie's tail out
(nice name by the way--if anyone here doesn't get it, do a web search),
and left it in black and white instead of coloring, was that I wanted to
get it over with and out of the way, and move on. I don't especially
like the trend toward political commentary and responses to previous
pictures, but I reluctantly decided to allow myself that much.
Now, you may wish I had been even more reluctant. :)
: 2. DO IT RIGHT! Actually draw me instead of drawing some crappy little
: stick figure and sticking a badly drawn head on it.
: 3. And more importantly, GET YOUR HEAD WOUNDS RIGHT! I mean, there is no
: way a shotgun is going to put a nice little hole in my head at that range.
Ah, but I do lightness and froth. I leave the gory stuff for the
experts...like...say...Edmund Dupont. :)
--
Matthew Miller -- mattm (at) infinet (dot) com
JDupont378
In article <5vl3a8$2...@news1.infinet.com>, ma...@infinet.com (Matthew
Miller) writes:
>
>Lost in the tangle. That positioning was misery to get right. I could
>redo it if you don't want to forget the darn thing. :)
>
No, I don't want to forget it, I mean, i am not offended that you blew my
brains out, I am offended that you took no time to do it. I mean, the
picture is pretty simple and I got no tail. This says to me, You just want
to piss me off. The Gene gets his rocket picture was not meant to piss
anyone off, DOOM is just that sort of game. What pissed me off is that you
twisted it into a personal thing.
I have no idea what I am saying forget it.
>: There is a moral here:
>: 1. if you are going to draw me getting blow away do it because you want
>: to,not to kiss up to someone.
>
>Kissing up was never intended. Go fig.
Well, thats how I say it, But you see what happened.
I saw this as ass kissing, it probally was not.
Some people could see my picture as an attack on Gene, and it was not.
> The basic reason why I stupidly left Buster Charlie's tail out
>(nice name by the way--if anyone here doesn't get it, do a web search),
KA-BOOM!
>and left it in black and white instead of coloring, was that I wanted to
>get it over with and out of the way, and move on. I don't especially
>like the trend toward political commentary and responses to previous
>pictures, but I reluctantly decided to allow myself that much.
Why? If you are going to a cheap picture why post it? Hell, I didn't even
like that one picture I drew in responce, but I was pissed off because I
didn't have a tail (and some other reason why it sucked but I don't want to
offend anyone) so hey.
> Now, you may wish I had been even more reluctant. :)
>
Well lets take That Buster Don't you dare picture.
The entire picture was Al Jones' idea, except for the Tone part, it was
his idea to put Gene and Ozy in there. Hell, In the orginal picture, I had
a gun up to Gene's head and Gene said no so Jedd make me just holding the
gun indstead of pressing it against Gene's head (One of the reasons I got
explicite premission to post my picture). The point? When Buster DOn't you
dare was posted, I could have been pissed of, but why? The picture was a
good picture.
>: 2. DO IT RIGHT! Actually draw me instead of drawing some crappy little
>: stick figure and sticking a badly drawn head on it.
>
>: 3. And more importantly, GET YOUR HEAD WOUNDS RIGHT! I mean, there is no
>: way a shotgun is going to put a nice little hole in my head at that range.
>
>Ah, but I do lightness and froth. I leave the gory stuff for the
>experts...like...say...Edmund Dupont. :)
YOu can say that again, I even did a remix of your RL photo....
Or maybe not.
The moral?
1)I'm pissed because you didn't put any effort into my death picture.
2)And I was takeing my lack of tail personally, but now that you explained
that it was just an lack of effort on your part, I am not mad, just
disapointed that I don't have a tail.
3) Bla bla bla bla bla.
(Note, the begining of this post MAY make no sense and offend people, you
may ingore it)