Just a random thought...
Tygger
Y'know...I was speaking with a few furfen by phone the other day and I
realized something intereting...
Furfandom is the only fandom, that I can think of, into which all, or
nearly all, other fandoms can be plugged into.
Think about it: horror, vampires, space opera, space fantasy, dark fantasy,
soap opera, erotic, bondage (apologies Mishael :) ), S&M (more apologies :) ),
cyberpunk, sword and sorcery, and the list goes on.
Anyone else care to comment?
[clink clang] ("Clang?!" [checks kitty, sighs] "Just a Loonie.")
[clink]
TTFN!
Tygger
--
******************************************************************************
Tasteful Erotica! Artist! Writer! Tigerwing Press! Married! Two Kids!
Non-Erotica! Fun! Flirt! Sexy Fat Woman! Winged Tigress! Practical
Joker! Member of Several Fandoms: Fur! Horror! Dark/Light Fantasy!
Dangerous Temper and Dangerous Sense of Humour But Basically A Sweetie!
Jeffrey J. Mancebo
: Think about it: horror, vampires, space opera, space fantasy, dark fantasy,
: soap opera, erotic, bondage (apologies Mishael :) ), S&M (more apologies :) ),
: cyberpunk, sword and sorcery, and the list goes on.
: Anyone else care to comment?
boojum *GIGGLES*, "Even tiny brown bunnies!!!"
boojum the brown bunny
Jason C. Short
: Tygger (tyg...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Think about it: horror, vampires, space opera, space fantasy, dark fantasy,
: : soap opera, erotic, bondage (apologies Mishael :) ), S&M (more apologies :) ),
: : cyberpunk, sword and sorcery, and the list goes on.
: : Anyone else care to comment?
Ya know, I guess you're right. Interesting point.
--
| e-mail: j...@capri.com Jason Short
Peter da Silva
> Furfandom is the only fandom, that I can think of, into which all, or
> nearly all, other fandoms can be plugged into.
That's the TCP/IP fallacy (based on a series of adds from various vendors
each of which described *their* product as the core of the TCP/IP protocol
stack). You see things from the center of where you are. For example, I'm
a science fiction fan. I see horror, vampires, space opera, space fantasy,
dark fantasy, soap opera, erotica, bondage, S&M, cyberpunk, sword and sorcery,
and so on as fitting quite well into SF. I can come up with examples of SF
that fit into all of these and more (westerns, romance, historical, mystery,
and so on).
--
Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Ja' abracas-te o teu lobo, hoje?
'U`
Looks like UNIX, Feels like UNIX, works like MVS -- IBM advertisement.
Mike Beebe
: Hey!
: Y'know...I was speaking with a few furfen by phone the other day and I
: realized something intereting...
: Furfandom is the only fandom, that I can think of, into which all, or
: nearly all, other fandoms can be plugged into.
: Think about it: horror, vampires, space opera, space fantasy, dark fantasy,
: soap opera, erotic, bondage (apologies Mishael :) ), S&M (more apologies :) ),
: cyberpunk, sword and sorcery, and the list goes on.
: Anyone else care to comment?
I've always pictured the Manataro, the anthrofoxes of my own creating,
as living in a post-human world, where humans are a minor species through
no other process but lowered fertility. They live in a bright future where
space is just starting to open up and superlimuninal travel is barely a
half-century old.
Because there's no other life in the universe but that which evolved
on Earth, the Manataro are the aliens. I think in any universe that includes
furs, the inclusion of aliens is redundant. Given 100k+ years, the furs would
BECOME aliens, anyway. 100k is enough time for genetic drift to show.
Mike "Contributing in a positive way" Beebe
Steve Arlow
Mike Beebe <mbe...@repo.rose.hp.com> wrote:
> I've always pictured the Manataro, the anthrofoxes of my own creating,
>as living in a post-human world, where humans are a minor species through
>no other process but lowered fertility. They live in a bright future where
>space is just starting to open up and superlimuninal travel is barely a
Okay, the college Webster's II at my side here doesn't have it, and the
3rd Unabridged is at the opposite end of the house and besides, I'm tired
and the damned thing weighs more than an eight-pack of Coke -- in glass
bottles.
So I guess I'll just destroy the illusion of my having an inexhaustible
vocabulary and ask what "superlimunial" is (besides a double-dactyl). Of
course, I run the risk of succumbing to Greywolf's Famous Faux Paw [sic] and
finding out that it's some sexual practice I was hitherto unfamiliar with...
(we're never gonna let you live that one down, Jordan! ;) )
From the context I'd guess it means something similar to "faster than
light," but I've read lots of SF and never come across anything even
similar to that word... The closest I can think of is "superlunary," which
would mean "beyond the moon." Next closest might be "supraliminal", sort
of the opposite of subliminal, but that doesn't seem to work with
"travel..." So I give up, tell me. :)
--
JOEL: If the system does collapse, then money will / Steve Arlow 810.473.0920
be worthless. We'll be forced to hunt for our food! / 39336 Polo Club Dr. #103
TOOTH: The quadrapeds are way ahead of you. / Farmington Hills, MI 48335
-- Shannon Wheeler's "Tooth & Justice" / s...@umcc.umich.edu
Student Lab Machine
>From: j...@csn.org (Jason C. Short)
>Subject: Re: Just a random thought...
>Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 11:32:49 GMT
>: : Think about it: horror, vampires, space opera, space fantasy, dark
fantasy, >: : soap opera, erotic, bondage (apologies Mishael :) ), S&M (more
apologies :) ), >: : cyberpunk, sword and sorcery, and the list goes on.
>: : Anyone else care to comment?
You forgot the obvious-- COMEDY!!!
_mouse_ (aka R. Haynie)
Tygger
: In article <tyggerCJ...@netcom.com>, Tygger <tyg...@netcom.com> wrote:
: > Furfandom is the only fandom, that I can think of, into which all, or
: > nearly all, other fandoms can be plugged into.
: That's the TCP/IP fallacy (based on a series of adds from various vendors
^^^^^^
HUH?! How about clarifying? I don't know that acronym.
: each of which described *their* product as the core of the TCP/IP protocol
: stack). You see things from the center of where you are. For example, I'm
: a science fiction fan. I see horror, vampires, space opera, space fantasy,
: dark fantasy, soap opera, erotica, bondage, S&M, cyberpunk, sword and sorcery,
: and so on as fitting quite well into SF. I can come up with examples of SF
: that fit into all of these and more (westerns, romance, historical, mystery,
: and so on).
Tim...I don't understand at ALL what you're getting at.
Okay...let me try again.
What I was (and though I had) meaning to say was furfandom has aspects of
ALL fandoms in it. You can write or draw any given situation with
furrys, as you can do with humans.
Looking over your statement, there's some holes in it. Plugging sci-fi
into an authentic sounding Old West story wouldn't work for some fen of
the Old West. However, if you were to take that same story, change the
humans into furrys and adapt accordingly, it still wouldn't pass with
some of the fen. However, in furfandom, it would be accepted because the
story satifies the main interest: furrys. The same could be said of
historical fandom, and perhaps other fandoms as well. HOWEVER, again,
plug in furrys and adapt the story accordingly, the story would be
acceptable in furfandom.
To clarify: when I say adapt accordingly I mean to have the furrys react
either greatly or slightly with animal reactions and/or to have animal
traits/habits.
Examples: furrys all have mobile ears, or nearly all of them do. When
angered, they lay back, when startled either they lay back or flick
forward, droop when sad, and many other movements. The same with tails,
or even slight movements with the muzzles. Furrys would growl, purr,
snort, bark, meow, roar, etc.
[clink clink]
Peter da Silva
> HUH?! How about clarifying? I don't know that acronym.
It's a computer networking protocol, with all sorts of interconnects with
other protocols. All the vendors claim *their* product is really providing
the core component, when in fact there is no core.
> Tim...I don't understand at ALL what you're getting at.
Who's Tim?
> What I was (and though I had) meaning to say was furfandom has aspects of
> ALL fandoms in it. You can write or draw any given situation with
> furrys, as you can do with humans.
Science Fiction has aspects of ALL fandoms in it. You can write or draw any
given situation in a science-fiction setting, as you can do with a real
life one.
> Looking over your statement, there's some holes in it. Plugging sci-fi
> into an authentic sounding Old West story wouldn't work for some fen of
> the Old West. However, if you were to take that same story, change the
> humans into furrys and adapt accordingly, it still wouldn't pass with
> some of the fen. However, in furfandom, it would be accepted because the
> story satifies the main interest: furrys.
And in SF it would still be accepted because the story satisfies the main
interest: science fiction. A great example is the Lord d'Arcy stories. The
background is Victorian-era technology, magic, and each story is a mystery.
But it's all handled in an SF style, with careful design of the background
and a strict limit to the impossibilities. So there you have three genres
all wrapped up under the cover of SF.
Peter da Silva
Also the title of a nice SF story published recently that I'm sure a lot of
folks here would enjoy. One of the main characters is a human genetically
engineered to live in the sea, and her cetacean friends show up too.
Mike Beebe
Thanks, I think that's what I was looking for.
What mag? What story? Do tell!!
P.S.: I saw your .sig in a magazine the other day. I can't remember which
one. I think it might have been like Internet News or something like that.
It has your "Have you hugged your wolf today" quote on it.
Mike "And sparks they climb towards the light" Beebe
Greywolf
> What I was (and though I had) meaning to say was furfandom has aspects of
> ALL fandoms in it. You can write or draw any given situation with
> furrys, as you can do with humans.
Sure, but I'm not going to get all excited about it. The reason I think this
can seem this way is that furry fandom is (at least in some respects) defined
by (as someone so nicely put it a while back) a plot device rather than a
setting or a real genre -- that plot device being animal characters. Take any
story, put animal characters in it, and you've got a furry story. Whee.
However, take a wild west story, throw in some high tech (Wild Wild West,
anyone?) and you've got sci-fi. However, does that mean that western fans are
going to count this as what they had in mind for "westerns"? (What are those
"Cow Boy" action figures I saw in the toy store the other day? Hmmmm.)
Also, what about fandoms that have specific universes they're celebrating that
just happen to have *humans* in them instead of furries? Sure, we could take
their stories, substitute critters, and we've got a "furry" story, but it's
nothing that provokes spontaneous declarations of "Wow" from me. =)
BTW (by the way), I don't know what TCP/IP is, either. =)
--
-Jordan .. PEACO...@cobra.uni.edu "Any mistakes in my posts
.OO. Jordan Greywolf (Jordan Peacock) are society's fault."
O/\O 1610 Parker
~~ Cedar Falls, IA 50613
Radical right-winger fundamentalist ultra-conservative religious fanatic
critterfan/miniatures-hobbyist/wargamer/sculptor/composer-wannabe/pilot/
student/programmer/doodler/writer/SwordTagger/mek and old car enthusiast
Timothy Fay
>
>Sure, but I'm not going to get all excited about it. The reason I think this
>can seem this way is that furry fandom is (at least in some respects) defined
>by (as someone so nicely put it a while back) a plot device rather than a
>setting or a real genre -- that plot device being animal characters. Take any
>story, put animal characters in it, and you've got a furry story. Whee.
I believe I made a similar comment earlier when I pointed out that a lot
of furry stories were little more than MAGNUM P.I. with a dash of fur.
Take the same tired characters and threadbare plots, but add a couple of
skunk-babes and--boom--instant anthropomorphic success. This is part
of the reason that so much of this stuff (especially the so-called "adult"
material) is so bad: Anthropomorphic artists often get away with
lower-quality material because it is easier to accept a badly drawn
funny-animal than a badly-drawn human. The "device" seems to matter more
than actual content.
--
Reply to: ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu
fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
"My mental facilities are TWICE what yours are -- you pea brain!"
-Percival McLeach
Peter da Silva
> Fiction fandom. The def I've been given to understand is Sci-Fi fandom
> is 2001, Star Wars, 2010, and several others.
Yep, that's "Sci-Fi" fandom. Pronounced "Skiffy". A tiny subset of real
science fiction.
[insert Harlan Ellison's screed about people who call SF "Sci-Fi" here, I
can't stomach it... Harlan's a bit excessive...]
Y'all need to read more SF. Might I suggest you start with "A Fire Upon the
Deep" by Vernor Vinge?
--
Argent Rankadlinensur
Tygger
: It's a computer networking protocol, with all sorts of interconnects with
: other protocols. All the vendors claim *their* product is really providing
: the core component, when in fact there is no core.
Oh...`puter jargon. Aiee! --grin--
: > Tim...I don't understand at ALL what you're getting at.
: Who's Tim?
--MEGAsigh-- Apologies! I had to get Sneezer off the keyboard and he
made typos. I was thinking of something Tim Fay had written in a post
and made the wrong connection and so when corrected the typos, put his
name in by mistake.
Always remember: never let a 6 week old baby rat run amuck on your keyboard!
: > What I was (and though I had) meaning to say was furfandom has aspects of
: > ALL fandoms in it. You can write or draw any given situation with
: > furrys, as you can do with humans.
: Science Fiction has aspects of ALL fandoms in it. You can write or draw any
: given situation in a science-fiction setting, as you can do with a real
: life one.
I see what it is...I'm not quite understanding your definition of Science
Fiction fandom. The def I've been given to understand is Sci-Fi fandom
is 2001, Star Wars, 2010, and several others. Basically, ONLY sci-fi,
pure sci-fi and nothing else. It looks as if I need to expand my
definition. --grin-- Thanks for the expansion. I'll keep it in mind.
: > Looking over your statement, there's some holes in it. Plugging sci-fi
: > into an authentic sounding Old West story wouldn't work for some fen of
: > the Old West. However, if you were to take that same story, change the
: > humans into furrys and adapt accordingly, it still wouldn't pass with
: > some of the fen. However, in furfandom, it would be accepted because the
: > story satifies the main interest: furrys.
: And in SF it would still be accepted because the story satisfies the main
: interest: science fiction. A great example is the Lord d'Arcy stories. The
: background is Victorian-era technology, magic, and each story is a mystery.
: But it's all handled in an SF style, with careful design of the background
: and a strict limit to the impossibilities. So there you have three genres
: all wrapped up under the cover of SF.
Ah...okay. That's what I thought. I stand (or sit in this case
--grin--) corrected. Thanks again!
Peter da Silva
Superluminal. Vonda N. McIntyre. Published by Pocket Books. ISBN 0-671-53136-0.
Orca unfastened her spangled jacket, let it slide from her
shoulders, and stripped off her net shirt. She unzipped her
pants, let them fall from her narrow hips, and kicked them
off as she paused on the edge of the dock.
"What are you doing?" Radu asked.
"Going home."
"You're going to swim? All the way?"
Instead of replying, Orca pointed out at the sea.
The black back of a huge animal cut the surface and vanished. A
few seconds later the creature breached the water in a spectacular
leap.
Orca laughed. "My name-cousin. Orca. The killer whale. She's come
to meet me... She's come to take me home."
-- from the inside front cover.
I hope you all go out and buy a copy. It's an interesting read.
> P.S.: I saw your .sig in a magazine the other day. I can't remember which
> one. I think it might have been like Internet News or something like that.
Oh great. You are now obligated to hunt it down and mail me a copy.
Greywolf
> Greywolf (peaco...@cobra.uni.edu) wrote:
>>
>>Sure, but I'm not going to get all excited about it. The reason I think this
>>can seem this way is that furry fandom is (at least in some respects) defined
>
{same old same old diatribe about how furry art is all a poor excuse for
putting out anything of merit}
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... Really, at least there are some things I like in furry
fandom that keep me from just running off. What on earth is it that *you* find
to be worth your while here? Or are there any exceptions to this?
(What's *my* exception? Rhudiprrt. Definitely.)
Araiguma
MB> Peter da Silva (pe...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
MB> : I think the word Mike was looking for was "superluminal". Faster
MB> than light.
MB> : Also the title of a nice SF story published recently that I'm sure a
MB> lot of : folks here would enjoy. One of the main characters is a human
MB> genetically : engineered to live in the sea, and her cetacean friends
MB> show up too. : --
MB> What mag? What story? Do tell!!
It's by Vonda MacIntyre (pretty sure about the last name spelling), it's a
book (either a novel, or *maybe* a collection of short stories, but I seem
to remember the former), and it's been out for awhile, atcherly.
Araiguma
...
The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
---
. Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 .
----
{ Team H BBS - Richmond, CA - 510-236-5114 - Anonymous accounts available }
{ Japanese Animation & Adult *** Stories, Pictures, Conversation }
{ Also supporting Pagan, Fat, and GLB issues }
{ Now carrying RIME and ThrobNet! }
Timothy Fay
>Yeah, yeah, yeah ... Really, at least there are some things I like in furry
>fandom that keep me from just running off. What on earth is it that *you* find
>to be worth your while here? Or are there any exceptions to this?
Very few, actually. However, I was trying to echo what you said about
'furry' being little more than a device, e.g., the Western analogy. It is
a good Western? A bad Western? A mediocre Western? Doesn't seem to
matter as long as it has 'furry' characters in it.
>(What's *my* exception? Rhudiprrt. Definitely.)
To each their own...
Greywolf
> Very few, actually. However, I was trying to echo what you said about
> 'furry' being little more than a device, e.g., the Western analogy. It is
> a good Western? A bad Western? A mediocre Western? Doesn't seem to
> matter as long as it has 'furry' characters in it.
Well, so what's your point? You can have a bad Western, a good Western or a
mediocre Western. I've seen plenty. And you could possibly have a bad furry
Western, a mediocre furry Western or a good furry Western.
IMHO, most cases would just be a *silly* furry western, but I really don't get
what the point is. Is it that, since it could be furry even if it has no plot,
then this is a bad reflection on the whole concept of furry fandom? Well then,
what about the fact that something can be totally lousy but still be considered
drama ... or science fiction ... or fantasy ... or historical fiction ... ?
Defining a genre, near as I can tell, is not dependent upon deciding what
merits each piece has as "quality fiction" or "quality art" in order to fit
into it.
Timothy Fay
>In article <CJM2v...@news.cis.umn.edu>, ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu (Timothy Fay) writes:
>> Very few, actually. However, I was trying to echo what you said about
>> 'furry' being little more than a device, e.g., the Western analogy. It is
>> a good Western? A bad Western? A mediocre Western? Doesn't seem to
>> matter as long as it has 'furry' characters in it.
>
>Well, so what's your point? You can have a bad Western, a good Western or a
>mediocre Western. I've seen plenty. And you could possibly have a bad furry
>Western, a mediocre furry Western or a good furry Western.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: It doesn't seem to
matter as long as it has 'furry' characters in it. Once you substitute
Matt Dillon with Furball McShane, and Miss Kitty with, well, "Miss Kitty"
(or maybe 'Cat' Ballou :) ), the critical evaluation ends. The attitude
seems to be "if its furry it must be okay." In fact, there's a kind of
a taboo against criticizing 'furry' art. I've been told by several
prominent furry fans that you should never criticize furry art because
that might discourage the artist from producing more art (but based
on what I regularly see at art shows and in fanzines, that wouldn't be
such a bad thing...). If you want to improve the image of furry fans
(and I think that you do), recognizing this particular problem would
be a good start.
Sean Malloy
>In article <tyggerCJ...@netcom.com>, Tygger <tyg...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> I see what it is...I'm not quite understanding your definition of Science
>> Fiction fandom. The def I've been given to understand is Sci-Fi fandom
>> is 2001, Star Wars, 2010, and several others.
>
>Yep, that's "Sci-Fi" fandom. Pronounced "Skiffy". A tiny subset of real
>science fiction.
And remember, Skiffy sticks to the roof of your mind!
--
Random sig #1:
Sean Malloy Navy Personnel R&D Center | This message has been
San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | close-punchlined for the
mal...@nprdc.navy.mil < different | humor-impaired.
crash!mal...@nosc.navy.mil < systems |
James Drew
>Furfandom is the only fandom, that I can think of, into which all, or
>nearly all, other fandoms can be plugged into.
>
>Think about it: horror, vampires, space opera, space fantasy, dark fantasy,
>soap opera, erotic, bondage (apologies Mishael :) ), S&M (more
>apologies :) ), cyberpunk, sword and sorcery, and the list goes on.
That's because "furry" is a meta-genre rather than a genre. You have to
really cram things together to get a science fiction/western, because each
genre has its particular conventions and requirements, while "furry" just
provides a textured background: if you want a furry western, you just do a
western with furry characters and situtions; same thing if you want furry
bondage.
I think "soap opera" (that is "adventure romance") is arguably another
meta-genre: Dark Shadows (horror soap), All My Children (generic soap), and
X-Men (super-hero soap) being examples.
------------------------------
| We walked through the darkening forest,
Jim Drew | waiting for something to jump out at us.
j...@frame.com | Something did.
(Furry: Randy Puritan) | "*I* might!" said the bear.
"Innocent, but not naive." | "You might what?" I asked.
B2h t c s k g+(p) rv q p e | "No, no, no," he said. "*I* might! Like,
S8/5 g l+ y+ o+ a+ u++- j++ | 'ello? 'Ow you doin'?"
{opinions: mine != frame's} | - Marc Lynx, "Against All Oz"
Greywolf
> At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: It doesn't seem to
> matter as long as it has 'furry' characters in it.
It doesn't seem to matter to whom?
> In fact, there's a kind of
> a taboo against criticizing 'furry' art.
Doesn't stop *me*.
> I've been told by several
> prominent furry fans that you should never criticize furry art because
> that might discourage the artist from producing more art
If they can't take criticism, they likely won't be able to get anywhere. I
don't always maintain a cheery grin when someone bluntly tells me my pieces
stink. Still, in the cases when I've been told *why*, if I manage to swallow
my pride and do something about it, those are the cases where I'd dare say I've
made the most significant improvement.
> If you want to improve the image of furry fans
> (and I think that you do), recognizing this particular problem would
> be a good start.
I don't have any particular agenda to improve the image of furry fans in
general, actually. And I'm still not sure what the problem is that needs
recognizing that's going to make such a big change. I try to make my work
better, and a lot of the writer and artist email/realmail penpals I keep in
contact give me pointers on how to improve, and I try to return the favor.
I can probably imagine a few "prominent furry fans" who might think that
criticism is inherently *eeeevil*, but I don't agree with that. I *do* think
that there are probably more constructive ways of framing said criticism so
that they're more well-received, and so that they're more useful. (I don't
claim to be a master at either, though.)
Lynx-Amathon Adorienne
>At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: It doesn't seem to
Matters to me. I'll preferentially buy the better quality stuff over the
less impressive stuff. Last year I only bought one print at the art show
(it was not a terribly impressive art show, IMHO). But then, I'm not your
average furfan. };)
>In fact, there's a kind of
>a taboo against criticizing 'furry' art. I've been told by several
>prominent furry fans that you should never criticize furry art because
>that might discourage the artist from producing more art (but based
>on what I regularly see at art shows and in fanzines, that wouldn't be
>such a bad thing...).
There are two sides to this issue...
First: fledgling artists need praise! I know that it really helped I was
encouraged by Zjonni and others when I was building up my artistic skills.
You can certainly talk about what looks bad, but if you don't point out
what's good, the newcomer artist may sour on the whole prospect and just
quit. With practice, the newcomer artist *will* get better.
Second: fledgling artists can use constructive criticism. Something like
"Your art sucks" is destructive. "Your critters' legs and arms are too
thin and the hands aren't long enough" (true of my early art) is more
constructive and helpful. If no one tells a newcomer artist (or writer)
what's wrong in their work, how will they know what to improve?
If you've been telling newcomers that their artwork sucks and they are
only appreciated because it's furry, it's no wonder they are insulted.
('gryn)
-- Lynx
--
__ ___ ___ _/' Name: Conrad "Lynx" Wong
/ \ _/ \----' \-' O`-g Address: 28368 Christopher's Lane
| | / > __/_ / __/_`, _| Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
\__/ \____\`--\____\ ;/' E-mail: ly...@netcom.com
Lynx is "AL" Go B Y++ L++ C++++ T++ A-- H++ S++ V+ F- Q+ P+ B PA+ PL++
(see rec.pets.cats for code explanation or E-mail me and ask)
Fuzzy Fox
>>What on earth is it that *you* find to be worth your while here?
>Very few, actually.
C'mon, Tim, let's hear you say something GOOD about furry fandom. It
would be a refreshing change.
--
----- David DeSimone ----- Fuzzy Fox ----- f...@netcom.com ------------
"Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Pinky?"
"I think so Brain, but... If our feet went the other way,
we'd fall on our faces."
Tygger
: At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: It doesn't seem to
: matter as long as it has 'furry' characters in it. Once you substitute
It doesn't seem it to YOU. I'VE seen that it DOES matter to many in
fact. From what I've seen here on a.f.f., it DOES matter. How about
opening your eyes and actually SEEING for once?
: Matt Dillon with Furball McShane, and Miss Kitty with, well, "Miss Kitty"
: (or maybe 'Cat' Ballou :) ), the critical evaluation ends. The attitude
: seems to be "if its furry it must be okay." In fact, there's a kind of
I point out there ARE many who keep the animalistic traits of the furrys
in mind when they write or draw. I know I do. It makes sense. You're
generalizing again.
: a taboo against criticizing 'furry' art. I've been told by several
: prominent furry fans that you should never criticize furry art because
: that might discourage the artist from producing more art (but based
I agree with Lynxie: if you don't tell them where and what they need to
concentrate on and just be critical, of COURSE you'll discourage them.
Hell, I've gone through that myself. It was very discouraging to be
called a Terrie Smith clone and not be told WHERE and WHAT it is about my
style that they see as making me a clone. It was so bad that I drew very
sporadically for a year or so.
: that might discourage the artist from producing more art (but based
: on what I regularly see at art shows and in fanzines, that wouldn't be
: such a bad thing...). If you want to improve the image of furry fans
[shakes head] Typical. It's people like YOU that make it harder for
some newbie artists and fen to have a louder voice in furfandom and here
on a.f.f.
There's probably some newbie fledgling artist out there who's read your
statement and is probably wondering if his/her art shouldn't see the
light of day because he/she takes your words to be representative of the
reception he/she can expect from furfandom at large. Trust me, when
you're just starting out, all it takes is ONE or TWO comments like YOURS
to destroy the self-confidence they're JUST beginning to build. And I
KNOW I'm not the ONLY artist who has been hurt by negativity like yours
early on.
If there is such an artist/writer/fan, * I * say to you: DON'T hide!
SHOW us your art and stories or other written works! JOIN in!
: If you want to improve the image of furry fans
: (and I think that you do), recognizing this particular problem would
: be a good start.
I don't thing that IS the problem here. It's not the fen. From what I
can decipher from your words, the problem is the quality of storie and
art. The same old saw which is getting old and rusty each time you use it.
Tygger
: Greywolf (peaco...@cobra.uni.edu) wrote:
: >Yeah, yeah, yeah ... Really, at least there are some things I like in furry
: >fandom that keep me from just running off. What on earth is it that *you* find
: >to be worth your while here? Or are there any exceptions to this?
: Very few, actually. However, I was trying to echo what you said about
: 'furry' being little more than a device, e.g., the Western analogy. It is
: a good Western? A bad Western? A mediocre Western? Doesn't seem to
: matter as long as it has 'furry' characters in it.
How about answering the question for a change instead of dancing all
around it? Greywolf asked you a very straight forward question and I'm
echoing it:
If furry fandom, art, and stories are so BAD and lacking in quality
(paraphrasing your own words), then why DO you even bother? WHY buy the
fanzines? The comics? WHY read the stories? WHY look at the art?
From what I can tell, the ONLY stories and art with ANY merit and quality
is what YOU produce.
Well, to quote Lazarus Long: Every ass wants to stand with the King's
horses. This may explain why there are critics.
TTFN!
jeolo...@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu
furrys... Tony the Tiger, Toucan Sam (who's awesome) Coco from Coco Crispies,
and a lot more (though they escape me at the moment...arrghh).
And video games... furrys outnumber humans by far! Furry villains, heroes and
mentors are the standard of sooo many games... Sonic, Bubsy Bobcat, Star Fox,
Mario's pals like Yoshi...
I'm rambling... as many furrys as there are in the "mainstream" I wanna see
more!
PeterCat
>In article <2h181t$9...@hpchase.rose.hp.com>,
>Mike Beebe <mbe...@repo.rose.hp.com> wrote:
>> I've always pictured the Manataro, the anthrofoxes of my own creating,
>>as living in a post-human world, where humans are a minor species through
>>no other process but lowered fertility. They live in a bright future where
>>space is just starting to open up and superlimuninal travel is barely a
>>half-century old. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>So I guess I'll just destroy the illusion of my having an inexhaustible
>vocabulary and ask what "superlimunial" is (besides a double-dactyl). Of
>course, I run the risk of succumbing to Greywolf's Famous Faux Paw [sic] and
>finding out that it's some sexual practice I was hitherto unfamiliar with...
Actually, I think it's a new character from DC, to compete with those
new Marvel furry superheroes.
"Look! Up in the sky! It's SuperLimuminal!" "Faster than a speeding otter...
more powerful than a ring-tailed lemur... Able to leap tall furrybabes in
a single bound!"
>
>From the context I'd guess it means something similar to "faster than
>light," but I've read lots of SF and never come across anything even
>similar to that word... <...>
Actually, it's pretty close to "superluminal," which means "bright future."
Come to think of it, the sexual possibilities are intriguing.
We'll have to invent a sexual practice just to go with this word.
Sort of akin to the "mile high club," this would be the "faster than light
club." Although my ex- would claim I already belong.
-- DaveBarryCat
--
Procrustes Bed Company: "One Size Fits All"
pkap...@erc.cat.syr.edu
Richard Chandler
> ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu (Timothy Fay) writes:
> >Very few, actually.
>
> C'mon, Tim, let's hear you say something GOOD about furry fandom. It
> would be a refreshing change.
I'm just waiting for him to work up an article for Plush. :-)
Unless the actual REASON Tim likes furrydom is _because_ it's full of
adolescent sex fantasy... making Tim Furrydom's own Joe Bob Briggs.
- Mauser - "Oh, I get it, FURRY dice."
--
Roadkill on the Information Superhighway ...
"Ride a motorcycle. Save Gas, Oil, Rubber, Steel, Aluminum, Parking Spaces,
The Environment, and Money. Plus, you get to wear all the leather you want!"
Rich Chandler, DoD #296
Timothy Fay
>Timothy Fay (ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu) wrote:
>
>: ...In fact, there's a kind of
>: a taboo against criticizing 'furry' art. I've been told by several
>: prominent furry fans that you should never criticize furry art because
>: that might discourage the artist from producing more art (but based
>
>I agree with Lynxie: if you don't tell them where and what they need to
>concentrate on and just be critical, of COURSE you'll discourage them.
>Hell, I've gone through that myself. It was very discouraging to be
>called a Terrie Smith clone and not be told WHERE and WHAT it is about my
>style that they see as making me a clone. It was so bad that I drew very
>sporadically for a year or so.
But obviously you got over it. The cold, hard truth is that any artist
is going to get criticized at one time or another. Sometimes the
criticism will be fair and constructive. Sometimes it won't. But to
withhold all criticism just because an artist might become discouraged
is ridiculous. Getting criticized is almost always a little
discouraging, but any artist who truly loves their craft will not
become discouraged forever. That is, perhaps, the difference between
an artist and someone who occasionally draws.
>There's probably some newbie fledgling artist out there who's read your
>statement and is probably wondering if his/her art shouldn't see the
>light of day because he/she takes your words to be representative of the
>reception he/she can expect from furfandom at large. Trust me, when
>you're just starting out, all it takes is ONE or TWO comments like YOURS
>to destroy the self-confidence they're JUST beginning to build. And I
>KNOW I'm not the ONLY artist who has been hurt by negativity like yours
>early on.
And trust _me_: If you don't have the self-confidence to begin with,
you probably shouldn't be doing art. Getting criticized ain't fun,
especially if it comes from someone whose opinion you respect. It may
cause the unfortunate artist to drop into a massive blue funk or send
him or her scurrying under the bed for a few days. But, sooner or
later, they'll be back at the drawing board more determined that ever.
If not, then they would probalby find greater fulfillment in some less
stressful occupation.
Scott Alan Malcomson
: In article <CJLBB...@news.cis.umn.edu>, ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu (Timothy Fay) writes:
: {same old same old diatribe about how furry art is all a poor excuse for
: putting out anything of merit}
: Yeah, yeah, yeah ... Really, at least there are some things I like in furry
: fandom that keep me from just running off. What on earth is it that *you*
: find to be worth your while here? Or are there any exceptions to this?
<pokes a thumb in Tim's direction>
He doesn't get off this kick, does he? Considering that he's done quite a bit
of furry material I find very nice, I'm surprised that he's put so much effort
into a genre he seems to find reprehensible.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: >mediocre Western. I've seen plenty. And you could possibly have a bad furry
: >Western, a mediocre furry Western or a good furry Western.
: It doesn't seem to matter as long as it has 'furry' characters in it.
Ever met ANY furry who will buy ANY material solely because it has furries?
: Once you substitute Matt Dillon with Furball McShane, and Miss Kitty
: with, well, "Miss Kitty" (or maybe 'Cat' Ballou :) ), the critical
: evaluation ends.
Critical, nothing. You just described a parody, mon frere. Parody is the most
common, and often the most popular, subgenre of any fandom. It makes people
laugh, and comedy sells. Mel Brooks has made many films, most of which have
been parodies, and few of which has earned "critical acclaim". So what?
Village Voice may never do a rave review of any parody, but that doesn't mean
it's not a worthwhile subject...and the humor one finds in furfandom is one
of the major reasons many fans stick around.
: The attitude seems to be "if its furry it must be okay." In fact,
: there's a kind of a taboo against criticizing 'furry' art. I've been
IMHO, it depends entirely on the kind of criticism you have to give. Pointing
out anatomical, shading and coloring errors is one thing, and usually
helpful in one way or another. Telling an artist their work is for $#!+ and
turning your back to leave will either ruin an artist's day for no good
reason, earn you a dagger in the back, or both. So far, you've had a habit of
making blanket statements that nothing in furfandom is original, that people
only draw this stuff because they're too incompetent to draw humans, and
generally worked towards building enmity with people.
To be honest, I've had more reasonable arguments and discussions with
Noel Tominack, who, by being inconsiderate of the needs and feelings of
others, has managed to alienate himself from furfandom at large. He is a
decent writer, and has had material published in Furrlough and Rowrbrazzle,
but his inability to go through a conversation without hammering on someone's
abilities as an artist/writer/publisher/businessman/what-have-you ensures
friction in any kind of working relationship. Tominack, however, has finally
started to realize that he's been shooting himself in the foot (albeit with
help from the rumor mill, which always needs good grist) for years. He's
bitter about it, but has finally started to accept his responsibility for
his actions and statements.
Tim, I'm serious. Noel Tominack is getting to be more willing to
reason before making sweeping proclamations than you are. I'm not being
sarcastic, snide, or anything but worried here...you're a damned good
artist, and I'd hate to see you go that route. Be careful, dammit.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: Tygger (tyg...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >
: >I agree with Lynxie: if you don't tell them where and what they need to
: >Hell, I've gone through that myself. It was very discouraging to be
: >called a Terrie Smith clone and not be told WHERE and WHAT it is about my
: >style that they see as making me a clone. It was so bad that I drew very
: >sporadically for a year or so.
: But obviously you got over it. The cold, hard truth is that any artist
: is going to get criticized at one time or another. Sometimes the
: criticism will be fair and constructive. Sometimes it won't. But to
: withhold all criticism just because an artist might become discouraged
: is ridiculous.
In other words, you reserve the right to walk up to an artist, tell them that
you think they stink, not bother saying why on the off-chance that they may
take you seriously and improve (their improvement being the core reason for
griping in the first place, unless you want them gone altogether), and expect
to walk smugly away, assured (in your own mind) that you're doing everyone a
service?
You seem to have entirely missed Tygger's (and everyone else's) point;
that criticism that isn't constructive is destructive. If you want the genre
to improve, being destructive is counterproductive. In other words, afford
others the same treatment you'd afford yourself. You may recall that it's
such thoughtless behavior, which you seem to actually think is helpful to
fandom, that gets people termed "fanboy".
: And trust _me_: If you don't have the self-confidence to begin with,
: you probably shouldn't be doing art. Getting criticized ain't fun,
: especially if it comes from someone whose opinion you respect.
If someone I respect says my work stinks and refuses to say why, I no longer
respect that person. The person with the cojones to tell me how I can IMPROVE
KEEPS my respect, and that respect tends to increase. You, however, are making
no distinction between either type of individual, and apparently claim that
all criticism is constructive. This is similar to saying that any freeway
system in California is a good one, and if an earthquake comes along, well
heck we'll just build another. Never mind taking reasonable precautions, or
giving thought to the repercussions, there's more concrete where that came
from, eh?
---LCD
Tygger
: But obviously you got over it. The cold, hard truth is that any artist
: is going to get criticized at one time or another. Sometimes the
: criticism will be fair and constructive. Sometimes it won't. But to
: withhold all criticism just because an artist might become discouraged
: is ridiculous. Getting criticized is almost always a little
: discouraging, but any artist who truly loves their craft will not
: become discouraged forever. That is, perhaps, the difference between
: an artist and someone who occasionally draws.
I NEVER said withold all criticism. I commented on giving the artist
CONSTRUCTIVE criticism as opposed to the damning criticism YOU specialize in.
: And trust _me_: If you don't have the self-confidence to begin with,
: you probably shouldn't be doing art. Getting criticized ain't fun,
: especially if it comes from someone whose opinion you respect. It may
: cause the unfortunate artist to drop into a massive blue funk or send
: him or her scurrying under the bed for a few days. But, sooner or
: later, they'll be back at the drawing board more determined that ever.
: If not, then they would probalby find greater fulfillment in some less
: stressful occupation.
I don't agree with your first comment. If the person is drawing for
themselves in private, then there's not the fear of criticism.
DAMNING criticism isn't fun, neither is constructive criticism. However,
the constructive criticism when combined with praise, makes hearing it
a bit easier.
TTFN!
Tygger
--
******************************************************************************
Tasteful Erotica! Non-Erotica! Artist! Writer! Flirt! Winged Tigress!
Dangerous Temper and Dangerous Sense of Humour But Basically A Sweetie!
I Am NOT A Terrie Smith Clone Nor Am I A Reasonable Facsimile!
Tigerwing Press/ Tygger Prints!
6250 Holabird St. #1, San Diego, CA 92120-3545
Timothy Fay
>
>He doesn't get off this kick, does he? Considering that he's done quite a bit
>of furry material I find very nice, I'm surprised that he's put so much effort
>into a genre he seems to find reprehensible.
I've been doing funny animal cartoons long before this "furry" fandom stuff
started. I'll probably be doing funny animal cartoons long after it burns
itself out. There are some artists who are pursuing interesting areas with
what might be called "furry" art. Unfortunately, there are also aspects of
furry fandom that makes it difficult to pursue animal-related cartoons.
Jeffrey J. Mancebo
: I've been doing funny animal cartoons long before this "furry" fandom stuff
: started. I'll probably be doing funny animal cartoons long after it burns
: itself out. There are some artists who are pursuing interesting areas with
: what might be called "furry" art. Unfortunately, there are also aspects of
: furry fandom that makes it difficult to pursue animal-related cartoons.
boojum sighs, bouncing.. "Constructive (I hope) criticism time. If
you say 'There are aspects of furry fandom that makes it difficult to
pursue animal-related cartoons', You need to say WHAT aspects do this,
and WHY it makes it difficult for You to pursue animal-related cartoons."
He cocks his head. "I can come up with LOTS of things, including the
other types of art are drawing money that might otherwise go to support
you so you can draw more animal-related cartoons. I DO point out that
there is alot more to Furrydom than animal-related cartoons, and any
of a number of them might be causing you problems. Please tell us your
REASONS, and support them. So we can carry on a reasonable discussion rather
than just saying 'Yes it does, No it doesn't' over and over again."
boojum the brown bunny
John VanStry
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>And trust _me_: If you don't have the self-confidence to begin with,
>you probably shouldn't be doing art. Getting criticized ain't fun,
>especially if it comes from someone whose opinion you respect. It may
>cause the unfortunate artist to drop into a massive blue funk or send
>him or her scurrying under the bed for a few days. But, sooner or
>later, they'll be back at the drawing board more determined that ever.
>If not, then they would probalby find greater fulfillment in some less
>stressful occupation.
>
past, I must say that criticizim can destroy somebody who may not
have the self-confidence up front but should be doing the work.
(whatever type of work or art it may be). Step on a new sprouted
tree and you will kill it long before it can grow to a mighty
redwood.
Second, art _is_ a less stressful occupation! When was the last time
you made a mistake drawing or writing and it immediatley cost you
your life? Or caused an accident? Now _that's_ stress!
>--
> Reply to: ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu
> fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
>
> "My mental facilities are TWICE what yours are -- you pea brain!"
> -Percival McLeach
>
I still think that sig is obnoxious! :-)
--
jvan...@nyx.cs.du.edu
van...@agora.rain.com
A sig in search of a good quote.
Greywolf
> I've been doing funny animal cartoons long before this "furry" fandom stuff
> started.
Well, *I*'ve been drawing critters since kindergarten, and my mom has a
crayoned picture of a wolf zoomorph in a red shirt and blue jeans, hat and a
ridiculously flanged gun blasting away at pig zoomorphs to prove it! =)
So there! =)
Timothy Fay
>
>: ...The cold, hard truth is that any artist
>: is going to get criticized at one time or another. Sometimes the
>: criticism will be fair and constructive. Sometimes it won't. But to
>: withhold all criticism just because an artist might become discouraged
>: is ridiculous.
>
>In other words, you reserve the right to walk up to an artist, tell them that
>you think they stink, not bother saying why on the off-chance that they may
>to walk smugly away, assured (in your own mind) that you're doing everyone
>a service?
Um, no. That is not what I said. Please re-read the paragraph I wrote,
above.
> You seem to have entirely missed Tygger's (and everyone else's) point;
>that criticism that isn't constructive is destructive. If you want the genre
>to improve, being destructive is counterproductive. In other words, afford
>others the same treatment you'd afford yourself. You may recall that it's
>such thoughtless behavior, which you seem to actually think is helpful to
>fandom, that gets people termed "fanboy".
I agree that non-constructive criticism is not very helpful. But that is
not what I am talking about. I am talking about the attitude that _all_
criticism is bad and that artists, especially ones who are just getting
started, should be shielded from any and all criticism, constructive or
otherwise. The inability to deal with criticism on any level is common
to most types of fan activities. That, more than anything else, is what
gets people termed "fanboy."
>If someone I respect says my work stinks and refuses to say why, I no longer
>respect that person. The person with the cojones to tell me how I can IMPROVE
>KEEPS my respect, and that respect tends to increase. You, however, are making
>no distinction between either type of individual, and apparently claim that
>all criticism is constructive.
That is incorrect. If you recall, I wrote:
>: Sometimes the
>: criticism will be fair and constructive. Sometimes it won't. But to
>: withhold all criticism just because an artist might become discouraged
>: is ridiculous.
This was in the paragraph YOU quoted, BTW. I make no claim that all
criticism is constuctive; just the opposite, in fact. I do claim that
an artist has learn how to deal with criticism, constuctive, non-
constructive or destructive. Exactly how to deal with it is another
issue, and pretty much up to the individual artist.
And what constitutes "constructive" criticism is another matter. I know
some artists who take anything other than complete, unconditional praise
of their work as a direct, personal attack. Conversely, I know some
artists who can glean something useful from even the most severe criticism.
The latter type of artist is the one more likely to improve as time goes on,
while the former usually doesn't improve or stops drawing altogether.
>This is similar to saying that any freeway
>system in California is a good one, and if an earthquake comes along, well
>heck we'll just build another. Never mind taking reasonable precautions, or
>giving thought to the repercussions, there's more concrete where that came
>from, eh?
I don't know what this has to do with the above. However, from what I
understand, reasonable precautions were taken in building the freeway
system in souther California. Those overpasses in Sylmar were supposedly
built to withstand earthquakes up to 8 on the Richter scale, yet a 6.6 quake
brought them tumbling down. I think those freeway engineers are in for a
round of tough "constructive" criticism. :)
Timothy Fay
>: Greywolf (peaco...@cobra.uni.edu) wrote:
>: >
>: >Well, so what's your point? You can have a bad Western, a good Western or a
>: >mediocre Western. I've seen plenty. And you could possibly have a bad furry
>: >Western, a mediocre furry Western or a good furry Western.
>
>: It doesn't seem to matter as long as it has 'furry' characters in it.
>
>Ever met ANY furry who will buy ANY material solely because it has furries?
Yes. In fact, I understand that several hundred of them will be getting
together this weekend in Irvine... :)
>: Once you substitute Matt Dillon with Furball McShane, and Miss Kitty
>: with, well, "Miss Kitty" (or maybe 'Cat' Ballou :) ), the critical
>: evaluation ends.
>
>Critical, nothing. You just described a parody, mon frere. Parody is the most
>common, and often the most popular, subgenre of any fandom. It makes people
>laugh, and comedy sells.
I agree. In fact, I think funny animals are best suited for parody.
However, I see relatively little "furry" comedic material between the
endless war epics (with or without "lesbian foxes"), space opera and
fuzzy pin-ups. It may be because humor is perhaps the hardest type
of material to write. But it is very often the best type of stuff to
read. (I think Steve Gallacci's "Bad Rubber" -- a devastatingly
funny parody of BLADE RUNNER -- is still perhaps the best thing he's
ever done.)
> Tim, I'm serious. Noel Tominack is getting to be more willing to
>reason before making sweeping proclamations than you are. I'm not being
>sarcastic, snide, or anything but worried here...you're a damned good
>artist, and I'd hate to see you go that route. Be careful, dammit.
Thanks... I think. :-)
Timothy Fay
>
>I NEVER said withold all criticism. I commented on giving the artist
>CONSTRUCTIVE criticism as opposed to the damning criticism YOU specialize in.
I guess that depends on how you define CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. As I said
in another post, I know some artists who take anything other than complete
praise as a personal attack. I suppose it depends on your perspective.
I'm reminded of a quote by Harry Truman who, when asked about the phrase
"Give 'em Hell, Harry," replied, "I don't give 'em Hell--I just tell 'em
the truth, and they think it's Hell!" :-)
>I don't agree with your first comment. If the person is drawing for
>themselves in private, then there's not the fear of criticism.
>
>DAMNING criticism isn't fun, neither is constructive criticism. However,
>the constructive criticism when combined with praise, makes hearing it
>a bit easier.
Well, if there's no fear of criticism, then what's the problem?
Peter da Silva
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
> Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:
> >Timothy Fay (ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu) wrote:
> >: Greywolf (peaco...@cobra.uni.edu) wrote:
> >: >Well, so what's your point? You can have a bad Western, a good Western or a
> >: >mediocre Western. I've seen plenty. And you could possibly have a bad furry
> >: >Western, a mediocre furry Western or a good furry Western.
> >: It doesn't seem to matter as long as it has 'furry' characters in it.
> >Ever met ANY furry who will buy ANY material solely because it has furries?
>
> Yes. In fact, I understand that several hundred of them will be getting
> together this weekend in Irvine... :)
Making a cheap-shot at Confurence instead of answering the question. Hmmm.
--
Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Ja' abracas-te o teu lobo, hoje?
'U`
Looks like UNIX, Feels like UNIX, works like MVS -- IBM advertisement.
Scott Alan Malcomson
: Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:
: >
: >He doesn't get off this kick, does he? Considering that he's done quite a bit
: >of furry material I find very nice, I'm surprised that he's put so much
: >effort into a genre he seems to find reprehensible.
: I've been doing funny animal cartoons long before this "furry" fandom stuff
: started. I'll probably be doing funny animal cartoons long after it burns
: itself out.
So it's not anthropomorphics, but fandom you can't stand. How does this mesh
with your opinion that "funny animals" are a lesser art form because they're
easier to draw (theoretically)? Are you degrading your own work by
association?
: There are some artists who are pursuing interesting areas with
: what might be called "furry" art. Unfortunately, there are also aspects of
: furry fandom that makes it difficult to pursue animal-related cartoons.
Given that this is extraordinarily vague, I can't really comment. I don't
know what you find "interesting", nor why you seem to feel "animal-related
cartoons" are of neccessity separate from "furry fandom".
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: crayoned picture of a wolf zoomorph in a red shirt and blue jeans, hat and a
: ridiculously flanged gun blasting away at pig zoomorphs to prove it! =)
ROFL! -:)
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: >you think they stink, not bother saying why on the off-chance that they may
: >take you seriously and improve...and expect
: >to walk smugly away, assured (in your own mind) that you're doing everyone
: >a service?
: Um, no. That is not what I said. Please re-read the paragraph I wrote,
: above.
I re-read your paragraph, plus the entire message that went with it. I was
responding to your message to Tygger. Tygger had said that criticism is
worthwhile when it's constructive. You said any criticism is worthwhile,
and if an artist couldn't hack criticism that had no point, that artist
shouldn't be drawing or writing...and I'll point out that you said such in
defense of your own criticism of the genre as a whole as being full of
incompetents who only draw furries because they can't draw humans.
: > You seem to have entirely missed Tygger's (and everyone else's) point;
: >that criticism that isn't constructive is destructive. If you want the genre
: >to improve, being destructive is counterproductive. In other words, afford
: >others the same treatment you'd afford yourself. You may recall that it's
: >such thoughtless behavior, which you seem to actually think is helpful to
: >fandom, that gets people termed "fanboy".
: I agree that non-constructive criticism is not very helpful.
Are you implying that someone who simply walks up, says "You suck" and
walks away is being helpful at all?
: But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the attitude
: that _all_ criticism is bad and that artists, especially ones who are
: just getting started, should be shielded from any and all criticism,
: constructive or otherwise.
All those who have responded to this thread have said that constructive
criticism IS worthwhile. NO ONE has taken the stance that artists and
writers should be shielded from ALL criticism. You seem to have skimmed
through everyone's posts and missed the many references to this fact.
What people HAVE griped about is your apparent stance that any criticism
is good criticism.
: The inability to deal with criticism on any level is common
: to most types of fan activities.
A nice, sweeping, unsubstantiated statement which, again, no one is
supporting on EITHER side of the fence. I defy you to go back through this
thread and find ONE message that says criticism, regardless of the level
it's on, is a bad thing.
: >You, however, are making no distinction between either type of
: >individual, and apparently claim that all criticism is constructive.
: That is incorrect. If you recall, I wrote:
: >: Sometimes the criticism will be fair and constructive. Sometimes it
: >: won't. But to withhold all criticism just because an artist might
: >: become discouraged is ridiculous.
Oh, I recall this. You should recall yourself that no one has argued FOR
the withholding of ALL criticism. It was also couched in a much larger
message that shot back at Tygger, who supported the idea that people should
be (gasp!) polite to each other and avoid POINTLESS criticism. By
contesting her on this, you seemed to support the idea that anyone who goes
up and flames an artist or writer's work without trying to be constructive
is doing fandom a "service" by helping to force out those with "weak wills".
: This was in the paragraph YOU quoted, BTW. I make no claim that all
: criticism is constuctive; just the opposite, in fact. I do claim that
: an artist has learn how to deal with criticism, constuctive, non-
: constructive or destructive. Exactly how to deal with it is another
: issue, and pretty much up to the individual artist.
And given that this entire thread is based on your criticism that furry
artists are in general incompetent due to the genre itself, are you saying
people should be respected for being impolite?
: And what constitutes "constructive" criticism is another matter. I know
: some artists who take anything other than complete, unconditional praise
: of their work as a direct, personal attack.
I know some of these as well. An attitude problem on one person's part is no
excuse for incivility on a second person's part. If they don't take ANY kind
of criticism, even constructive, then they have shut out a possible source of
improving their work.
: Conversely, I know some
: artists who can glean something useful from even the most severe criticism.
Let's see...what useful advice could be gleaned from "You're a worthless
cartoonist who dabbles in beastiality because he can't hack it in the REAL
art world and draw humans instead?" Gee, I'm stumped. The only advice I
can see there at all is to ditch the genre altogether, and I wouldn't say
that's useful at all. It calls for shutting off an outlet, not improvement.
: >This is similar to saying that any freeway
: >system in California is a good one, and if an earthquake comes along, well
: >heck we'll just build another. Never mind taking reasonable precautions, or
: I don't know what this has to do with the above. However, from what I
: understand, reasonable precautions were taken in building the freeway
: system in souther California. Those overpasses in Sylmar were supposedly
: built to withstand earthquakes up to 8 on the Richter scale, yet a 6.6 quake
: brought them tumbling down. I think those freeway engineers are in for a
: round of tough "constructive" criticism. :)
If they didn't withstand what they were supposed to, then reasonable
precautions obviously weren't taken.
---LCD
Steve Arlow
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>I'm reminded of a quote by Harry Truman who, when asked about the phrase
>"Give 'em Hell, Harry," replied, "I don't give 'em Hell--I just tell 'em
>the truth, and they think it's Hell!" :-)
And I'm reminded of Jean Paul Sartre, who wrote "No Exit." Dunno why
you bring that to my mind, though... :, :) :D
--
JOEL: If the system does collapse, then money will / Steve Arlow 810.473.0920
be worthless. We'll be forced to hunt for our food! / 39336 Polo Club Dr. #103
TOOTH: The quadrapeds are way ahead of you. / Farmington Hills, MI 48335
-- Shannon Wheeler's "Tooth & Justice" / s...@umcc.umich.edu
Greywolf
> I agree that non-constructive criticism is not very helpful. But that is
> not what I am talking about. I am talking about the attitude that _all_
> criticism is bad and that artists, especially ones who are just getting
> started, should be shielded from any and all criticism, constructive or
> otherwise.
By the way -- Who promotes this attitude? I've not run into it very often,
myself.
I think this question might deal with why people are thinking you're turning
this into a polar issue -- It looks as if you've just been arguing against a
straw man, and not against any particular statement that has actually cropped
up in discussion here (in recent memory).
Maybe there are a few folks who are emailing you in private, criticizing you
for being critical, but I don't see some Great Trend in Furry Fandom that "thou
shalt not criticize". So, if this is your beef with furry fandom, IMHO, you're
probably generalizing a bit too much.
Greywolf
>>Ever met ANY furry who will buy ANY material solely because it has furries?
>
> Yes. In fact, I understand that several hundred of them will be getting
> together this weekend in Irvine... :)
*I* haven't met any of them. If I did, I would have gotten rid of this
stack of samplers a while ago. =P
> fuzzy pin-ups. It may be because humor is perhaps the hardest type
> of material to write. But it is very often the best type of stuff to
I dunno. Doing slapstick isn't all that hard, it seems. Doing really *great*
humor is tough, though. =) However, I think that there isn't so much humor
because a lot of the stories I see are probably variants on the writers'
fantasies and dreams. Besides, in most genres I know of, fiction pieces tend
toward the serious. Comedy sci-fi, comedy fantasy, comedy horror(?!), etc.,
are the exception to the rule when it comes to fan story output.
Scott Alan Malcomson
: >Ever met ANY furry who will buy ANY material solely because it has furries?
: Yes. In fact, I understand that several hundred of them will be getting
: together this weekend in Irvine... :)
Ah. Then I trust you have information indicating that all material which was
held for sale at CF4 last year sold at least as many copies as the number of
people who showed up, which as I recall was several hundred. Gee, less
than a dozen of my First Furry Church bumper stickers sold, at a buck
each, and I know that the FFC T-Shirts, which show a bear on back and
ferret on front, sold less than I sold stickers. According to your
argument, I should have sold out my stock and Jason Jensen should have been
mobbed for the T-Shirts ($8/ea). In fact, our table was right there outside
the Dealer's Room, ensuring that anyone who went in there at least had a
glance at our wares as they passed.
Therefore, I find your allegations that furry fans are
non-discriminatory in their purchases to be unfounded in fact.
: >Critical, nothing. You just described a parody, mon frere. Parody is the most
: >common, and often the most popular, subgenre of any fandom. It makes people
: >laugh, and comedy sells.
: I agree. In fact, I think funny animals are best suited for parody.
: However, I see relatively little "furry" comedic material between the
: endless war epics (with or without "lesbian foxes"), space opera and
: fuzzy pin-ups.
Shock of shocks! Could it be that furfandom is DIVERSIFYING?! Gasp!
: It may be because humor is perhaps the hardest type
: of material to write. But it is very often the best type of stuff to
: read. (I think Steve Gallacci's "Bad Rubber" -- a devastatingly
: funny parody of BLADE RUNNER -- is still perhaps the best thing he's
: ever done.)
I liked it myself, although I didn't find it all that hilarious...but I
see more dealing with comedy than anything else. Even many of the pinups
involve puns or humorous situations. As to "Tank Vixens" (based on Lesbian
Foxes in Hovertanks), that's a war epic that IS funny. Reading AP's
prepublication advertisements makes it obvious that this title is going to
try and mix humor, sexuality and warfare. I'm not sure that's ever bn done
before, and I'm hoping they can pull it off.
: > Tim, I'm serious. Noel Tominack is getting to be more willing to
: >reason before making sweeping proclamations than you are. I'm not being
: >sarcastic, snide, or anything but worried here...you're a damned good
: >artist, and I'd hate to see you go that route. Be careful, dammit.
: Thanks... I think. :-)
Yer welcome...credit where it's due.
---LCD
Paul Trauth
wrote:
P> Well, *I*'ve been drawing critters since kindergarten, and my mom has
P> a
P> crayoned picture of a wolf zoomorph in a red shirt and blue jeans, hat
P> and a
P> ridiculously flanged gun blasting away at pig zoomorphs to prove it!
P> =)
So steal it from her for a bit, scan it, and upload it!
There should probably be some smileys around here somewhere. This is most
likely a joke. I think it's one at least.
-- Via DLG Pro v1.0
.|\.` / paul_t cartoonist "Gee, Tah, nice sound system, but _
,;/#n\_. rauth@ag animator where's the other speaker?" _ //
.+:/, __/ wbbs.new programmer "Stereo is for /wimps/." \X/
';'< _\{ -orleans raccoon. -Bad Bunny explains her a2000
', \'!`~ .la.us / [sig v2.3] audio setup. 1m/4m
Timothy Fay
>
>I dunno. Doing slapstick isn't all that hard, it seems. Doing really *great*
>humor is tough, though. =)
I think it was either Woody Allen or Carl Reiner who once said that the
difference between a clown and a comedian is that a clown opens a funny
door, while a comedian opens a door, funny. ;-)
Timothy Fay
>In article <CJvzu...@news.cis.umn.edu>,
>Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>> Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:
>
>> >Ever met ANY furry who will buy ANY material solely because it has furries?
>>
>> Yes. In fact, I understand that several hundred of them will be getting
>> together this weekend in Irvine... :)
>
>Making a cheap-shot at Confurence instead of answering the question. Hmmm.
It was a joke. You know, humor?
***sheesh!***
Lynx-Amathon Adorienne
>I think this question might deal with why people are thinking you're turning
>this into a polar issue -- It looks as if you've just been arguing against a
>straw man, and not against any particular statement that has actually cropped
>up in discussion here (in recent memory).
But Greywuf, it's always so much easier to prop up a straw man in UseNet
and toast it with a flamethrower than to have to actually read your opponent's
arguments and see where they're coming from. This is known as the 'generalize
to ridiculousness, then tear it down' strategy. };)
Specific examples are left to the reader to discover.
-- Lynx
--
__ ___ ___ _/' Name: Conrad "Lynx" Wong
/ \ _/ \----' \-' O`-g Address: 28368 Christopher's Lane
| | / > __/_ / __/_`, _| Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
\__/ \____\`--\____\ ;/' E-mail: ly...@netcom.com
Lynx is "AL" Go B Y++ L++ C++++ T++ A-- H++ S++ V+ F- Q+ P+ B PA+ PL++
(see rec.pets.cats for code explanation or E-mail me and ask)
jeolo...@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu
sooo Kentuckian) but here in Middletown Ohio it's a tail-bristling 5 degrees.
Where is Confurnce held at? I hope this earthquake nonsense won't cancel it.
Bill Marcum
Wish I could hibernate. I was stranded at work from Sunday until
Tuesday, alone in an old building that sort of reminded me of "The
Shining". At least I had food and heat. (5 below? Where's my suntan
lotion? Tuesday night we had a record low -22 degrees F.) I was sure
glad to get home, and so was my cat. When I got home I had to park at
the store down the street. Today I'll finish digging out the driveway
and hope my car still starts.
Bill Marcum bma...@coplex.com
Peter da Silva
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
> Peter da Silva (pe...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
> >In article <CJvzu...@news.cis.umn.edu>,
> >Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
> >> Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:
> >> >Ever met ANY furry who will buy ANY material solely because it has
> >> >furries?
> >> Yes. In fact, I understand that several hundred of them will be getting
> >> together this weekend in Irvine... :)
> >Making a cheap-shot at Confurence instead of answering the question. Hmmm.
> It was a joke. You know, humor?
There's an abundance of newsgroups where it's considered normal and
acceptable practice to flame away and then make a joke, or pretend
you're making a joke, when someone challenges your assumptions.
This isn't one of them.
Would you care to support your original thesis that most furries will
buy any piece of crap simply because it's furry?
If not, mind hopping over to the lemurs group and hanging out with Joel
Furr. He likes that sort of stuff.
Timothy Fay
>In article <1994Jan19.1...@cobra.uni.edu> peaco...@cobra.uni.edu (Greywolf) writes:
>>straw man, and not against any particular statement that has actually cropped
>
>But Greywuf, it's always so much easier to prop up a straw man in UseNet...
If it is such an obvious straw-man, then why do so many people feel the
need to respond to it?
Timothy Fay
>
>There's an abundance of newsgroups where it's considered normal and
>acceptable practice to flame away and then make a joke, or pretend
>you're making a joke, when someone challenges your assumptions.
>
>This isn't one of them.
I've encountered a couple people who were convinced that my .sig,
below, was not a simple joke borrowed from a Disney cartoon, but
a personal attack directed solely at them. So you may believe what
you wish about my other joke. Who am I to shatter anyone's delusions
(including yours)?
>Would you care to support your original thesis that most furries will
>buy any piece of crap simply because it's furry?
Would you spend $1000 for a painting of a tiger-lady? If you can answer
my question, then you'll also have the answer to yours.
Tygger
: I guess that depends on how you define CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. As I said
: in another post, I know some artists who take anything other than complete
: praise as a personal attack. I suppose it depends on your perspective.
Point. I also know of artists like that.
: Well, if there's no fear of criticism, then what's the problem?
I think I may be confusing some points here. Are you directing the
question as a personal one or general?
Greywolf
> Lynx-Amathon Adorienne (ly...@netcom.com) wrote:
>>In article <1994Jan19.1...@cobra.uni.edu> peaco...@cobra.uni.edu (Greywolf) writes:
>>>...It looks as if you've just been arguing against a
>>>straw man, and not against any particular statement that has actually cropped
>>>up in discussion here...
>>
>>But Greywuf, it's always so much easier to prop up a straw man in UseNet...
>
> If it is such an obvious straw-man, then why do so many people feel the
> need to respond to it?
First off, I never said it was obvious. Secondly, you're bashing furry fandom
in general on alt.fan.furry. And, guess what? A lot of furfen are on
alt.fan.furry. If something interests me enough that I hang around a newsgroup
whose topic is defined around it, then if somebody repeatedly lashes out at me
(as part of a generalized group) then I just might be tempted to argue the
point.
As for the afforementioned tiger-lady, no I wouldn't spend $1000 on it.
Probably wouldn't be likely to shell out $10, either. I'm just not much of a
furry consumer.
Now then, WHO is saying that "all criticism is bad"?
Peter da Silva
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
> Peter da Silva (pe...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
> >Would you care to support your original thesis that most furries will
> >buy any piece of crap simply because it's furry?
> Would you spend $1000 for a painting of a tiger-lady? If you can answer
> my question, then you'll also have the answer to yours.
Class! Here we have a classic bogus debating technique. Can you spot it?
It's an easy one...
When the point in question is "most X are Y", you home in
on a specific example and respond, "look, some X are Y!"
Back to the thesis. Can you defend it?
Steve Arlow
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>>Would you care to support your original thesis that most furries will
>>buy any piece of crap simply because it's furry?
>
>Would you spend $1000 for a painting of a tiger-lady? If you can answer
>my question, then you'll also have the answer to yours.
Please, Tim, must you insult our intellegence with an argument like that?
If you insist, I can refer you to plenty of ancient Egyptian images of
Bast which are that expensive. But the argument is specious at best; I,
for one, do not purchase paintings solely because of the subject matter
portrayed, and I defy you to name me anyone here who does.
Do you seriously suggest that *anyone* here would consider the Mona Lisa
worth hundreds of millions of dollars had it been painted by, say, Norman
Rockwell instead of Leonardo DaVinci? I mean, it's the same woman, in the
same pose, so we poor furries can't tell the difference, right? Monika
Livingstone could paint a bowl of apples; do you think that *anyone* here
would consider the results to be worth the same as Cezanne's treatment of
the same subject? (Hell, let the apples sit around long enough, and
they'll be furry -- then we'll *really* pay the big bucks, right?) :,
Paul Trauth
wrote:
P> toward the serious. Comedy sci-fi, comedy fantasy, comedy horror(?!),
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sure! Think 'Ghostbusters'. Then contemplate the potential of crazed toons
meeting Cthulhu! (It's hard to say who'd win that situation...)
Fan stories, well, yeah, most of the fan fiction i've seen is
wish-fullfilment fantasies, serious "want to be pro" stuff, and kinda low
on the comedy. Bad-to-middling comedy is easy. Good comedy is _hard_.
(By "good" comedy i mean more than just tossing off an endless stream of
bad puns, although that can be pretty amusing too.)
Timothy Fay
>In article <CJxtM...@news.cis.umn.edu>,
>Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>>>Would you care to support your original thesis that most furries will
>>>buy any piece of crap simply because it's furry?
>>
>>Would you spend $1000 for a painting of a tiger-lady? If you can answer
>>my question, then you'll also have the answer to yours.
>
>Please, Tim, must you insult our intellegence with an argument like that?
I don't know how to break this to you, Steve, but at ConFurence 0 a
painting of a tiger-lady went to auction and sold for $1000.
Mark Phaedrus
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>Steve Arlow (s...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu) wrote:
>>In article <CJxtM...@news.cis.umn.edu>,
>>Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>>>>Would you care to support your original thesis that most furries will
>>>>buy any piece of crap simply because it's furry?
>>>Would you spend $1000 for a painting of a tiger-lady? If you can answer
>>>my question, then you'll also have the answer to yours.
>>Please, Tim, must you insult our intellegence with an argument like that?
>I don't know how to break this to you, Steve, but at ConFurence 0 a
>painting of a tiger-lady went to auction and sold for $1000.
Two problems with this:
1. We don't know whether or not the tiger-lady picture in question
was "crap".
2. The fact that one person in the auction room was willing to bid $1000
for this picture (crap or not), and that one other person was apparently
willing to bid close enough to this to force the bidding this high, does not
even come close to establishing that "most" furry fans will do anything. It
shows that, for some reason, those two people were very interested in that
work. Shall we say that most art fans will buy any piece of crap because a
famous painting gets auctioned off for a few million dollars? If anything,
this shows precisely the opposite; it shows that people are aware of quality,
whatever they perceive quality to be, and that they are willing to pay more to
get quality. If the person bidding $1000 was just interested in buying
indiscriminately, without regard to quality, then they were ludicrously stupid;
they should have been shopping around the convention, where they could have
bought a hundred works for that price. (Or so I'm told, anyway; I've never
been close enough to a furry convention to be able to afford to attend one.
:) )
--
\o\ Internet: phae...@halcyon.com (Seattle, WA Public Access Unix) \o\
\o\ "How'd you like to move a few steps down the food chain, pal?" \o\
\o\ If you're interested in books/stories with transformation themes, or \o\
\o\ in furry/anthropomorphic art, ftp to halcyon.com:/local/phaedrus. \o\
Jeffrey J. Mancebo
: >Would you care to support your original thesis that most furries will
: >buy any piece of crap simply because it's furry?
: Would you spend $1000 for a painting of a tiger-lady? If you can answer
: my question, then you'll also have the answer to yours.
boojum looks at the question, then looks at Timothy Fay.. "That
depends on the quality of the painting. If it something that *I* feel
is incredibly good, then I might... (given that I have $1000). Normally
I pay about 80 - 100 for a color commision. Befor I do, I check out the
artist to see if I like his/her work. Then I discuss it with them and see
if they think they can make their image come to life. I DO know of a
furry painting that I would pay $1000 for... unfortunatly, it sold for
$1500 at the con it was at. But it was INCREDIBLE!"
He cocks his head. "I DON'T like you attacking me, frankly.. What?
You don't understand why I think you are attacking me? Because so far
you have said that I am incompetent, juvinile, incapable of apreciating
art, being indiscriminant... The list goes on and on... You weren't
talking about me? Yes you were.. You said that ALL of Furry fandom is
this way. And I am a member of Furry Fandom."
boojum bounces idly up and down. "What I don't understand is how you
can judge me like that without ever having met me... without knowing my
background, and without ever seeing the art that I collect."
boojum the brown bunny
Jeffrey J. Mancebo
: Fan stories, well, yeah, most of the fan fiction i've seen is
: wish-fullfilment fantasies, serious "want to be pro" stuff, and kinda low
: on the comedy. Bad-to-middling comedy is easy. Good comedy is _hard_.
: (By "good" comedy i mean more than just tossing off an endless stream of
: bad puns, although that can be pretty amusing too.)
boojum *giggles* happily.. "Good ANYTHING is hard. It takes lots
of practice and effort to do things Well."
boojum the brown bunny
Karl Meyers
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>Steve Arlow (s...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu) wrote:
>>In article <CJxtM...@news.cis.umn.edu>,
>>Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>>>>Would you care to support your original thesis that most furries will
>>>>buy any piece of crap simply because it's furry?
>>>
>>>Would you spend $1000 for a painting of a tiger-lady? If you can answer
>>>my question, then you'll also have the answer to yours.
>>
>>Please, Tim, must you insult our intellegence with an argument like that?
>
>I don't know how to break this to you, Steve, but at ConFurence 0 a
>painting of a tiger-lady went to auction and sold for $1000.
>
and shelled out big bucks for a piece of art?
Let's see some broad empirical evidence towards your theory, instead of one
localized event. You still haven't proved that most furries will buy
anything that looks furry. (Hell, I'm proof that isn't so..anything I get
that's furry also has to look interesting to me, or I DONT GET IT. So
there!)
KFM!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl F. Meyers Jacksonville, Florida
Internet : kme...@nyx.cs.du.edu FurryMUCK: BJ_Bunny
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deist/Furry Fan/Comics Collector/CrackerCon Staffer/Amateur Writer
Dallas Brawler/Jaguar Fan/RPCG Supporter/Ridicule is the burden of genius
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zeb
Paul Trauth (Paul_...@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US) wrote:
>Fan stories, well, yeah, most of the fan fiction i've seen is
>wish-fullfilment fantasies, serious "want to be pro" stuff,
So what's wrong with wanting to be a pro? I've entertained a few
aspirations of that sort myself, ludicrous they seem in the morning
light...
I've seen plenty of "pro" stuff without the slightest bit of humor.
Granted, a good many fan writers (and artists) take themselves a little
too seriously, but that's not a problem confined just to the professional
wannabes.
>and kinda low
>on the comedy. Bad-to-middling comedy is easy. Good comedy is _hard_.
>(By "good" comedy i mean more than just tossing off an endless stream of
>bad puns, although that can be pretty amusing too.)
The kind of stuff I like to read is the kind of stuff I like to write:
serious works that include humor whenever there's some to be had. One of
my favorites is Joseph Wambaugh, who manages in every novel to blindside
you with one scene of such overwhelming graphic horror that thinking about
it can keep me awake at night (something that Stephen King, another
favorite, has never done) yet also include numerous scenes that have me
laughing so hard I have to stop reading for a moment. And his books are
always themselves serious. The horror, for me, is not as necessary as the
humor, but I like a book, and a writer, who makes the reader experience a
full range of emotion along with his/her characters. There are some out
there, but not as many as you might think.
'Pure' comedy is something I don't do well myself, as you could see by
reading 'Mr. Popularity.' Too often the demands of the form required my
characters to take actions I was not happy with, or not take actions I
felt showed important parts of their makeup, though I bent that one a
little when I had Zeb backhand a helpless female across the mouth during a
tense moment, an action that nobody, myself included, found amusing in
the least. I know character development is possible in a comedy, but I
much prefer to have serious moments interspersed with the funny ones, and
a serious storyline that doesn't require the lunatic turns of events that
a 'pure' comedy requires in order to work as such.
Just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it...
__James
________________________________________________________________________
/ James Charles Lynn -o- jam...@efn.org \
|________________________________________________________________________|
| "Well, let me put it this way: we were two normal, healthy young |
| males who were put in the position of having to share a double |
| bed for the night. Of course we had sex!" |
\________________________________________________________________________/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
Timothy Fay
>
>...Shall we say that most art fans will buy any piece of crap because a
>famous painting gets auctioned off for a few million dollars? If anything,
>this shows precisely the opposite; it shows that people are aware of quality,
>whatever they perceive quality to be, and that they are willing to pay more to
>get quality.
That reasoning might convince someone who hasn't attended a ConFurence art
auction. Unfortunately, I have. There was some stuff there was was very
nice. There was some "crap," too. But about half of the stuff up for
auction, while not actually "crap," was marginal work at best. Yet this
stuff was pulling down bids of $30, $50, even $100. You say this shows
people are aware of quality? On what planet?
(My favorite piece in the show, BTW, was Larry Adams' life-sized Kimba doll.
Unfortunately, it was not for sale. :) )
Timothy Fay
>
> He cocks his head. "I DON'T like you attacking me, frankly.. What?
>You don't understand why I think you are attacking me? Because so far
>you have said that I am incompetent, juvinile, incapable of apreciating
>art, being indiscriminant... The list goes on and on... You weren't
>talking about me? Yes you were.. You said that ALL of Furry fandom is
>this way. And I am a member of Furry Fandom."
No, I've never said ALL furry fans are like that. I have said that I
believe MOST furry fans are like that. If you feel that you do not fall
into any of those categories, then obviously I'm not talking about you.
> boojum bounces idly up and down. "What I don't understand is how you
>can judge me like that without ever having met me... without knowing my
>background, and without ever seeing the art that I collect."
I am not judging you, personally. Unfortunately, some people react that
way to any sort of general critique (e.g., "He said he doesn't like
anthropomorphic foxes, so he must be attacking _me_."). You would,
however, make a more favorable impression if you weren't talking via
a third-person character...
Peter da Silva
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
> That reasoning might convince someone who hasn't attended a ConFurence art
> auction. Unfortunately, I have.
Have you ever attended an auction at any other SF conventions?
David Green
>Mark Phaedrus (phae...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>>...Shall we say that most art fans will buy any piece of crap because a
>>famous painting gets auctioned off for a few million dollars? If anything,
>>this shows precisely the opposite; it shows that people are aware of quality,
>>whatever they perceive quality to be, and that they are willing to pay more
>>to get quality.
>
>That reasoning might convince someone who hasn't attended a ConFurence art
>auction. Unfortunately, I have. There was some stuff there was was very
>nice. There was some "crap," too. But about half of the stuff up for
>auction, while not actually "crap," was marginal work at best. Yet this
>stuff was pulling down bids of $30, $50, even $100. You say this shows
>people are aware of quality? On what planet?
Not being an economist, or really even much of a student of human nature,
I can't guarantee that the following observations are particularly accurate,
but I figure that who knows, they might be worth something.. :)
First thing is that we have somewhat of an example of the laws of supply
and demand here--especially demand. In most of the cases in the art show,
these were originals for sale. A fair number didn't have prints for sale.
People decided how much the pictures were worth -to them- and bit that much
for them. Tim, if you'll please notice above, Mark said, "...people are aware
of quality, *whatever they perceive quality to be*..." [emphasis mine]. The
pictures that went for $30, $50, $100 might not have been worth that much to
you. Obviously, most of them weren't worth that much to me (or my credit card
would be melting about now...). Apparently, though, they were worth that much
to somebody. Just because something doesn't meet your own personal definition
of quality, it doesn't mean that no one else should like it.
Heading back toward what I was saying about demand, though... Especially
with pieces without prints (or more irreproducible media such as sculpture),
people are going to be willing to pay more for something if it's the only
one that will be available to them. Even with those that do have prints,
the originals are going to be clearer and higher quality (more than likely)
than the copies. The more you want something, the more you're going to be
willing to pay for it.
There are pieces out there that most people would agree are "bad." But
if someone sees something in it that he (or she) likes, I suspect you
haven't been appointed by the Council For a Better Universe(tm) to tell
this person that they shouldn't like it because X, Y, and Z. :) He (or she)
is welcome to an opinion, even if most of the rest of the world disagrees.
After all, art is a hard thing to quantify.
--
David Green
"A streetlamp dies, another night is over,
Another day is dawning..."
GM/CS d p++ c++ l u+ e+ m++ s+/+ !n h+ f+ !g w+ t+@ r+@ !y
John VanStry
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>That reasoning might convince someone who hasn't attended a ConFurence art
>auction. Unfortunately, I have. There was some stuff there was was very
>nice. There was some "crap," too. But about half of the stuff up for
>auction, while not actually "crap," was marginal work at best. Yet this
>stuff was pulling down bids of $30, $50, even $100. You say this shows
>people are aware of quality? On what planet?
I attended my first ConFurence ever this last weekend. While there I
also attended the Art Auction, (there was a piece I was interested in).
All of the Art I saw at the action was well above 'marginal'. True
there were some pieces I saw that the artwork was not the greatest,
but in those it was the subject matter (often humour), which redeemed
them. And as for the prices, they were not that high, ($200 dollars
is not out of bounds for something that looks good if you like it.)
And having grown up in a family that contained two good artist's, I
have been exposed to _alot_ of it, and learned even more. So I know
Quality when I see it. I also have a good feeling for price as well.
Some of what went for 70 or 80 dollars at the action would easily have
brought two or three _hundred_ dollars if sold in the right place.
So don't be so quick to sell all those furry artist's short. Most
produce better art than I've seen in SoHo or Christy's, where art
often sells for _tens_of_thousands_ of dollars!
(that's _my_ two cents worth!)
--
jvan...@nyx.cs.du.edu
van...@agora.rain.com
A sig in search of a good quote.
Mark Phaedrus
(Timothy Fay) wrote:
> That reasoning might convince someone who hasn't attended a ConFurence art
> auction. Unfortunately, I have. There was some stuff there was was very
> nice. There was some "crap," too. But about half of the stuff up for
> auction, while not actually "crap," was marginal work at best. Yet this
> stuff was pulling down bids of $30, $50, even $100. You say this shows
> people are aware of quality? On what planet?
If you can come up with an definition of quality that's objective and
that everyone can agree on, you have a very, very good future ahead of you
as an art critic. But somehow, I just don't think this is going to happen.
:)
Let me try this again, and add an alternative case that's certainly
important. If people are putting down very high bids on something at a con
auction, with all sorts of other products available for much lower prices
on the show floor outside, it shows one of two things:
*They see something _in that particular work_ that makes it very
worthwhile (to them), something that makes it seem reasonable (to them) to
spend $30 or $50 or $100 or $1000 on that one particular work instead of
going outside and buying three or five or ten or a hundred works at $10
each. We can argue until the next century on whether or not this something
is "quality", because you, I, and the person buying the work will never be
able to agree on a definition of "quality" to work from. But it
contradicts the theory that they will buy anything, because if all they
cared about was buying furry works without regard to quality, they'd be out
on the con floor buying the lowest-priced things they could find until they
ran out of money.
*They are terminally stupid. In some cases, I would certainly agree
with you on this interpretation. :) But I would submit in return that, in
_any_ group of people the size of the average con, there are going to be a
significant number of people who are terminally stupid. On the main floor
of the con, you may not notice them as much, because they are usually
outnumbered by the people with something of a clue. But in an auction they
can stand out like a beacon, because it only takes two people to bid the
price of an item up. And the actions of these two people still don't prove
the blanket statement that furry fans will buy anything.
(Me, I _wish_ I could buy anything. As it is, I have to be pretty
darn stingy. :) )
--
\o\Internet: phae...@halcyon.com (Seattle, WA Public Access Unix)\o\
\o\ "How'd you like to move a few steps down the food chain, pal?" \o\
\o\ If you're interested in books/stories with transformation \o\
\o\themes, or in furry/anthropomorphic art, email me, or anonymous-\o\
\o\ftp to ftp.halcyon.com and check the /local/phaedrus directory. \o\
Tygger
: Would you spend $1000 for a painting of a tiger-lady? If you can answer
: my question, then you'll also have the answer to yours.
Dean here.
* I * might. Your question as posed is much too vague for a definitive
answer.
And regarding your complaint that people were taking too seriously a
comment you claim was intended as a joke, IMHO, you have only yourself to
blame for that misconception. Perhaps if you had not spent so much
bandwidth flaming furry fandom in previous posts, people might have been
more able to appreciate your attempt at humor. An example: had Lynx,
Tygger, or I made such a comment, would so much umbrage been taken? I
think not. Why? Because none of us have the history YOU do of
criticizing fur fandom on so many other matters and occasions. YOU made
your bed, YOU cried for your wolf, now YOU deal with it.
Dean
--
******************************************************************************
Hit List: John Nunnemacher, Horseman, Mavin, Lynx, Dusty, Beiro, Tony
Newall, Goat, Zoe, McMoo, Groat (retired), Steve Gallacci, Brian Harp,
Orrin, Cinnamon, Andre, Eric Elliott (great kisser), Noah Miller, Lyon
(is it still there?), Ken Sample, Omaha, Lisa Innecco, and the many others I
busted at CF 5! And the biggest hit of all: Jimmy Chin! How's your blood
pressure, Bunnell? GRIN!
Tygger
: I don't know how to break this to you, Steve, but at ConFurence 0 a
: painting of a tiger-lady went to auction and sold for $1000.
Dean here.
I don't how to break this to YOU, Tim, but you just bit yourself in the
foot. A small, but grammatically indespenible word, in your example is
the article "a". This article refers to one SPECIFIC item. NOT a class
of SIMILAR items, just ONE. The fact that you can recall this incident
with clarity indicates that it was remarkable. If furfen were as
indiscriminate in their purchasing as you claim, such incidents would not
be remarkable. They would, in fact, be so common place that it would
take an auction price perhaps as high as five digits to cause comment.
I have attended a few ConFurence auctions and I have observed the
audience generally reacts with surprise and increased interest any time
an auction price reaches the magic three digit mark. Why? Because it
doesn't happen very often. Perhaps it's not just the fact that a given
piece is furry, but that it is furry and also extremely appealing because
of other elements independent of the species of the subject.
Then again, that possibility would knock the feet out from under your
position, wouldn't it? Then again, you might have to admit that you
spoke rashly and incorrectly, wouldn't you? Perhaps you'd be safer and
more comfortable using one of your repertoire of high school debating
tactics rather than answering my point directly, hm?
Tygger
: That reasoning might convince someone who hasn't attended a ConFurence art
: auction. Unfortunately, I have. There was some stuff there was was very
Dean here.
So have I and so, I would wager, has Mark Phaedrus, and so have MANY of
the people who disagree with you on this point. So attendance at an
auction as inducement to your "level" of discernment and sophistication
(please note sarcasm light) is flawed.
: But about half of the stuff up for
: auction, while not actually "crap," was marginal work at best. Yet this
In your opinion.
: stuff was pulling down bids of $30, $50, even $100. You say this shows
: people are aware of quality? On what planet?
When Picasso first started his surrealistic cubist style, many critics
and connoisseurs rejected it in a manner similar to yours: well-spoken
and oh-so-smug.
I am not attempting to equate even the best furry art with Picasso's
work. I AM pointing out that value, like beauty, is a subjective concept
and no one person's definition of it is of any more importance than
another's. Just because YOU considered the majority of work in that
auction to be marginal does not mean that it WAS. Obviously, at least
some people who were there disagreed with you. Without knowing them each
personally, how can you CLAIM your ability to judge the worth of art to
be superior to theirs?
James Littlejohn
it could have been better, In my opinion, So you see, What one person
might see a "crap" another person might see as pretty and be willing to
spend the money on it, It's all a matter of what each person likes.
ProLine: jjohn@pro-amber
Internet: jj...@pro-amber.cts.com
UUCP: crash!pro-amber!jjohn
Jason C. Short
: I'm curious. I just read a review of CF5 and they said that two art
: auctions were held. That strikes me as odd. Could anyone explain why they
: did that? I'm definatly curious.
: --
: Greg Riedesel
: IcyTundra University, Minnesota {temporarily experiencing January thaw}
: ried...@cda.mrs.umn.edu
The story I got was (in a nutshell) that the first auction was to clear
space in the art show.
--
| j...@capri.com Jason Short
Steve Arlow
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>Steve Arlow (s...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu) wrote:
>>In article <CJxtM...@news.cis.umn.edu>,
>>Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>>>>Would you care to support your original thesis that most furries will
>>>>buy any piece of crap simply because it's furry?
>>>
>>>Would you spend $1000 for a painting of a tiger-lady? If you can answer
>>>my question, then you'll also have the answer to yours.
>>
>>Please, Tim, must you insult our intellegence with an argument like that?
>
>I don't know how to break this to you, Steve, but at ConFurence 0 a
>painting of a tiger-lady went to auction and sold for $1000.
I was not at CF0, so I cannot comment on your $1,000 tiger-lady, but:
At CF5, Baron Engel's painting for the cover of Steam Victorian 2 had
a minimum bid of $1,100. Frankly, I think $1,100 is a fair price for
a work of that quality -- even though the central figure was a lion-man,
and the image itself was a furry-fied version of an earlier treatment
of "War of the Worlds". It certainly outdid everything else in the
art show, and was of more than sufficient quality to be sold
professionally.
Steve Arlow
Gregory L. Riedesel <ried...@cdb.mrs.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm curious. I just read a review of CF5 and they said that two art
>auctions were held. That strikes me as odd. Could anyone explain why they
>did that? I'm definatly curious.
Presumably to keep the auctions down to a managable length; only pieces
wiith four or more bids went to each auction.
Gary Breuckman
>
> I'm curious. I just read a review of CF5 and they said that two art
>auctions were held. That strikes me as odd. Could anyone explain why they
>did that? I'm definatly curious.
Sure...
Items are hung in the art show with a bid sheet. If there are four bids on
an item, then it goes to the auction. Items that already had four bids by
Saturday night went to auction then (about 50 items). There was a second
auction on Sunday for items that received their four by then. Some folks
have to leave before the Sunday auction, so I think I like that arrangement.
Mark Phaedrus
>Timothy Fay (ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu) wrote:
>: That reasoning might convince someone who hasn't attended a ConFurence art
>: auction. Unfortunately, I have. There was some stuff there was was very
>Dean here.
>So have I and so, I would wager, has Mark Phaedrus, and so have MANY of
>the people who disagree with you on this point.
Actually, no I haven't. (This is due to the unmitigated gall of the
ConFurence organizers in always locating the con more than a thousand miles
away from where I am, without even showing the common courtesy to send me
plane fare. :) ) But I've been to science fiction cons, gaming cons, comic
cons, etc., including a couple with a substantial furry presence; and I've
helped sell things at a number of these cons. I've seen very similar dynamics
at all of them when it comes to people buying and selling things. I very
much doubt that ConFurence was _that_ different, judging from the descriptions
here. At any of the cons I've been to, the few people who'd "buy anything"
usually didn't make it to the auction room--they were going down the aisles of
the main floor, buying something from at least half the booths, until they ran
out of money and went away. And there weren't nearly enough of them. :)
At the auctions, there were always a few items that went for insanely high
prices, with the crowd usually looking on in a mixture of amusement and
disbelief; but for the most part things went pretty predictably. I would be
particularly surprised if ConFurence was a major exception to that rule; since
furry cons are so rare, people were probably flying in from all over the place,
and the sort of people who can afford to fly to a con are generally not the
sort of people who throw money away totally at random.
David Green
->Tygger (tyg...@netcom.com) wrote:
->>Timothy Fay (ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu) wrote:
->>When Picasso first started his surrealistic cubist style, many critics
->>and connoisseurs rejected it in a manner similar to yours: well-spoken
->>and oh-so-smug.
->>
->>I am not attempting to equate even the best furry art with Picasso's
->>work.
->
->If you're not comparing "furry" art with Picasso, then why are you bringing
->up Picasso in the first place? It's like the member of ROWR-BRAZZLE who
->pointed out that the art in ROCKY AND BULLWINKLE was pretty lousy, too.
->But the difference between ROCKY AND BULLWINKLE and most "furry" art is
->that R&B is funny and well-written; enough to make up for most of the
->deficiencies in the animation. Unfortunately, a lot of "furry" art is
->badly-drawn AND poorly written.
Mmm? Problem here is, there's no way to make a fair comparison of R&B to
99+% of what shows up in the art show. R&B is animated, has dialogue, a
plot, and (I would assume) a decent budget. A lot of the stuff in the art
show is done by amateurs and people who don't draw for a living, but who
do it for their own (and others') enjoyment. (We -were- talking about
the art show earlier, weren't we? The only writing I see on most of the
stuff there is the artist's signature. :)
->>I AM pointing out that value, like beauty, is a subjective concept
->>and no one person's definition of it is of any more importance than
->>another's. Just because YOU considered the majority of work in that
->>auction to be marginal does not mean that it WAS.
->
->But objective standards of artistic merit exist, at least on some level,
->for almost any kind of art. Otherwise, there would be no such thing
->as "good" or "bad" art.
You mean there is?
There are, of course, realistic and unrealistic portrayals. There are
pictures that look almost like photographs of what they represent and
there are pictures where you can't figure out what they're of. Where
do we draw this "good/bad" line? And what if someone disagrees with
where it's drawn?...
Scott Alan Malcomson
: >>>buy any piece of crap simply because it's furry?
: I don't know how to break this to you, Steve, but at ConFurence 0 a
: painting of a tiger-lady went to auction and sold for $1000.
Which, of course, is using the exception to "prove" the rule. Let's talk
CF5, which I just returned from. There were perhaps fifty furries or
thereabouts bidding on various pieces. Of those, a goodly chunk walked away
with nothing due to the high levels of bidding taking place...I would
estimate roughly half the bidders ended up not buying anything. Twenty-five
furries with a lot of cash...tell you what. I'll be conservative as all get
out and assume that furfandom, _in toto_, amounts to 3000 people nationwide.
25 of 3000 is therefore 1.2% of the overall furry population, and I will
point out that the CF5 art show was the biggest to date.
Your theory that furries will buy anything solely because it has fur,
and not because of writing, art, or anything else, is apparently based on your
observations of slightly more than 1% of the furry population at large. Not
a very convincing argument on your part, I'm afraid.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: >this shows precisely the opposite; it shows that people are aware of quality,
: >whatever they perceive quality to be, and that they are willing to pay more to
: >get quality.
: That reasoning might convince someone who hasn't attended a ConFurence art
: auction. Unfortunately, I have.
So have I...the most recent one. I trust you were there to gain up-to-date
information on your theories...?
: There was some stuff there was was very
: nice. There was some "crap," too. But about half of the stuff up for
: auction, while not actually "crap," was marginal work at best. Yet this
: stuff was pulling down bids of $30, $50, even $100. You say this shows
: people are aware of quality? On what planet?
I will point out that recently a red line flanked by two blue lines and
having a title having to do with fire recently sold in the "real" art world
for several millions of dollars. I have seen piss-poor watercolors and
scritch-scratch art in major museums with price tags far beyond the powers of
mortal men. I have even seen a series of plywood boards with scrawlings across
its entire face that were more reminiscient of a high school desktop than a
work of art going for $30,000.
If Vicky Wyman's cover for the latest Everchanging Palace CANNOT
bring in more than a couple of hundred dollars, it's evident that furries are
the PIKERS of the art world. Hell, *I* sold a piece for $10 in the art
show that beats hell out of stuff in a gallery that sells for twenty times
that in the "real world". Perhaps I'm in the wrong racket.
: (My favorite piece in the show, BTW, was Larry Adams' life-sized Kimba doll.
: Unfortunately, it was not for sale. :) )
It was nice, but I much preferred Cindy Crowell's "Carousel Cadence", not to
mention numerous Foglio pieces that started at prices exceeding my cost
for getting to the convention in the first place. *sigh* Po' folx and good
art don't mix...
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: Jeffrey J. Mancebo (boo...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >talking about me? Yes you were.. You said that ALL of Furry fandom is
: >this way. And I am a member of Furry Fandom."
: No, I've never said ALL furry fans are like that. I have said that I
: believe MOST furry fans are like that. If you feel that you do not fall
: into any of those categories, then obviously I'm not talking about you.
Then I trust that in future, Mr. Fay, rather than say (and I quote), "Furry
fans will buy anything with fur in it", you will specify WHAT furry fans you
are referring to. Your comments appear to have been directed at the entire
genre, and I will also note that you have yet to prove that even MOST furries
fit your claim of indiscriminate purchasing.
---LCD
Timothy Fay
>: auction, while not actually "crap," was marginal work at best. Yet this
>
>In your opinion.
Well, yeah. I mean, it's not like I'm posting someone _else's_ opinion...
>: stuff was pulling down bids of $30, $50, even $100. You say this shows
>: people are aware of quality? On what planet?
>
>When Picasso first started his surrealistic cubist style, many critics
>and connoisseurs rejected it in a manner similar to yours: well-spoken
>and oh-so-smug.
>
>I am not attempting to equate even the best furry art with Picasso's
>work.
If you're not comparing "furry" art with Picasso, then why are you bringing
up Picasso in the first place? It's like the member of ROWR-BRAZZLE who
pointed out that the art in ROCKY AND BULLWINKLE was pretty lousy, too.
But the difference between ROCKY AND BULLWINKLE and most "furry" art is
that R&B is funny and well-written; enough to make up for most of the
deficiencies in the animation. Unfortunately, a lot of "furry" art is
badly-drawn AND poorly written.
>I AM pointing out that value, like beauty, is a subjective concept
>and no one person's definition of it is of any more importance than
>another's. Just because YOU considered the majority of work in that
>auction to be marginal does not mean that it WAS.
But objective standards of artistic merit exist, at least on some level,
for almost any kind of art. Otherwise, there would be no such thing
as "good" or "bad" art. If you equate value with beauty, then the CF5
artshow was very beautiful indeed (considering the thousands of dollars
it netted for the artists and for the convention). But if you see art
as something other than a bottom line on a ledger, then the artshow wasn't
quite that lovely.
John Turner
(Timothy Fay) writes:
|> Would you spend $1000 for a painting of a tiger-lady?
Well, I have never spent $1000 for any piece of art, and I do not know what
its quality was, but if I was going to spend $1000 and I saw and
exceptionaly good tiger-lady it would probably be on the top of my list.
This probably puts me in your "crap" profile. I do not concider myself to
be any less discerning though.
What it seems like to me is that you are pulling the old trick of calling a
piece of art "crap" because you dont like it, and rather than simply
stating that you dont like it. Matters are further complicated because
most furry art is colored line art rather than what is usualy concidered
"fine" art. But line art is still art. In some ways it takes less work,
but it has it own unique challenges.
IMNHO $30, $40, and a more than fair price for good line art. If it
"grabs" you it is worth much more than that. And guess what -furry art
"grabs" a lot of us. If you want expensive, then look at the price of
"fine" art. A litho of Olivia's zebra girl goes for about $260. The
origial art for "Steam Victorian" and the art of the lady who did the cover
for the World con. program guide (all of which was on display at CF - so
much for CF only having "crap" eh?) goes for quite a tidy sum.
Some of the art at CF went for more than it would probably be worth on the
general market, and more than I would pay for it. You would probably say
that the person lacked discresion, and bought crap. Instead, I would say
that the art piece called to the person in a way that it did not call to
me, and who ever bought it has as much right to judge art as I do. Crap
and non crap is so subjective, do not condem me for liking crap just
because my opinion is different then yours. I feal that the art of
Greywolf, Tygger, and Terri Smith is just as much art as what is classicaly
called "fine" art.
We do vote with our dollars too. I saw some pieces depicting a furry from
an abduction sceen. I did not think that they was in good taste, but I'm
not screeming for censorship as they were in the "adult only" section.
Evidently I was not the only one who did not particularly like the subject
matter, because though they were drawn as well as most furry art, none of
them made it to auction.
A while ago there was a thread something to the equivilent of "there is no
huorous furry art because humor is too hard to do for the likes of furry
artists." Well, to counter that there were two or three humorous pieces at
CF that went for over $200.
Katarn
--
- John Turner (jtu...@bast.mfg.sgi.com)|Monster Grendel was rather
-Standard disclaimer- My opinions |plainish, for breakfast he
are mine, SGI can't have them |would simply have a couple
and I doubt that SGI would want them. |of Danish...
Tygger
: If you're not comparing "furry" art with Picasso, then why are you bringing
: up Picasso in the first place?
If you would pay attention and read my following paragraph, and consider
the two as parts of a single article (as consecutive paragraphs are
usually considered), you should be able to figure out why I bring up
Picasso. Or are you deliberately targeting an example which is intended
only as illustration instead of answering the point which the example is
attempting to illustrate?
: But objective standards of artistic merit exist, at least on some level,
: for almost any kind of art. Otherwise, there would be no such thing
: as "good" or "bad" art.
How can objective standards of artistic merit exist on any level, without
restricting an artist's creativity? Sometimes, the artist may
intentionally create crude, near-indecipherable images in order to convey
a point. If the artist is successful, despite the refinement of the
finished work, is that "good" art or "bad" art?
Keith Giffen made his reputation at DC Comics with clean, exquisitely
proportioned and detailed images in LEGION OF SUPERHEROES. Then he
encountered a French artist whose name escapes me. Keith was so taken
with this artist's awkward, exaggerated, sometimes apparently clumsy
linework that he abandoned the style which had made his reputation for
this other style. Now all you see his work on is "alternative" titles.
Quite likely, all he would need to do in order to regain his former
popularity is return to his original style. Yet he apparently prefers to
stay with the style he uses now. He is satisfied, or seems so. So is
the art he produces now "good" or bad"?
There are NO objective standards by which art may be reviewed which do
not limit the artist.
: "My mental facilities are TWICE what yours are -- you pea brain!"
: -Percival McLeach
Tell me, do you use this quote because it holds some personal significance?
Dean.
R'ykandar Korra'ti
>I don't know how to break this to you, Steve, but at ConFurence 0 a
>painting of a tiger-lady went to auction and sold for $1000.
for an original piece of artwork that people in the "mainstream" fine
art world wouldn't consider a slap in the face?
You alert the media. I'll get the smelling salts. For myself.
- R'ykandar, who isn't
exaggerating. Much. :-)
--
R'ykandar Korra'ti | LOW ORBIT: 80% layout complete
da...@microsoft.com | REFRACTIONS: 80% data entry complete, now proofreading
Steve Arlow
>: nice. There was some "crap," too. But about half of the stuff up for
>: auction, while not actually "crap," was marginal work at best. Yet this
>: stuff was pulling down bids of $30, $50, even $100. You say this shows
>: people are aware of quality? On what planet?
>
>I will point out that recently a red line flanked by two blue lines and
>having a title having to do with fire recently sold in the "real" art world
>for several millions of dollars. I have seen piss-poor watercolors and
>scritch-scratch art in major museums with price tags far beyond the powers of
>mortal men. I have even seen a series of plywood boards with scrawlings across
>its entire face that were more reminiscient of a high school desktop than a
>work of art going for $30,000.
Danger, Danger, Will Robinson! While I disagree with Tim's basic thesis,
this argument doesn't hold water, either. Before you go proclaiming the
work of Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollack, or other nonrepresentational artists
as piss-poor junk, don't you think you'd better do some studying to find
out just why so many intellegent people seem to value it so highly?
Much "modern" art cannot be properly appreciated without an understanding
of the history that led up to it. If you denounce it categorically by
saying something like "My five-year-old can do better than that!" you will
be dismissed as a philistine in short order. Some art requires intellectual
rather than aesthetic appreciation -- the same is true of music, where
I suspect you can think of numerous examples.
John Lussmyer
> That reasoning might convince someone who hasn't attended a ConFurence art
> auction. Unfortunately, I have. There was some stuff there was was very
> nice. There was some "crap," too. But about half of the stuff up for
> auction, while not actually "crap," was marginal work at best. Yet this
> stuff was pulling down bids of $30, $50, even $100. You say this shows
> people are aware of quality? On what planet?
>
> (My favorite piece in the show, BTW, was Larry Adams' life-sized Kimba doll.
> Unfortunately, it was not for sale. :) )
One persons "crap" is another's fertilizer. (i.e. everyones tastes
are different.) I also was at the first ConFurence auction (I was
the guy wearing the white suit with dragons air-brushed all over it.)
I saw some pieces that I thought were quite good go for low prices,
and some pieces that I would have thrown in the trash go for high
prices. It just depends on what the particular person likes. (I
think that VanGogh is pure garbage myself, but idiots spend lots
of $$$$ for it.)
The life-size Kimba was GREAT!
My problem with ConFurence was that I am used to east-coast cons
where you only have 1 auction on sat night. My flight left before
the sunday auction. I have no idea if I was the high bidder on
about 7 pieces I bid on. Hopefully someone will call me soon
to tell me....
John Lussmyer
--
John Lussmyer (dra...@angus.mystery.com)
Mystery Spot BBS, Royal Oak, MI --------------------------------------------?--
Timothy Fay
Tygger (tyg...@netcom.com) wrote:
>Timothy Fay (ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu) wrote:
>
>: If you're not comparing "furry" art with Picasso, then why are you bringing
>: up Picasso in the first place?
>
>If you would pay attention and read my following paragraph, and consider
>the two as parts of a single article (as consecutive paragraphs are
>usually considered), you should be able to figure out why I bring up
>Picasso. Or are you deliberately targeting an example which is intended
>only as illustration instead of answering the point which the example is
>attempting to illustrate?
You drew a comparison with the way Picasso was treated by his critics,
and the way you think I am treating "furry" art. But then you said you
weren't making any comparisons with Picasso. I was merely pointing out
the apparent contradiction in your statements.
>: But objective standards of artistic merit exist, at least on some level,
>: for almost any kind of art. Otherwise, there would be no such thing
>: as "good" or "bad" art.
>
>How can objective standards of artistic merit exist on any level, without
>restricting an artist's creativity? Sometimes, the artist may
>intentionally create crude, near-indecipherable images in order to convey
>a point. If the artist is successful, despite the refinement of the
>finished work, is that "good" art or "bad" art?
Standards of artistic merit don't necessarily impede an artist's creativity
(unless the artist is afraid of not achieving those standards). As I said
before, without any standards there would be no such thing as "good" or
"bad" art. But if you honestly believe there are no objective standards
for "furry" art, then any critique, positive or negative, would be
meaningless to you.
Stick figures are about the crudest type of art there is. But Matt Feazell
was able to do some very creative things with stick figures. ROCKY AND
BULLWINKLE were, by almost any standard, crudely drawn. Yet those cartoons
are among the funniest and most creative ever made. Those artists were able
to covey their points with very limited art. But crudely-drawn furry pin-ups
don't usually communicate anything other than that they are crudely-drawn.
>There are NO objective standards by which art may be reviewed which do
>not limit the artist.
An artist is limited only by their imagination and the amount of lead in
their pencil. You can buy pencils at the corner store, but acquiring
imagination is somewhat more difficult...
>: "My mental facilities are TWICE what yours are -- you pea brain!"
>: -Percival McLeach
>
>Tell me, do you use this quote because it holds some personal significance?
Yes. I think it is funny.
(I guess you have to watch THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER in order to get this
gag...)
--
Reply to: ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu
fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
"I think you've got something, there. Better get a broom and clean it up."
-Groucho Marx
Jazmyn Concolor
>In article <pumaCK6...@netcom.com> pu...@netcom.com (Gary Breuckman) writes:
>>Items are hung in the art show with a bid sheet. If there are four bids on
>>an item, then it goes to the auction. Items that already had four bids by
>>Saturday night went to auction then (about 50 items). There was a second
>>auction on Sunday for items that received their four by then. Some folks
>>have to leave before the Sunday auction, so I think I like that arrangement.
>
>Minicon only) only a handfull had their four bids by the end of the first
>night. I take it that this art auction was QUITE big.
>
Concidering that 64 pieces went to the Saturday auction and 75 pieces to the
Sunday auction, it kept us from having one really long auction. As it was, the
caberet was delayed by the length of the first auction.
Phil Foglio and his wife, Kaja made great auctioneers for the Saturday auction
though and outside of a few minor problems here and there, this art show ran
quite smoothly this time. It will take me a couple of weeks to wade through the
paperwork though and get the artists checks out to them, but I'm working as fast
as I can on it..and still trying to do mundane work too..:P