Be careful what you wish for...

38 views
Skip to first unread message

Daphne Lage

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
Well, talk about only being a matter of time...

Even with official announcements concerning the selling of erotica in the Den of
Dealers, I'm more confused than ever over what will be allowed or not allowed.
It seems that no matter what, this whole situation is being played by ear and
probably no one will get the final policy until minutes before the show opens.

That being said, I just want to clarify a few things I've been reading in the
past several hours.

There is nothing wrong with CF being forced to clean up it's act. In fact, there
have been rumblings about something like this happening for years. But, what I
resent is the overall "suddenness" of the announcement and the extreme hotel
policy. My take on it is, if ConFURence has always had this bad of a
reputation - or forget rep, it's not like this will be the first year erotic art
will be sold - then why wasn't the hotel notified *from the beginning* that
erotic art will be sold on the premises? It certainly would have saved a lot of
headaches for both the hotel and the con. There's a note to the new CF staff.

And look - I know and most of us know that erotic art isn't the all of the
fandom. But just looking at my sales record proves that erotica makes up the
bulk of my sales *especially* at ConFURence. It doesn't matter that I try to
split my products down the middle and that I don't exclusively cater to erotic
tastes - but that's where I see most of my money. I have said for years that my
erotic prints outsell the clean stuff a minimum of 2:1. And it has *never*
changed.

So think about it - the only people really complaining about the new policy are
*dealers* - dealers who have experienced the buying tastes of congoers and know
what to expect. We know what gets *said* and *guarantee* what money gets spent
on. The new hotel policy only throws everything off kilter. If the hotel decides
that it will allow covered displays of erotic art, then there is nothing for
anyone to worry about. But if they are serious about an all out BAN, then it may
not be something easily recoverable from. And I'm not talking about a "little
inconvenience" either.

Yes, I understand that most con-goers go for the camaraderie and etc. but the
dealers are there on *business.* I am a business person and am taking this
announcement *very seriously.* I am not some closet freak or loser upset that
won't be able to publicly display my adult stuff for all the drooling fanboys. I
have always tried to be tasteful in any display of my erotica as to not offend
gentler folks. I am upset because of the all out ban, I may lose more than
*half* my sales and flying out to San Diego is a pain and expensive enough as
is.

If this, the erotica issue on premises, had been taken care of from the
beginning and the hotel decided to ban such items anyway, I would have never
have decided to go to CF - saving my money and energy for closer and more
"lenient" shows such as Anthrocon.

Yes - this may be a golden opportunity for ConFURence to finally clean up it's
image, but my sales figures may not allow me to include myself in it. I'm sorry
about being so dour and don't get me wrong - I do enjoy the travel and seeing
fans I wouldn't see anywhere else, but like any venture, the trip has to
ultimately be *justified* and the only thing that does that is my sales. Like I
said, if the hotel eases up and allows covered displays, then there's nothing to
worry about and I'll be the first one to sign up for CF11 (trust me, this is
what I'm *really* hoping for!)

Now, if we could just find the asshole who started this whole mess. >:(

Just an opinion from a dealer.

--Daphne Lage
****************************************************************
The EgoWorks - Free catalog available -
http://www.advanix.net/~egoraven/
****************************************************************
TALL TAILS - The Official Homepage
http://www.advanix.net/~egoraven/ttmain.htm
****************************************************************
"The only thing you can change is yourself,
but sometimes that changes everything." - Anonymous
****************************************************************

ista...@airmail.net

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
>Yes - this may be a golden opportunity for ConFURence to finally clean up it's
>image, but my sales figures may not allow me to include myself in it. I'm sorry
>about being so dour and don't get me wrong - I do enjoy the travel and seeing
>fans I wouldn't see anywhere else, but like any venture, the trip has to
>ultimately be *justified* and the only thing that does that is my sales. Like I
>said, if the hotel eases up and allows covered displays, then there's nothing to
>worry about and I'll be the first one to sign up for CF11 (trust me, this is
>what I'm *really* hoping for!)

And this, folks, is the real issue, what may end up doing some serious
harm to CF, if not killing it outright. No, the furry fandom isn't all
about spooge. But it makes up enough of artists' revenues that many of
them will decide not to show.

Many dealers choose not to go, many fans decide not to go.

Less fans decide to go, more dealers drop.

More dealers drop, more fans drop.

Until finally, you have a con where the dealers won't attend for lack
of fans, and the fans won't attend for lack of dealers. It's a vicious
cycle, and if many dealers decided it just wasn't worth it to them to
lose that much money on these trips, I honestly couldn't blame them.


Istanbul
- will be going to FC or AAC next year if things don't work out


Dar Thornton

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to

Daphne Lage <egor...@advanix.net> wrote in message
news:7dofvp$qdf$1...@crucigera.fysh.org...

> Yes - this may be a golden opportunity for ConFURence to finally clean up
it's
> image, but my sales figures may not allow me to include myself in it. I'm
sorry
> about being so dour and don't get me wrong - I do enjoy the travel and
seeing
> fans I wouldn't see anywhere else, but like any venture, the trip has to
> ultimately be *justified* and the only thing that does that is my sales.
Like I
> said, if the hotel eases up and allows covered displays, then there's
nothing to
> worry about and I'll be the first one to sign up for CF11 (trust me, this
is
> what I'm *really* hoping for!)

I see your point here, and I do hope that things will be worked out in order
to accomodate all dealers at CFX. I should've thought about the dealer's
perspective on this in my last post, as sales are their justification for
being at cons. I apologize for not taking such into consideration before
posting.

The dealers have to make a profit, and they have a better pulse on what the
fanbase wants to buy. Although a lot of erotic material out there isn't my
bag, I do respect the rights of others to buy or sell what they choose.

> Just an opinion from a dealer.

Well-received by a consumer.

Dar Thornton
http://www.jps.net/dthorn10/


Sun-stone

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
Michael Pena wrote:

> I think they are very serious about an outright ban. They have
> no
> choice becuase of thier liquor license. We have a similar law
> in Texas
> that forces "all nude" dancing establishments to be Bring You
> Own Beer
> Only.

This seems to be a U.S. thing. Up here in Manitoba, there is no
problem with having exotic dancers at a licensed establishment.
I had always thought that America was *more* open about stuff
like that.

Cheers;
J. J.


Kyle L. Webb

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
Sun-stone wrote:
>
>
> This seems to be a U.S. thing. Up here in Manitoba, there is no
> problem with having exotic dancers at a licensed establishment.
> I had always thought that America was *more* open about stuff
> like that.

Dunno. I get the feeling the hotel is selectively enforcing on this one.
I've yet to see many resort class hotels that don't have cable in their
rooms including R rated (late night HBO, Cinemax etc.), and often X
rated material. I'll be interested to see if any of the magazine racks
often found in hotels of this size have Playboy for sale on them. Some
things about the hotel's position don't quite ring true. I bet they were
put off by the material they saw at those URLs, and made a decision to
enforce to the letter.

Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet

Allen Kitchen

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to

Daphne Lage wrote:

> And look - I know and most of us know that erotic art isn't the all of the
> fandom. But just looking at my sales record proves that erotica makes up the
> bulk of my sales *especially* at ConFURence. It doesn't matter that I try to
> split my products down the middle and that I don't exclusively cater to erotic
> tastes - but that's where I see most of my money. I have said for years that my
> erotic prints outsell the clean stuff a minimum of 2:1. And it has *never*
> changed.

If your comic was erotic, I would not buy it.

If Tygger's were erotic, I would not buy it.

I buy a fair bit of art and portfolios. I got them through Ed,
and not through Confurence.

So. Count me as one of those people who spend what little
cash they have on R rated pinups or below. There are more of us
than you think, and we buy stuff because it is clever and well done.
You really should count your comics as "items sold" in your equation
milady.

Allen Kitchen (shockwave, looking for something new this week)

Tandy

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
> > This seems to be a U.S. thing. Up here in Manitoba, there is no
> > problem with having exotic dancers at a licensed establishment.
> > I had always thought that America was *more* open about stuff
> > like that.

As diverse as the US is, so are the attitudes.

In some places, it's very open. Drinks, liquor, nude dancing, lap
dances, you name it.

In other places, it's very puritanical. They'll fight the nude
dancing... and forget about liquor being anyplace NEAR one of those
establishments. (If I recall, there's a county someplace that prevents even
a LIQUOR store anywhere NEAR an adult establishment. Commercial zone laws
are written as such.)

Kyle L. Webb

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
ba...@ursine.dyndns.org wrote:
>
> But you know what, they wouldn't have anything to complain about morally.
> They wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and guess who looks stupid

Since when is reasonableness a requirement for effective propaganda?
Whether they had a leg to stand on or not, the appeal is an emotional
one deep seated in the human psyche. Shun the different. Shun them
loudly so you reaffirm that you aren't part of the different.

Graf

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to

Allen Kitchen wrote in message <370053DB...@blkbox.com>...

>If your comic was erotic, I would not buy it.
>
>If Tygger's were erotic, I would not buy it.

Not that I'd make GK erotic, but I understand your point.

>I buy a fair bit of art and portfolios. I got them through Ed,
>and not through Confurence.
>
>So. Count me as one of those people who spend what little
>cash they have on R rated pinups or below. There are more of us
>than you think, and we buy stuff because it is clever and well done.
>You really should count your comics as "items sold" in your equation
>milady.

I know there are those who will buy nonerotica. Daphne and I have spoken
about these folks at length on the phone, wondering what it is that we do
that goes so wrong that we can't seem to hardly touch that demand. The
problem lies in that they don't even come close to meeting the numbers,
business wise, that those who buy the erotica do. I'm not saying that you
and others who buy only nonerotica are to be discounted, not at all. In
being bluntly honest, I just wish that MORE of you particular folks would
buy more.

I understand that it's easier to sell erotica due to the much lower common
demoninator, but what we (other artists as well as myself) tend to complain
about is that we and others are told more nonerotica would like to be seen
and bought, we take notes and give what is supposedly the supply to the
demand, only to find out that it's not even close to the the truth. We
aren't the only ones to say this, and probably won't be the last. I've been
going over nonerotica subjects, trying to come up with something that I know
is part of the demand, but I keep crossing out ideas. It's not lack of
imagination as Ben Bruin has stated us artists who do erotica are going
thru over on the Burned Fur newsgroup, it's having a problem with finding a
target audience. Sure, the call for nonerotica is there, I've heard it here
on a.f.f. and in email. But whenever the call is answered, I'd have to say
that 90% of the time it's no responding call to us.

Bleh, this is what makes me glad that I don't have to do this for income
anymore. This has always been a pain in the butt situation. Even when
questions are asked about what sort of things would like to be seen, it's
offered, it's still not bought in many cases. This can really wear down and
just make the artist not want to try and touch on supplying the supposed
demand. Toon style, slice of life, romantic, sword and sorcery, general
fantasy...these have been tried more than once by many with little or no
results. Some, such as Amara, Lynx, the Carspeckens, are lucky and are able
to get some feedback and know that they have some demand out there. It just
seems that the rest of us are just left out in the cold despite how many
times we try to come in from it.

Yeah, yeah, Tygger...world's smallest violin...

>Allen Kitchen (shockwave, looking for something new this week)

Guardian Knights #5 has shipped and is out on the east coast. I've two
confirmed sightings in Florida. It's hit the eastern part of Canada as
well. I'm expecting to have my stock for ConFurence by the 31st. I'm
considering a few folio ideas of a nonsexual nature, have been for some
time, but I tell you this: it's rather disheartening to do them and have
them gather dust while a generic pin up of a vixen or skunk sells. It's the
way of demand and supply in the fandom, I know that, but I don't have to
like it.


--Tygger L. Graf, tossing out her cents on this subject...

Jake McDermott

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
Quite true. This is an undenyable aspect, of course. From what I have
garnered, it sounds as if the hotel will permit erotica on the
dealer's den floor so long as it is covered up. Which I think is
perfectly acceptable.

Some might not think that...but honestly...I really don't see CF
"dying" from something like this.

If it does, then maybe it's time to re-evaluate ourselves, as a whole.
I know this is a small fandom...but hell...alot of other fandoms do
just fine with erotica that is subdued in it's showcasing, or no
erotica at all.

I'm not saying I don't give a whim about erotica material. One look
through my "box of goodies," as it were, will tell you that.

I just don't see video stores going out of business because their
erotica is in a closed room...or magazine resellers doing the same
because all of their work is wrapped.

I know it's a different animal, but it's the same premise. Bait the
consumer enough, and allow them to pick through your wares in a manner
that isn't offensive to others, you can still make a decent buck.

It works for the rest of the world, why not furry fandom? O_o

Just a thought. I'm trying to be optimistic here. :)

-McD

Michael Pena

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
Hello Daphne,


"Daphne Lage" <egor...@advanix.net> wrote:

>Well, talk about only being a matter of time...
>
>Even with official announcements concerning the selling of erotica in the Den of
>Dealers, I'm more confused than ever over what will be allowed or not allowed.
>It seems that no matter what, this whole situation is being played by ear and
>probably no one will get the final policy until minutes before the show opens.
>

It is going to be interesting to say the least.

>That being said, I just want to clarify a few things I've been reading in the
>past several hours.
>
>There is nothing wrong with CF being forced to clean up it's act. In fact, there
>have been rumblings about something like this happening for years. But, what I
>resent is the overall "suddenness" of the announcement and the extreme hotel
>policy. My take on it is, if ConFURence has always had this bad of a
>reputation - or forget rep, it's not like this will be the first year erotic art
>will be sold - then why wasn't the hotel notified *from the beginning* that
>erotic art will be sold on the premises? It certainly would have saved a lot of
>headaches for both the hotel and the con. There's a note to the new CF staff.

Indeed how could the hotel not have known about the adult artwork. I
would have thought that they would have been very carefully told about
exactly everything that goes on at the Con, just so there would be no
surprises.

Yes, If I just would have known sooner I could have prepared and
matted other artwork more in line with the new policy . It is just too
late now :(

Each piece gets a custom sized matt making them useless for any
other piece. I have to sell the artwork or that is money down the
tubes for me.


>
>And look - I know and most of us know that erotic art isn't the all of the
>fandom. But just looking at my sales record proves that erotica makes up the
>bulk of my sales *especially* at ConFURence. It doesn't matter that I try to
>split my products down the middle and that I don't exclusively cater to erotic
>tastes - but that's where I see most of my money. I have said for years that my
>erotic prints outsell the clean stuff a minimum of 2:1. And it has *never*
>changed.
>

I am not experienced enough to comment on this, all I can say is that
I have observed Critters, and Wild Life buy the farm while Genus lives
on.

>So think about it - the only people really complaining about the new policy are
>*dealers* - dealers who have experienced the buying tastes of congoers and know
>what to expect. We know what gets *said* and *guarantee* what money gets spent
>on. The new hotel policy only throws everything off kilter. If the hotel decides
>that it will allow covered displays of erotic art, then there is nothing for
>anyone to worry about. But if they are serious about an all out BAN, then it may
>not be something easily recoverable from. And I'm not talking about a "little
>inconvenience" either.

I think they are very serious about an outright ban. They have no


choice becuase of thier liquor license. We have a similar law in Texas
that forces "all nude" dancing establishments to be Bring You Own Beer
Only.

>


>Yes, I understand that most con-goers go for the camaraderie and etc. but the
>dealers are there on *business.* I am a business person and am taking this
>announcement *very seriously.* I am not some closet freak or loser upset that
>won't be able to publicly display my adult stuff for all the drooling fanboys. I
>have always tried to be tasteful in any display of my erotica as to not offend
>gentler folks. I am upset because of the all out ban, I may lose more than
>*half* my sales and flying out to San Diego is a pain and expensive enough as
>is.
>

I am upset that I will not be able to display my work to people,
personally I have never seen a drooling fanboy, but even if they did
drool they would be welcome to, and encouraged to view my artwork. I
am an artist that admits I enjoy people looking at my material. If I
get a rise out them, so be it.

Also, I too am running a business My business is not yet a year old
so I expect losses for a while but I can not continue in this way
forever. ConFurence was/is the best hope I have this year for putting
Laughing Rabbit Graphics in the black.


>If this, the erotica issue on premises, had been taken care of from the
>beginning and the hotel decided to ban such items anyway, I would have never
>have decided to go to CF - saving my money and energy for closer and more
>"lenient" shows such as Anthrocon.
>

Same here, I was willing to take on the extra expense to travel to San
Diego from Austin, Texas becuase it was Confurence, THE place where I
could openly and yes proudly show my artwork before those that could
appreciatte it beyond a level which most non-furs can.

I passed up a suggestion from a friend(and experienced Furry artist)
that I go to Aggiecon(about an hour away from me) becuase I had to
work during the weekend so that I could get time off to go to
ConFurence. Even if I did not go to Aggiecon I could have at least
sent them some artwork, but all my energy was directed at Confurence.
At least I know not to ever make that mistake again.

What is going to happen to those artists who went through all the
expense of matting, perhaps framing, and shippijng their erotic
artwork to ConFurence? It will be a total bust for them, though
luckily they will not have to eat the plane fare and Hotel room
expenses as soom other will.

>Yes - this may be a golden opportunity for ConFURence to finally clean up it's
>image, but my sales figures may not allow me to include myself in it. I'm sorry
>about being so dour and don't get me wrong - I do enjoy the travel and seeing
>fans I wouldn't see anywhere else, but like any venture, the trip has to
>ultimately be *justified* and the only thing that does that is my sales. Like I
>said, if the hotel eases up and allows covered displays, then there's nothing to
>worry about and I'll be the first one to sign up for CF11 (trust me, this is
>what I'm *really* hoping for!)

ConFurence and the Furry Fandom's reputation are a nasty pipe dream in
minds of those that do not understand it. Even if the ConFurence went
totally PG there would be those that would label Furs as Sickos and
Perverts. I like drawing erotica and buying it, but people called me
sick and a freak before I ever showed them any of my nude works. Some
people will always think the worst of another no matter what.

I hope the Hotel is reasonable as I reallly want to be part of
ConFurence in the future(If I could afford it I would go to every
Furry convention)

>
>Now, if we could just find the asshole who started this whole mess. >:(

Maybe we could "dress the coward up" and send it overnight to Jim
Groat's Plushie Hell. Now wouldn't that be interesting on tape ;)
(To those with no sense of humor-no I am not serious just a fantasy)

>
>Just an opinion from a dealer.
>

>--Daphne Lage

And an extremely good one too!


Sincerely,
Michael Angel Peña(AKA Sparrow...A Rabbit)
Artist-Laughing Rabbit Graphics
http://lonestar.texas.net/~sparrow/sparrow.htm

sola...@don'tmesswithtexas.net

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
spa...@texas.net (Michael Pena) wrote:

>I am not experienced enough to comment on this, all I can say is that
>I have observed Critters, and Wild Life buy the farm while Genus lives
>on.

Well... "Critters", IMO, also went down due to their insistence on
publishing strips (such as "Gnuff") which the book's _editor_ liked, but
which the majority of the audience made no secret of disliking rather
intensely...

>I think they are very serious about an outright ban. They have no
>choice becuase of thier liquor license. We have a similar law in Texas
>that forces "all nude" dancing establishments to be Bring You Own Beer
>Only.

(Oh, that _is_ a State law? Somehow I'd been under the impression that
it was a Travis County thing...)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fool! You have just signed the universe's death warrant!"

"I did? Uh... gee, I don't know if I'm authorized to sign that..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net (Gary Akins jr.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Pena

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
Hello Solarfox,

I Like your Email address :)

solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net wrote:

>spa...@texas.net (Michael Pena) wrote:
>
>>I am not experienced enough to comment on this, all I can say is that
>>I have observed Critters, and Wild Life buy the farm while Genus lives
>>on.
>

> Well... "Critters", IMO, also went down due to their insistence on
>publishing strips (such as "Gnuff") which the book's _editor_ liked, but
>which the majority of the audience made no secret of disliking rather
>intensely...

Hmm..well Gnuff had its moments.


>
>>I think they are very serious about an outright ban. They have no
>>choice becuase of thier liquor license. We have a similar law in Texas
>>that forces "all nude" dancing establishments to be Bring You Own Beer
>>Only.
>

> (Oh, that _is_ a State law? Somehow I'd been under the impression that
>it was a Travis County thing...)

Honestly, I can not remember now, but it would sort of odd as Travis
county is normally so liberal, well compared to the rest of Texas
anyway.

Sincerely,
Michael Angel Peña(AKA Sparrow...A Rabbit)
Artist-Laughing Rabbit Graphics
http://lonestar.texas.net/~sparrow/sparrow.htm


>

sola...@don'tmesswithtexas.net

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
spa...@texas.net (Michael Pena) wrote:

>Hello Solarfox,
>
>I Like your Email address :)
>
>solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net wrote:

Thanks. :) The spambots are getting smarter about pulling out things
like "nospam." from addresses, but so far they haven't deciphered this one.
:)

ba...@ursine.dyndns.org

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
Michael Pena <spa...@texas.net> wrote:

> ConFurence and the Furry Fandom's reputation are a nasty pipe dream in
> minds of those that do not understand it. Even if the ConFurence went
> totally PG there would be those that would label Furs as Sickos and

But you know what, they wouldn't have anything to complain about morally.

They wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and guess who looks stupid

then...them.

--
Baloo Ursidae

ba...@ursine.dyndns.org

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net wrote:
> spa...@texas.net (Michael Pena) wrote:

>>Hello Solarfox,
>>
>>I Like your Email address :)
>>
>>solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net wrote:

> Thanks. :) The spambots are getting smarter about pulling out things
> like "nospam." from addresses, but so far they haven't deciphered this one.

Or you can do what I do, start your own site with pocket change (I did for
$10), put it in a strategic place, and blackhole spam traffic.

--
Baloo Ursidae

lonely...@newwave.net

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to

> I know there are those who will buy nonerotica. Daphne and I have spoken
> about these folks at length on the phone, wondering what it is that we do
> that goes so wrong that we can't seem to hardly touch that demand. The
> problem lies in that they don't even come close to meeting the numbers,
> business wise, that those who buy the erotica do. I'm not saying that you
> and others who buy only nonerotica are to be discounted, not at all. In
> being bluntly honest, I just wish that MORE of you particular folks would
> buy more.
>
> I understand that it's easier to sell erotica due to the much lower common
> demoninator, but what we (other artists as well as myself) tend to complain
> about is that we and others are told more nonerotica would like to be seen
> and bought, we take notes and give what is supposedly the supply to the
> demand, only to find out that it's not even close to the the truth.

Oy,Tygger. It's the truth, sad to say... It's always harder to make a "clean"
living, so to speak, than to make a living with sex-oriented materials. I
know for a fact that I could make a nice chunk of change if I chose to draw
and sell porn...( and that's no brag on my artistic merit. I have just enough
artistic skill and a dirty enough mind that I could be a contender. :P And
it's not like spooge artists have thought up anything new... same old dirty
fantasies, century after century. And there are only so many sex-related
things you can do with the human body, after all. But i digress.) Why could I
make cash like that? Sex sells. Duh. But Idon't do "erotica" or porn of any
sort. (So naturally I have almost zero commissions.) It means I have to try
that much harder to take a step forward, art-wise, and finance-wise. It's a
darn good thing that I don't and never have done porn, though. When somebody
becomes known as an x-rated artist, that's all anyone expects of them-- or
even wants from them. They see a link to their newest pic, and when they
click on it they're DISAPPOINTED.. regardless of how great the picture is.
Why? Well it's a (insert artist name here) pic. They went there because they
were looking for SEX ! And it's nothing but a crummy anthro rendition of the
sistine chapel done in 1:1 scale with real oil paints and painted on the roof
of the Guggenheim. Bah. You can't even see any *nipples* 'cause of the fur !
*clicks the Doug Winger Link*. That is, thankfully, one ball and chain I have
avoided.

The high road is NEVER easier... but the benefits of the 'quick and easy' low
road are dubious at best.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

anthr...@mailcity.com

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
In article <7dofvp$qdf$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>,
"Daphne Lage" <egor...@advanix.net> wrote:

<snip>


>
> If this, the erotica issue on premises, had been taken care of from the
> beginning and the hotel decided to ban such items anyway, I would have never
> have decided to go to CF - saving my money and energy for closer and more
> "lenient" shows such as Anthrocon.

And therein lies the problem. From talking to folks, it seems that the
ConFurence staffs original intention was not to tell anyone about this. Not
until people got to the con. If not for a leak, everyone would have shown up
to a chorus of "Surprise! you can't sell your art! but thanks for coming!"

The reason I suspect would have to do something with what you said above.
They wouldn't want to risk losing memberships, god forbid the news gets out
and people don't show up!

Money over honesty is the name of the game. But hey, I don't blame
ConFurence. it's just good business. Fuck the little guy, as long as they
show up for your little gathering.

>
> Yes - this may be a golden opportunity for ConFURence to finally clean up it's
> image, but my sales figures may not allow me to include myself in it. I'm sorry
> about being so dour and don't get me wrong - I do enjoy the travel and seeing
> fans I wouldn't see anywhere else, but like any venture, the trip has to
> ultimately be *justified* and the only thing that does that is my sales. Like I
> said, if the hotel eases up and allows covered displays, then there's nothing to
> worry about and I'll be the first one to sign up for CF11 (trust me, this is
> what I'm *really* hoping for!)

It's a nice thought, but do you really think there's any saving this con? I
mean with the rep it's gathered over the past 9 years, It's just dug itself
into a hole that will be nearly impossible to crawl out of (I really pity the
"new" staff). Better to just give way for the new good cons such as Further
Confusion, Conifur, and Anthrocon who were able to start off on the right
foot.


> Now, if we could just find the asshole who started this whole mess. >:(

I'd buy him/her dinner!

Brian
anthrologic

Graf

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to

lonely...@newwave.net wrote in message
<7dqlg5$fgg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>Oy,Tygger. It's the truth, sad to say... It's always harder to make a
>"clean" living, so to speak, than to make a living with sex-oriented
>materials. I know for a fact that I could make a nice chunk of change if I
>chose to draw and sell porn...( and that's no brag on my artistic merit. I
>have just enough artistic skill and a dirty enough mind that I could be a
>contender. :P And it's not like spooge artists have thought up anything
>new... same old dirty fantasies, century after century. And there are only
>so many sex-related things you can do with the human body, after all. >But
i digress.)

I have to take argument about it being "dirty fantasies", tho. Yes, there
is some rather icky art out there, I've seen some of it and it was **NOT**
anthro. However, you are tossing into that category, it seems to me, the
works of the classics which have nudes in them. There is the art of Olivia,
Hajime Sorayama (admittedly some of his art has made me go "YUCK!"), Patrick
Nagel, Alphonse Mucha, and Alberto Varga to name a few. I have a book
called the Great American Pin Up which traces the origins of the pin up from
way back when and there is some BEAUTIFUL art in there. I'm not one to
really kiss ass or give compliments when it comes to art, but there is some
really breathtaking beauties in there, all done in the vein of being ART,
not something sleazy. There is something to be said about the celebration
of the beauty of the body. I know this is a case of splitting hairs to
some, but there really is a difference between something Playboy would print
and something Penthouse would. I've enough of those magazines and have seen
enough of others much less in the tact and classiness to know the
difference.

> Why could I
>make cash like that? Sex sells. Duh. But Idon't do "erotica" or porn of
>any sort. (So naturally I have almost zero commissions.) It means I have

I find that rather interesting considering you had been crowing about how
many of the pukey quoote pieces you had been doing. This is not a flame,
just an observation. ^_^

>to try that much harder to take a step forward, art-wise, and

finance->wise. It's a darn good thing that I don't and never have done porn,


>though. When somebody becomes known as an x-rated artist, that's all
>anyone expects of them-- or even wants from them. They see a link to >their
newest pic, and when they click on it they're DISAPPOINTED.. >regardless of
how great the picture is.

I'd have to agree there. It's been my own observation based upon my own
experiences. There are those who WILL buy both, but for the most part the
majority are after the erotica. I am not condemning this, and I know that
my words lately seem to be and I do apologize to folks about that. It's
just mainly frustration about the dynamics in this and there seems little to
be done about it. I recently had a suprising rise in the number of people on
my own email list for my prints, did a recent poll, and the majority of them
prefer the pin ups. I do NOT hold it against them, not at all. If I were
still doing this for income, I'd know what I'd have to do.

>Why? Well it's a (insert artist name here) pic. They went there because
>they were looking for SEX ! And it's nothing but a crummy anthro >rendition
of the sistine chapel done in 1:1 scale with real oil paints and >painted on
the roof of the Guggenheim. Bah. You can't even see any >*nipples* 'cause of
the fur ! *clicks the Doug Winger Link*. That is, >thankfully, one ball and
chain I have avoided.
>
>The high road is NEVER easier... but the benefits of the 'quick and easy'
>low road are dubious at best.

No, it's not. I've had a hard road myself trying to get seen as more than
just a sex artist. Fortunately, I think doing GK has done that for me more
than any ranting I've done in the past. I say I won't show sex in the book,
I mean that. I may deal with sexual issues, such as an incubus or sucubus
or other sex demon/entity or black tantric mage, but I won't show the actual
parts moving. There is such a thing as panning discretely away.

I just wish, Ben, you'd give the erotica/middle of road artists some slack.
Yes, we're inna bind, yes we have problems, but can you at least understand
why some of us are in this? When it comes to income in this particular
fandom, we all know where it's at, and some of us have/had to do put food on
the table and this has proven to be the best and sometimes *only* way to do
it, even if one has a day job. I got lucky, my husband has a good job now,
but many are not so and condemning them doesn't help matters and just keeps
the cycle of disgust going which does NO ONE any good.

--Tygger L. Graf, honestly not flaming, just giving her views...

maza...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
In article <7drd63$k02$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>,
"Graf" <gr...@primenet.com> wrote:

> I just wish, Ben, you'd give the erotica/middle of road artists some slack.
> Yes, we're inna bind, yes we have problems, but can you at least understand
> why some of us are in this? When it comes to income in this particular
> fandom, we all know where it's at, and some of us have/had to do put food on
> the table and this has proven to be the best and sometimes *only* way to do
> it, even if one has a day job. I got lucky, my husband has a good job now,
> but many are not so and condemning them doesn't help matters and just keeps
> the cycle of disgust going which does NO ONE any good.

There are more effective ways to put bread on the table than to draw for a
marginalized sub-genre which hasn't enough people to form a viable breeding
pool.

-- M. Naschatya

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 03:56:14 GMT, solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net
<solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net> wrote:

> Thanks. :) The spambots are getting smarter about pulling out things
>like "nospam." from addresses, but so far they haven't deciphered this one.

Did you know they hire peaple to despam block addresses these days?


--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
? The platypus' furry art and literature
competition http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/rules.html

Graf

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to

maza...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7drj30$b77$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

> There are more effective ways to put bread on the table than to draw for
>a marginalized sub-genre which hasn't enough people to form a viable
>breeding pool.

Yes there is, like flipping burgers or working in a retail store. My point
is, Maggie, that some do have day jobs and do this on the side to SUPPLEMENT
what they earn. Not all of them depend on this only. And doing the supply
of fancy, static, stagnant, repetitious, pseudo-art deco, pseudo-art nouveau
nonsexual art to the "marginalized sub-genre which hasn't enough people to
form a viable breeding pool" doesn't help either.

I get so sick and tired of people who look down their noses at those of us
artists who do this to supplement our income and give us hell simply because
we do what the demand wants. It sucks, I don't like it, never did, and I
honestly wish that my nonsexual works sold more than my sexual works do.
But it's a FACT that it doesn't. Some are lucky, yes, but not all ARE.
You, Maggie, and others should understand this.

So much for the supposed understanding and tolerance in this fandom. Things
like this disgust me and really make me want to just wash my hands
altogether but I stupidly don't. Sometimes I think that I'm one of the few
who even fully understands this side of things. Yes, I see both, but truth
be told I give more support and sympathy to those artists who are busting
their asses to make ends meet, with or without the day job. I have BEEN
there for too damned long, I know what it's like. I wish more would
understand, but unfortunately all anyone sees is the outcome, not what leads
up to it...or so that is the impression I gain.

I have stated many times before and now presently how the supply and demand
works around this fandom. I will probably state it all again. Why? In the
irrational and utterly stupid hope that it will make a difference and give
people the understanding and perhaps get a bit more repsect for those
artists who do what they must to supplement their income.

--Tygger L. Graf

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
One thought about sales of Cute non erotica vs. Spooge. Perhaps it's because
they both cost the same? At $1 for a black and white print, even those who
appreciate both may buy more erotica to get more bang for their buck, as it
were.

If the cute stuff were $1, and the spooge $2. Do you think the balance might
shift from 70-30 to 50-50?


--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.


Graf

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to

Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote in message
<990330153...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...

>One thought about sales of Cute non erotica vs. Spooge. Perhaps it's
>because they both cost the same? At $1 for a black and white print, >even
those who appreciate both may buy more erotica to get more bang >for their
buck, as it were.

>If the cute stuff were $1, and the spooge $2. Do you think the balance
>might shift from 70-30 to 50-50?

I'd have to say no. Only if, IF mind you, the artist is someone who is
REALLY liked. If not, the buyer will simply go elsewhere because the other
artist is cheaper.

--Tygger L. Graf

Daphne Lage

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to

maza...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7drj30$b77$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7drd63$k02$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>,
> "Graf" <gr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>> I just wish, Ben, you'd give the erotica/middle of road artists some slack.

> There are more effective ways to put bread on the table than to draw for a


>marginalized sub-genre which hasn't enough people to form a viable breeding
>pool.

Yeah, it's called getting a "real" job and leaving the fandom all together.
Without the money coming in from my erotic art, which is more than half of my
total "fandom income," I'm not making enough money to merit working beyond TALL
TAILS (which is a personal passion and not regulated by whether it makes money
or not). I do the erotica to finance the projects I *want* to do because the
projects I want to do hardly make any money.

And then you guys wonder why artists leave. And the reason I'm not so quick to
leave is because I actually *like* furry fandom.

Yanno... I don't know why I'm even arguing anyway. I think it's unfortunate that
erotica is so deeply rooted in the fandom enough for it's banning to have such
an effect BUT I am not going to apologize for any decisions I've had to make in
the past and continue to make now. Yes, I'd rather my general art and TALL TAILS
make enough to not have to do the more spoogie stuff. But then again if it
wasn't spooge, it would be something else that the fans want and unless it truly
offended me, I'd probably draw that too. To me, it's no different than working
freelance for a big company and having to do asinine projects for asinine bosses
who wouldn't know what artistic creativity was even if it came in a bottle.
Sometimes you have to take on projects you don't necessarily like so that you
can do what you want.

Yes, I do erotic art. I may not like it *all the time* but sometimes I do. But I
also do non-erotica. If you're so obsessed with erotica that you can't see the
clean stuff - cant' even be in the *same room* with it even if it's covered up -
then you're just as worse off as the people who literally avoid the clean stuff
just to look for erotica.

A little word of advice - especially to Ben Bruin - the longer you try to stay
on that pedestal, the more top-heavy you get.

And that's my final word on the subject. I'm too busy getting stuff together for
CF and getting final word on the Adult Dealer's Room which I will most certainly
be in. And sorry if I'm being snarly but I am tired of being pointed at and
being called a *problem* just because I *choose* to do the erotica that the
*fans* want. If they didn't want it, I wouldn't do it. Simple economics. Get
used to it.

The very tired with still a shitload of work to do,

--Daphne Lage

Dominic P. Cecava

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to
Graf <gr...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<7drrt5$upj$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...

Richard does bring up an interesting point. From what I've been reading
from artists' posts, overall, erotic art is only a small portion of all the
art shown at a con, yet a higher percentage of art sold is erotic art.
Economically speaking, if you have a high demand on erotic art that's in
"low supply" (even though it seems that supply is endless...), then you
should be able to sell erotic art at a higher price (or non-erotic art at a
lower price). Yet artists sell both erotic and non-erotic prints for the
same price.

Basing this next assumption on human nature, if you're selling an erotic
print and non-erotic print of the same size/style/quality/etc. at the same
price, then most people WOULD buy the erotic piece, since they get "more
for their money", if they're not buying their art on content alone.

So maybe artists should sell erotic/non-erotic prints at different prices.

And Tygger's reply brings up another point. If people would go find erotic
art from another artist who's cheaper, then it seems they don't really care
WHO'S drawing the art, as long as they get whatever spooge pic they're
looking for.

--
*Paragon*
The Unidragryphoenix

Fortune go with you, wherever your journeys take you!

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to
anthr...@mailcity.com wrote:
> And therein lies the problem. From talking to folks, it seems that the
> ConFurence staffs original intention was not to tell anyone about this. Not
> until people got to the con. If not for a leak, everyone would have shown up
> to a chorus of "Surprise! you can't sell your art! but thanks for coming!"

That was NEVER the case! Where the f*** did you get that from?

Here's the timeline:

Mark and Rodney found out about the Hotel's policy last Monday.

They discussed it in detail with the Hotel Staff and then announced it to
CFStaff on Tuesday.

CFStaff discussed all the options HEAVILY during that week, both on, but mostly
off-line and in person.

At our regularly scheduled staff meeting last saturday, A plan was announced to
let ALL the artists and Dealers know exactly what we the new limitations were
going to be, and XianJaguar was not at the meeting so that she could start
implementing this.

The word was sent out to the Artists and dealers (both electronically and by
telephone) while the public disclosure part was still being written.

One of the artists immediately posted a comment after hearing about it just a
few hours before the public disclosure was written, and therein lies the source
of most of the confusion was during the first day after the announcement.

That artist created more questions with his post than answers, because although
he had been told about it, most people reading his comment hadn't yet.

> The reason I suspect would have to do something with what you said above.
> They wouldn't want to risk losing memberships, god forbid the news gets out
> and people don't show up!
>
> Money over honesty is the name of the game. But hey, I don't blame
> ConFurence. it's just good business. Fuck the little guy, as long as they
> show up for your little gathering.

At NO TIME were we planning on making this a "Surprise" at the door. Your
perception of this being the case is simple bullshit.

> It's a nice thought, but do you really think there's any saving this con? I
> mean with the rep it's gathered over the past 9 years, It's just dug itself
> into a hole that will be nearly impossible to crawl out of (I really pity the
> "new" staff).

Don't pity me... work with me. I *am* going to make CF11 happen next year, and
it *will* be the best furry con ever.

> Better to just give way for the new good cons such as Further
> Confusion, Conifur, and Anthrocon who were able to start off on the right
> foot.

Umm... I'm on Further Confusion's staff, too. There's plenty of room for all
the furry cons to be swimming in the same pool. Just try not to pee in the
water, ok?

> > Now, if we could just find the asshole who started this whole mess. >:(
>
> I'd buy him/her dinner!

I'd make him *be* the dinner for some lower life form.

--
Darrel L. Exline, darrelx(a)home.com, http://www.polarden.org
a.k.a. Jym_Chago, "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear"
--> Co-Chair for ConFurence 11 <--

Matthigh

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to
>>>I am not experienced enough to comment on this, all I can say is that
>I have observed Critters, and Wild Life buy the farm while Genus lives
>on.<<

Ooh! My matt-sense is tingling!

Actually, the "death" of Wild Life didn't really have much to do with sales
levels - when the comic was cancelled it was selling about as many copies as
Furrlough is now. The comic book (which lasted 12 issues - a fairly long time
by comic book standards now a days) suffered not from a lack of readers, but
from a lack of contributors! It was actually hard to find creators who wanted
to do humor and/or slice-of-life stories.

Best,
- mlh

ista...@airmail.net

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to
>> And therein lies the problem. From talking to folks, it seems that the
>> ConFurence staffs original intention was not to tell anyone about this. Not
>> until people got to the con. If not for a leak, everyone would have shown up
>> to a chorus of "Surprise! you can't sell your art! but thanks for coming!"
>
>That was NEVER the case! Where the f*** did you get that from?

I have to agree with Darrel here, despite being recently annoyed with
him. From what I've seen, CF staff shared as soon as they knew
ANYTHING.


Graf

unread,
Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99
to

Caballito wrote in message <3702e3d1...@news.ispnews.com>...

>I can only speak for myself, in that I do not buy erotic artwork. I'd
>certainly never condemn others for buying it, nevermind >condemning people
for making a living by drawing what's in >demand. I think those that would
condemn an artist for drawing >what sells are suffering from recto-cranial
inversion, you find a >market and you supply it. It's called economics,
people.

THANK YOU.

>Don't let it get you too down, Tygger. There have always been
>puritanical types (even before puritans :) and there likely always
>will be. Nothing says, however, that you have to let them ruin your
>life.

It's just the repeat, repeat, and repeat again that I'm doing which is kinda
getting wearing. Yeah, I know I don't have to, but someone has to keep
voicing what the cycle truly is. Otherwise the loud voices drown that out
and only what THEY believe is heard and that can lead to miscommunication
and misunderstanding which doesn't help. Ruin my life, nah. My life and
art are both back in my own hands as of Feb 10th when I made my decision of
no more commissions and to do what I wanted. Even more so when Dean was
hired full time. But that doesn't mean I'm turning my back on the artists
who are still in the cycle far deeper than I am currently. If I can lend a
helping hand to some understanding, I'll keep trying.

>My suggestion is, draw what you like. If you can please
>yourself, and hopefully please others in the process, then that is a
>road to happiness. And if you have to draw subjects that you don't
>like to get some sales, well who hasn't mopped or flipped burgers >for
cash? Work is work, you don't *have* to enjoy it, but it's nice >when you
can. What I hate to see more than anything, is a good >artist (like yerself
ferinstance) give up in disgust because one (or >several) critical twerps
abuse you because you happen to draw >something they find offensive. If
they don't like it, who's twisting >their collective arms to look at it?
Some people got cojones too big >for their own good, methinks.

Yep. An artist can always go get the burger or delivery job. Most of the
ones I know already have the day jobs of retail, burger, delivery, waiting
tables or other things and do the art to supplement that. When the loud
voices against them start up, the first things I've noticed to be slung at
us is "get a job" or "stop drawing the spooge and do decent art". Yeah,
well, if these loud voices would stop being part of the problem and part of
the solution things would be smoother. Many others not in these debates do
actually help, for that I'm grateful and would like to thank right now.
Thank you for that. I know that many of them buy both, such as boojum.
It's not to them that I aim my words, but the ones like Sir
Yiffnot/Ottergame who shit on us and give us hell when instead they could be
fixing the problem by giving more Demand for the Supply.

Give up? Not likely...I've been close, I've considered it, but I stupidly
care too much at times. I'm not flaring up as much as I've been known to, I
am riled, but I'm trying to give the voice of reason to the slung around
mud.

>Some folks already understand. And some are clueless gits who'll
>never get it. But if you let the clueless ones get to you, ta-da..
>they won.

And to those folks I give my grateful thanks. True about the clueless gits,
and they can get to me and others, yes. I'm just tired, it's been a long
day of being online and working at the computer. I just need a good amount
of sleep.

Thank you, Caballito.


--Tygger L. Graf

M. Naschatya

unread,
Apr 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/2/99
to
I'm sorry my comment upset you, Tygger. I, for one, am glad you're out
there doing your thing; I think your work has a lot of charm and passion. But
I can't sit back while innocent people are asked to take the guilt and
responsibility for a decision made by someone else. When someone doesn't buy
a piece of artwork, it doesn't somehow make them guilty of forcing the artist
to sell out to make money. They weren't responsible for the artist's decision
to try to make money off of art. Blaming them for that isn't right. Unless
someone holds a gun to an artist's head and says: 'Draw', there's no coercion
involved, no force. The consumers are out there to buy work that they like
when they want to... not to feed the artists.

Graf

unread,
Apr 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/2/99
to

M. Naschatya wrote in message <7e2k62$e3f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

> I'm sorry my comment upset you, Tygger. I, for one, am glad >you're out
there doing your thing; I think your work has a lot of >charm and passion

More like riled. And you riled at least some, I kid you not, twenty some
odd folks judging by their comments to me in email and on FurryMuck when I
replied. Quite a few out there also feel that they are being blamed for
something which isn't their fault. Thank you for the kind words.

>But I can't sit back while innocent people are
>asked to take the guilt and responsibility for a decision made by >someone
else. When someone doesn't buy a piece of artwork, it >doesn't somehow make
them guilty of forcing the artist to sell out >to make money. They weren't
responsible for the artist's decision
>to try to make money off of art. Blaming them for that isn't right.

>Unless someone holds a gun to an artist's head and says: 'Draw', >there's


no coercion involved, no force. The consumers are out there >to buy work
that they like when they want to... not to feed the >artists.

You still don't see my point, from what I gather above. What you say, an
innocent being given guilt and responsibility for a decision made by someone
else, is being done to the artists.

The guilt and responsibility of more nonsexual material out there is being
dumped on all artists in the fandom, especially those who are of the income
artist category. It is expected that we, for I do include mysef in this
category altho slightly, produce a plethora of nonsexual material at a loss,
a major loss for some of us. It is practically demanded of us. You've seen
the remarks here, "now they can use their imaginations for once", "stop
making porn and do decent art for a change", to paraphrase the gist of the
usual slung around. What I am getting at is that it is demanded of us to do
nonsexual art, but it is either not supported or supported slightly. It is
not fair to demand that the income artists produce something which does not
sell. It's like asking them to slit their wrists for you entertainment.

No, the consumer is not responsible for the decision of the income artist to
try and make money on their art. However, the consumer should take
responsibility for their own words and actions. Many consumers say they
want to see nonsexual material, however, these will not back up their words
with the action of supporting the material. The usual Demand for the
Supply. Yes, some do buy both such as boojum and Troy Pack Rat to name two,
however, too many don't or won't. I have kept track of my own customers,
watched their buying habits closely over the years. The ones who buy both
and the ones who buy only nonsexual works are outnumbered by those who
purchase only sexual works. Other artists have the same experience with the
same customers or similiar customers. Why should we Supply more of what
there is no or little Demand for? Again, it is not good business tactics.
Do you expect a grocery store or music store or shoe store or book store or
computer store or any other type of store to sell that which does not make a
profit simply because you'd like to see them carry a product you think they
should? The consumer is not responsible for the store's decision to make
money selling their product. However they are responsible for encouraging
the store to carry product they want to buy.

You say no one holds a gun to the artists' head. I say there is a
metaphorical one. The income artist has no respect, is given hatred by
many, is looked down upon as lesser than a nonsexual artist, is blamed for
the current state of the fandom if they do not do nonsexual material en
masse or at all. Again, look at what has been said here currently and in
the past. The posts of the last week were rife with blame on the income
artists for the sexual material, however, little was said about the
consumers who set the trend of the buying cycle. There is coersion, there
is force. Pressure of opinion is a rather strong force, and many an artist
has felt it at one time or another. Some of us, myself included at now and
then, more so than others.

The consumers are out to buy what they like when they want, yes, however,
when they tell an artist they want to see nonsexual material from them and
NOT back up those words, then it becomes their fault. Yes, FAULT. They, to
put it bluntly, lied to the artist. I've had more than my share of this, so
have many others. When that is mostly what you hear, you won't listen
anymore, will you? The consumer is feeding the income artist. It is called
Demand for the Supply. And the income artist will go wherever the Demand
is.

An artist does what they want artwise, yes. But when an income artist goes
with the buying cycle of a given market, they should not be condemned when
the majority or sole of their art is what the current Demand is. Yes, they
can do what isn't Demanded, but why waste time and creativity on that when
time and creativity can be better spent and better rewarded on what is
Demanded.


--Tygger L. Graf

Amargospinus

unread,
Apr 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/2/99
to
Graf wrote:
> An artist does what they want artwise, yes. But when an income artist goes
> with the buying cycle of a given market, they should not be condemned when
> the majority or sole of their art is what the current Demand is. Yes, they
> can do what isn't Demanded, but why waste time and creativity on that when
> time and creativity can be better spent and better rewarded on what is
> Demanded.

If the market demand was to jump off of a building, would you do it?
If you could turn a buck killing a person for someone, would you do it?
Don't be shy. There's folks out there that will whore their integrity
for the almighty dollar. Call a spade a spade.

Why not move to a different market? If you don't want to be held
accountable for drawing spooge/erotica/or whatever comforting name you
decide to put on it, but the market you're in demands it, that market
isn't for you. Furrydumb isn't the only art outlet out there. For some
it may be, as their talent is limited and furrydumb is the only corner
of society that will tell lousy artists that they're great. If you
can't hack it outside of furrydumb, maybe it's time to go on hiatus and
practice, practice, practice. Maybe actually take a drawing class or
two. Or start waiting tables at Denny's.

A person's actions speak for that person, whether or not it's a result
of caving into pressure. And individual alone ultimately decides the
paths they choose in life, and are thusly responsible for what they
choose to do. You can rationalize until you're blue in the face. If
you choose to pander to the lowest common demonimator and draw spooge,
you alone are responsible for that choice. You didn't have to do it.
If it was the only way to do furry images and turn a buck, then maybe
you didn't need to be in furrydumb. Wait tables. Be a telemarketer.
Do the furry stuff as a bonus and do what YOU want to. But if you're
drawing spooge, that's your choice. Accept responsibility for your
actions (I know that's hard for a furry to do, but you've got it in
you. C'mon folks. If you believe in integrity, clap your hands!). If
you're feeling guilt for drawing spooge, you brought it on yourself, as
the outcry against pornography has been around long before you were
drawing it.

You alone, Tygger, chose to draw spooge/erotica. If you didn't want to
draw it, but couldn't pay the rent without it, you should have chosen
another way to generate income. If you feel bad about it, you are
feeling bad about a choice you made for yourself. You made your bed.
Lie in it, and stop rationalizing why you made it. Just admit that you
did and be done with it.

Farlo

unread,
Apr 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/3/99
to
"Amargospinus" dig...@ime.net wrote in <37057B...@ime.net>:

>Furrydumb isn't the only art outlet out there.

"Furrydumb"? I must wonder why this guy even posts here.
It's sure not to "win friends".

> A person's actions speak for that person, whether or not it's a
result
>of caving into pressure.

Funny how these trolls never seem to think about THEIR actions before
posting.

Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
http://www.dejanews.com/~furculture

Amargospinus

unread,
Apr 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/3/99
to
Farlo wrote:
>
> "Amargospinus" dig...@ime.net wrote in <37057B...@ime.net>:
>
> >Furrydumb isn't the only art outlet out there.
>
> "Furrydumb"? I must wonder why this guy even posts here.
> It's sure not to "win friends".

Mostly because I got tired of reading Tygger's whining on FM. She's
becoming another BOC. Truth is I don't even subscribe to AFF, but just
had to see the shit hit the fans from this spooge business.

> > A person's actions speak for that person, whether or not it's a
> result
> >of caving into pressure.
>
> Funny how these trolls never seem to think about THEIR actions before
> posting.

Hey, less than one day before the troll jab. We're down to a new
record. I knew my post wouldn't be greeted with any friendliness
awards. Tygger runs in circles rationalizing to everyone why she draws
spooge. She draws it because she chooses to, plain and simple. I,
admittedly, once did the pencils for a story in Wild Kingdom. I'm not
proud of it, but I've never told anyone it was because the market was
there and it turned a buck. Truth is, I never got paid for the work. I
never blamed Chuck Melville for giving me the idea. I never blamed
Steve Gallacci for passing my work along to the folks that I ultimately
worked with on that story. *I* chose to do it, whether or not I am now
pleased with that choice. Tygger draws spooge because Tygger choses
to. If Tygger didn't want to but had to make ends meet, Tygger should
go wait tables or flip burgers or enter another profession she could
make money at. Tygger's situation is the result of no one but herself.
I don't CARE if she draws spooge. I'd just like to see her admit she
does it by her own choice, whether or not that choice is monetarily
motivated. It remains solely her choice. I don't expect that will
happen any time soon, though.

Brian O'connell

unread,
Apr 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/3/99
to
*AHEM*
What the FUCK do you think gives you the right to claim exclusive authority
on what defines an artist?
In case you haven't noticed, cretin, but ART
**************IS*************** WORK!!! It take time, effort, supplies, and
imagination... It's schmucks like you who are totally incapable of
understanding this that I despise the most... And most of us like drawing
too, not just for the subject matter, but for the simple pleasure of
creating something... Next you'll say 'How dare we try to make a living from
what we love doing?'... Because this is a capitalist world, but not all of
us want to slave ourselves out to any businesses, preferring to be out own
bosses... What do YOU draw or do? Or are you so jealous at other artist's
abilities to adapt to their markets, while you couldn't and got a job
flipping burgers instead, that you have to ruin it for the rest of them?
(You call it selling out, I call it adapting)
You don't like it? Leave then.
And since nobody seems to have noticed, I posted a pict demonstrating
just what morons like this want, and do to the artists, EVERY FUCKING DAY,
in fur.artwork.adult, called 'A Defined Statement Of Purpose'
Amargospinus <dig...@ime.net> wrote in message news:3705F7...@ime.net...

Brian O'connell

unread,
Apr 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/3/99
to
Eh, meanwhile, don't take this guy seriously, I traced his web page by his
e-mail, and if it's any indicator, he has no interest in furries at all, BMX
bikes and whiney rock, yes, and video games, but nothing remotely furry
related... Therefore, he hasn't a leg to stand on, so Digger, put up or shut
up...

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Apr 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/3/99
to
Farlo wrote:
> "Furrydumb"? I must wonder why this guy even posts here.
> It's sure not to "win friends".

The moment someone uses the word "furrydumb" is the moment I stop taking them
seriously and write them off as a troll.

It's like AFF's version of Godwin's Law.

____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage:
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm

Robert Alley

unread,
Apr 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/3/99
to

Amargospinus wrote:
>
> Hey, less than one day before the troll jab. We're down to a new
> record. I knew my post wouldn't be greeted with any friendliness
> awards. Tygger runs in circles rationalizing to everyone why she draws
> spooge. She draws it because she chooses to, plain and simple. I,
> admittedly, once did the pencils for a story in Wild Kingdom. I'm not
> proud of it, but I've never told anyone it was because the market was
> there and it turned a buck. Truth is, I never got paid for the work. I
> never blamed Chuck Melville for giving me the idea. I never blamed
> Steve Gallacci for passing my work along to the folks that I ultimately
> worked with on that story. *I* chose to do it, whether or not I am now
> pleased with that choice. Tygger draws spooge because Tygger choses
> to. If Tygger didn't want to but had to make ends meet, Tygger should
> go wait tables or flip burgers or enter another profession she could
> make money at. Tygger's situation is the result of no one but herself.
> I don't CARE if she draws spooge. I'd just like to see her admit she
> does it by her own choice, whether or not that choice is monetarily
> motivated. It remains solely her choice. I don't expect that will
> happen any time soon, though.

I thought that Tygger mentioned several times here that she's no longer
into doing that; she also expressed thanks that she no longer has to
depend solely upon her artwork to make a living. The situation was (as
I understand it) that she at one time had to do spooge/erotica (choose
your terms) to pay the bills, & now doesn't do it anymore because she's
in a more secure situation. If I'm wrong, please tell me where I was wrong.


S.J.Laitila

unread,
Apr 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/3/99
to
>Eh, meanwhile, don't take this guy seriously, I traced his web page by his
>e-mail, and if it's any indicator, he has no interest in furries at all,
BMX
>bikes and whiney rock, yes, and video games, but nothing remotely furry
>related... Therefore, he hasn't a leg to stand on, so Digger, put up or
shut
>up...

Wait a second... BMX, whiney rock, video games? When I was 8 or so, I had a
BMX bike. And I liked whiney rock too. And i had a nintendo! Just like any
other 8 year-old kid in my neighbourhood.

There must be a connection... Maybe if he's a kid from the early 90's. Like
cryofrozen or so. I saw this one South Park episode with a frozen guy from
the year 96... Nowadays all the kids listen to black metal, and hang out in
the streets doing drugs.

Debbie Crooker

unread,
Apr 4, 1999, 4:00:00 AM4/4/99
to
Brian O'connell wrote:
>
> *AHEM*
> What the FUCK do you think gives you the right to claim exclusive authority
> on what defines an artist?
> In case you haven't noticed, cretin, but ART
> **************IS*************** WORK!!! It take time, effort, supplies, and
> imagination... It's schmucks like you who are totally incapable of
> understanding this that I despise the most... And most of us like drawing
> too, not just for the subject matter, but for the simple pleasure of
> creating something... Next you'll say 'How dare we try to make a living from
> what we love doing?'... Because this is a capitalist world, but not all of
> us want to slave ourselves out to any businesses, preferring to be out own
> bosses.

I never suggested art wasn't work. It is. It was actually my major in
college before changing over to forensic science so I could continue to
enjoy art as a hobby, rather than have artsy-fartsy professors squash my
enjoyment of it. I was merely suggesting that if Tygger could not
reconcile what turns a buck artistically with what she does and does not
wish to draw, perhaps she should find OTHER work and return to art as
merely a hobby, leaving her free to draw what she wanted. If she choses
to stay in the furry art field as her profession, that is her choice,
and the reprocussions she may suffer from it, as well as the boons she
gains from it, are her responsibility. I was merely stating that I, for
one, would like to see her *accept* that responsibility- a hard trait
for furries to develop, I understand, so I was not about to hold my
breath. But, to refer to another post:

Robert Alley wrote:
> I thought that Tygger mentioned several times here that she's no longer
> into doing that; she also expressed thanks that she no longer has to
> depend solely upon her artwork to make a living. The situation was (as
> I understand it) that she at one time had to do spooge/erotica (choose
> your terms) to pay the bills, & now doesn't do it anymore because she's
> in a more secure situation. If I'm wrong, please tell me where I was wrong.

Hopefully Mr. Alley is right, as it would hopefully lead to Tygger
finding a more comfortable balance between her needs and her wishes,
both in career and hobby. (Regarding the spooge/erotica "choose your
terms" bit, I coupled those together because Tygger has drawn both in
the past. A friend informed me that she has apparently left the
"spooge" behind and focuses her adult work on "erotica" now- kudos.
However, she has, in the past, as other artists have, used the old "I
don't do spooge. I do erotica." line to paint a pleasant exterior on
what folks may consider less than pleasant.)

> You don't like it? Leave then.

This coming from the man who is the living embodiment of a yo-yo. I'm
leaving. I'm back. I'm leaving. I'm back. Physician, heal thyself.
But, it's a suggestion worth following. As I mentioned in a previous
post, I am not a regular subscriber to AFF. I merely wanted to enjoy
the hubub from the ConFurence spooge issue fallout. Furrydumb finally
shows its true colors, and some even came to admit it. With the
satisfaction of having seen furry's Titanic hit the iceberg, I'll take
my place on the lifeboats and never look back. It was a fun ride,
especially at the end.

Graf

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to

Amargospinus wrote in message <37057B...@ime.net>...

> If the market demand was to jump off of a building, would you do >it? If
you could turn a buck killing a person for someone, would you >do it? Don't
be shy. There's folks out there that will whore their >integrity for the
almighty dollar. Call a spade a spade.

Those are illegal acts. Not the same thing. Strawman.

> Why not move to a different market? If you don't want to be held
>accountable for drawing spooge/erotica/or whatever comforting >name you
decide to put on it, but the market you're in demands it, >that market isn't

for you. Furrydumb isn't the only art outlet out


>there. For some it may be, as their talent is limited and furrydumb >is
the only corner of society that will tell lousy artists that they're >great.
If you can't hack it outside of furrydumb, maybe it's time to >go on hiatus
and practice, practice, practice. Maybe actually take >a drawing class or
two. Or start waiting tables at Denny's.

If you had been friends with Jamie Lee Curtis or Demi Moore when they were
just starting their careers, would you have told them, "Don't take that part
in Halloween/Parasite." (respectively)? "If that's the only part you can
get, you're better off not acting at all. Go wait tables or answer phones
instead." Putting up with a less-desirable market's demands in order to
graduate to a more respectable venue is part of most creative careers.

For the record many are taking lessons in basic drawing, seeking advice from
those they consider professionals or those they admire, and are generally
busting their butts to improve themselves. Some are in a different market.
Speaking as someone who has tried and still is trying to touch upon other
markets, it's not easy. Those others are MUCH larger than this fandom,
which is why it is easier to just stick to this one. Yes, some make it such
as Amara, but most don't.

> A person's actions speak for that person, whether or not it's a >result of

caving into pressure. And individual alone ultimately >decides the paths
they choose in life, and are thusly responsible >for what they choose to do.
You can rationalize until you're blue in >the face. If you choose to pander
to the lowest common >demonimator and draw spooge, you alone are responsible
for that >choice. You didn't have to do it. If it was the only way to do
furry >images and turn a buck, then maybe you didn't need to be in
>furrydumb. Wait tables. Be a telemarketer. Do the furry stuff as a
>bonus and do what YOU want to. But if you're drawing spooge, >that's your
choice. Accept responsibility for your actions (I know >that's hard for a
furry to do, but you've got it in you. C'mon folks. If >you believe in
integrity, clap your hands!). If you're feeling guilt for >drawing spooge,
you brought it on yourself, as the outcry against >pornography has been
around long before you were drawing it.

You're saying choose between what you don't want to draw or don't draw at
all. It's not that cut and dried. Most are actually students and have day
jobs. They do this to supplement their income. And this is right from
ConFurence's dealer's room, many DO have nonsexual art right along with the
sexual. Many of these are established artists in the fandom for five or
more years. And many of these have gone to other cons not just CF but the
new ones which have cropped up as well as the regular science
fiction/fantasy cons of the mainstream. Your comments don't really have
much to stand on.

> You alone, Tygger, chose to draw spooge/erotica. If you didn't >want to
draw it, but couldn't pay the rent without it, you should have >chosen
another way to generate income. If you feel bad about it, >you are feeling
bad about a choice you made for yourself. You >made your bed. Lie in it,
and stop rationalizing why you made it. >Just admit that you did and be
done with it.

This isn't about me personally, it's about the income artists in general.
I'm not defending, I'm explaining. I'm trying to make you and others
understand why the choice was made by myself and many others. And at CF I
brought the subject up and was unanimously agreed it was Demand and Supply.
I and the other 800 people at the con saw it all in action. That is a
truth, a fact that no one, as much as they like to, can really deny.


--Tygger L. Graf

Graf

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to

Amargospinus wrote in message <37057B...@ime.net>...
> You alone, Tygger, chose to draw spooge/erotica. If you didn't want to
>draw it, but couldn't pay the rent without it, you should have chosen
>another way to generate income.

Once more for the cheap seats and clue-impaired: Tygger LIKES drawing
erotica. She's said so numerous times. What she DOES NOT like is feeling
forced to draw ONLY erotica in order to be successful. She feels the same
when the situation is reversed, and she is pressured to not draw erotica.
The key is being restricted from drawing what she wants.

Do you get it now?

D.A. Graf

Graf

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to

Debbie Crooker wrote in message <370748...@psta.com>...

>I was merely suggesting that if Tygger could not
>reconcile what turns a buck artistically with what she does and does not
>wish to draw, perhaps she should find OTHER work and return to art as
>merely a hobby, leaving her free to draw what she wanted.

See my reply to Amargospinus on this matter.

>I was merely stating that I, for
>one, would like to see her *accept* that responsibility- a hard trait
>for furries to develop, I understand, so I was not about to hold my
>breath.

The jibe at the end of your stated wish gives the lie to your words. As
evidenced by your own words later on, your true intent here is to poke the
anthill and watch the ants scurry, for fun.

D.A. Graf

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages