Wolf Hits Road...

[no one in particular]

(Wolf coughs up something...)
My health which has never been great to start
with only worsens under stress. If being rejected in
FORTY-NINE straight job interviews and applications
in the space of just a few days over three weeks can't
stress you, check your pulse, you might be dead already.
Despite pleading, begging, kissing ass, being tough,
being weak, being in-between, my finances have not
improved, and my bills pile up. My family no longer
smiles much and fears the coming of the mailman who
now seems to bring nothing but more bills.
Not to mention the fact that although a number
of individuals here have shown great promise, the group
overall remains largely committed to unreality in
the form of continuing denial of their own potential
and the tragedy of its waste.
I went a few tens of dollars deeper in debt and
stuck out the nauseating ride to the CT shoreline on
Saturday to see both Sarge's Comics operations in
New London and Groton. They had the single largest
collection of anthropomorphic stuff I have seen yet
in one place. Millikardo Knights, Guardian Knights,
Furrlough, Hepcats, Albedo, Genus, Zu, Furkindred,
and a dozen other things including some Terrie
Smith art portfolios.
It is hard to reconcile that people who show
such abilities and expansive thinking can still be
as shortisighted in recognition of those abilities
and the result of their not being used to their
full logical potential, either in themselves, or in
those around them.
One day the rest of the kids in my fourth
grade class were taking tests from which I was excluded
due to having been placed already in a gifted class
and some sort of special education program. My
teacher looked at me as if I was out of place and
then ordered me to the library. I grabbed a big book
with familiar looking icons on it and began reading.
That book was the Hobbit. Inside four of
hours, I read it cover to cover. And we're not talking
the 'abridged and condensed easy to read for kids' version.
This was a two inch thick book with all of Tolkien's
style intact.
At the end of the day, I reported back to my
teacher and told her how I did and she did not believe
me. So she asked me questions from various parts of
the book and I answered every question with ease. She
looked at me as if I were some sort of freak and from
that moment on, I suspected something was very wrong.
At first I thought, it had to be me.
But over time I watched the other kids I went
to school with. In brief glimpses and glimmers, they
showed similar talent and intelligence, which in some
cases fizzled for lack of understanding where to go
next, and in others, was purposefully squelched lest
other students look upon them the way my teacher had me.
I quickly realized that in most of the cases,
it was for a lack of exposure to anything which might
encourage them to open their minds and think on something
greater than a bad cartoon. Their parents did not
read to them. Their parents gave them no books to read.
They had prodigious abilities, every one of them, but
they were never encouraged to use them and grow them.
Yet, they were ALL gifted. EVERY LAST ONE WAS SPECIAL.
It did not help that a number of their parents
were at that point in the late seventies doing drugs,
which to this day is an unacknowledged problem in my
town, or that they treated marriage and divorce as
unimportant as getting into and out of a car. It did not
help that their parents spent more time talking with
other parents at the PTA meetings than they did their
own children. The kids I grew up with in our project
knew that the kids from the expensive houses nearby had
childhoods no better than ours, despite the toys and
gifts lavished upon them by otherwise inattentive parents.
While children need such encouragement, adults
can by force of desire overcome this and at last, make
use of it. I have watched as someone close to me has gone
from pretending he had the brain of a potato to working
in a television station with equipment that costs more
that my entire family has made in the last ten years and
is a bit more complex than setting the time on the
living room VCR. My brother has made me proud beyond
description.
The pain of watching this wasted and unused
potential in myself is made greater by the constant
knowledge that I am but one of thousands, and indeed,
millions who are similarly cast by the wayside and
left for garbage. I have tried everything I can think
of, even as my ability to think is put out of focus
and lessened by the stress of it. When you see a building
in your mind, but are denied tools to build it, and
land on which to place it, you can do naught but dream.
Others have tools and make little use of them, never
daring to dream.
As optimistic as I try to be, the strain and
energy requirement is enormous. And my body suffers
for it. I have woken up every night for the last two
weeks because I heard someone screaming, only to
realize that it was me, howling in pain coming from
my lower abdomen and joints. This sort of thing is
to be expected with the problems I have, but not at
this level. It is a sign of the stress wearing down
my body's ability to cope with the various things
going wrong inside.
I need time. I need to recharge and get some
strength. I've been worn down below where I was at
my last job. Down below where I was in '82 and '89.
My head aches every day now, and my vision is blurred.
My thoughts are clouded and I worry not for me, but for
you. I had so much to say. So much to give you. And
you of all people I have yet encountered deserved it
most. And while I should not fear wearing myself to
nothing if it means getting the last of this work done,
I have one other pre-existing commitment and that is
to my family.
Therfore, I must take leave of this place
for an unknown period. I would like to say that it
will be no longer than a week. I would like to say
maybe a month. But I have no real idea how long it
will be. It might be forever.
I hope and pray that you do not think that
you have forever to do what needs to be done. Forever
to explore the areas of yourself that you deny. You
don't. Maybe thirty years. Maybe seventy. Maybe
one hundered. But no longer. And when you are gone,
all that might be becomes what might have been and
I can think of no sadder or tragic loss than that.
Perhaps I am being selfish, but I truly wanted more
than anything else to see your abilities fulfilled.
The world slides towards chaos and darkness
not because you don't know the meaning of your life,
but because you deny it. There is nothing more to it
than that. But if you stand in the way of each other,
deny each other the dignity to make use of your
abilities, and do not help each other, then you
are as guilty as all who came before. Teach each other
all you know. Learn from those around you. When another
has lost his or her way to their dreams, help them
find them again. And when you have tools to help make
those dreams come true, share them, as few as they
may be. Be kind, generous, and do not merely understand,
but experience the pain of your fellows. You might be
a little less inclined to hurt others.
That is all I have left to say for now. I
need air and what little sunlight remains to brighten
my day enough to make it to dusk and the sleep which
is sure to be broken. I wish you all better than ever
I had or will ever have. I wish you luck, love, and
peace. - wo...@your.door

(Wolf leaves internet for other places and wishes
he could sleep long enough to dream again...)

[Nate Patrin]

WARNING: The following post was written by Nate Patrin. The author holds no
responsibility for any flames generated by conflict of opinion. If you have
the urge to reply to this post with something along the lines of "quit
whining", I advise you to quit your newsreader, take a few deep breaths,
and for the love of [insert favorite deity here] THINK before you write- or
think and then /not/ write. It's worked for me.

wo...@your.door wrote:

>The world slides towards chaos and darkness
>not because you don't know the meaning of your life,
>but because you deny it. There is nothing more to it
>than that. But if you stand in the way of each other,
>deny each other the dignity to make use of your
>abilities, and do not help each other, then you
>are as guilty as all who came before.

I couldn't agree more. Then again, I think many of you know why.

I'm not sure of w@yd's gonna get this. I s'pose I waited too long to write
to him; he's a hell of an interesting writer. This regards the comments he
made regarding kids and creativity/intelligence. All I can say is, his
comments've inspired me to give a bit of my own background, maybe to try
and explain why I'm so messed up to begin with.

I know about the problems of being "gifted". Someone (my brother, actually)
told me once that being intelligent can be a burden because without naivete
it's easier to notice how stupid, apathetic and cruel some people can be.
While my peers in the sixth grade listened to Guns 'N' Roses and read "The
Official Novelization of 'Friday the 13th, Part 3", I listened to John
Coltrane and read Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions". Initially I felt
that the stuff I did didn't make me any better than these other kids. But
it wound up getting me ostracized and, as w@yd recalls, getting funny
looks. I wound up starting to revile these kids. I don't know what would
have happened if I didn't. Maybe I would have joined them and either let my
mind go to waste with drugs and vandalism and Beavis-esque stuff (that's
why I like that show- reminds me of some of the kids I knew in junior
high), or filled them in on some of the kinds of things I liked and maybe
turned a couple of them around. Instead I wound up being hassled and
hassling them back. Maybe those kids trusted pop culture and the status quo
more than their own abilities or another person's opinion. Maybe they'd
been convinced by their parents that smart kids are bad, or were just plain
ignored by their parents to begin with.

Whatever the case, grade school and junior high left me reasonably bitter.
I found a slight niche in high school- a small one that I didn't fit into
entirely, but was at least willing to accept me. It was a theater group-
one of the kind that didn't perform things like "Our Town" and "Arsenic and
Old Lace" but plays about police brutality and racism and conformity, the
kinds of things that pissed me off and fueled a desire to write and try to
change things with my art. I contributed writing to the school paper and
later a comic called "Bill and Dave". I was hoping people would notice
these things and possibly feel more fulfilled or at least aware of things.
But my articles were usually ignored in favor of sports articles and fluff
about homecoming. I had a small following of fans, but they were usually
people who were already my friends. If other people liked my stuff, they
never really told me.

By the time I reached college in 1995 I had started to wonder whether or
not I could get some sort of plan worked out that would result in me
finding an outlet for my work. The Minnesota Daily, the U of M's campus
newspaper, ran a comic strip contest, but I lost to some anime/tagger strip
that, while interesting visually, was about as humorous as a POW camp (and
the first fur to say that POW camps are funny should turn off 'Hogan's
Heroes' ASAP). I was starting to believe that I just plain sucked after
looking at rejection after rejection after rejection... and it didn't help
to see all the local 'zines implying that I also had no musical taste.

It was in about fall of '95 that I found Avatar. I'd been drawing anthro
drawings since junior high (being reluctant to share all but my Bill and
Dave cartoons for fear of being thought even weirder than I already was),
but after finding out just how massive the anthropomorphics scene was, I
decided "what the hell" and eventually I began to exhibit my work on the
net. I mean, this was a movement that seemed to encompass so many different
versions of "furry" work that I could probably get a chance for success,
somewhere. By April '96 I was uploading my stuff to some new archive on a
server called "rat.org", and I proudly pointed out the stuff to the friends
I met online via FurryMUCK. I also met a few other artists that were
breaking into the scene, like Amara and MelSkunk and Gene_Catlow. I watched
as they gained success and support and a huge following in the fandom. And,
yes, I was definitely happy for them. But at the same time I was confused-
what were they doing that I wasn't? It's not like I was any worse (or
better) than they were, but for some reason I just started to feel left
out- again.

The more I heard about other artists' successes, the more I started to feel
bothered by my own lack of it. I started to resent the apparent "status
quo", the constant stream of big names that went from intriguing to
annoyingly overexposed, the proliferation of art that, despite being
extremely popular, didn't move me in the least. Earlier this summer, I
snapped.

I posted to a.f.f. asking what it took to become popular in this fandom.
What I got was a painful blow: the revelation that my art wasn't
particularly well-done in the eyes of a lot of people. It was referred to
as 'anatomically inaccurate', despite the fact I couldn't see any problems
with it. In the months that followed it was referred to as "unmemorable",
called "boring" and in one case was even accused of "drawing the same
character with different markings". And the final blows came when I was
told that to be truly successful I had to do what the fandom "wanted":
pinup and spooge. Whether this was true or not was irrelevant. I was let
down yet again by a group I thought I could become an integral part of, and
I wound up becoming bitter and angry and hateful. Furs I cared about
started becoming concerned; some even gave up on me. I developed a
reputation as a cynical, angsty whiner. It wasn't my intent, but making my
opinions known was something I felt was necessary to get this load off my
shoulders.

It didn't work.

People /have/ given me support. But I'm not sure if it's because I'm a good
artist or if it's because I wound up a miserable sod (gotta love that Brit
slang) who didn't like himself. It all seems so fake and sad to me, not
getting support unless I vent or come under fire. But I'm not just speaking
for myself. Many other artists out there that I've met feel terrible about
their art. Many feel unwanted or ostracized or turned into scapegoats. Why?
Because some people would prefer to ignore or flame people who have
problems they want addressed. Because some people are impatient. Because
some people have been around a long time and therefore assume that
seniority justifies their condescending tone.

Maybe it's just as well I'm this way. If I can't handle a.f.f. I probably
can't handle bringing art out into the real world. Maybe I shouldn't show
my art anymore. It's probably a lesson: don't try and strive for greatness
when you can't handle being mocked by mediocrity. By mediocrity I mean the
complete lack of respect that so many people here and elsewhere show. Some
posts display such an arrogant, hateful ignorance and have angered me so
much that I've whipped up angry, vitriolic replies to them, and I don't
think they work very well (at least not when I do it). It's far too easy
for someone to look at a post they don't agree with and belittle the writer
to the point of psychological passive-aggressive mindfuckage. It's happened
to me plenty.

Lately I haven't been able to do much of anything art-wise and really throw
myself into it. All I see is a picture ready to be dissected by people who
care less about the total joy of making art and more about the so-called
"need" to enforce a set of standards. I know it would be easier for me to
"just ignore these people", but after living through over a decade of
insults both justified and unfair, I don't know what the hell to do. If
anybody thinks they can help- I mean /help/, not toss crap at me in the
vein of "you have to work for fifteen years to get really good and even
then you won't reach the levels of Terrie Smith and besides you complain
too much". I wish I could figure out what was working for me when I first
showed my art online, what made me happy and proud to share it. I don't
know when I'm going to be able to start drawing again. All I know is that
right now my muse is dead of multiple stab wounds. And the disturbing part
is... it could have been my knife.

-Nate Patrin

[Nate Patrin]

Nate Patrin <patr...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in article
<01bcc78c$5c1414a0$08195ea0@default>...

> If anybody thinks they can help- I mean /help/, not toss crap at me in
the
> vein of "you have to work for fifteen years to get really good and even
> then you won't reach the levels of Terrie Smith and besides you complain

> too much"...

...then mail me at the address above.

-Nate Patrin

[M. Mitchell Marmel]

Vaya con Dios, W@yd. Take as long as you need; there'll be at least ONE
AFFer waiting for your return...

-MMM-

[Fauxx the Indiglo]

Don Sanders wrote:
> I know how you feel Nate, for me, even more, I'm a late bloomer in the art
> stuff, after wasting 14 years in the military, finally getting a chance to put
> pencil to paper and create. They say it requires something to make it big in
> the fandom, all I wanted is to at least be known, not as a artist like the big
> names, but as a artist who is at least trying. Trust me, You have tried the
> hardest, as all amateurs in the field.

A word if I may..

I can't really offer any advice other than the knowledge I have
gained from my own scant experience. That, and this spiffykeen Latin
phrase that I'm prolly gonna butcher bad, 'ars gratia artis', meaning
'art for art's sake'. Fame is no motivation, because, as I'm sure we
know, the General Public has no clue as to what's really good or not.
If you enjoy what you do to express yourself, no further justification
is needed.

Fauxx
When they don't understand me, they look at me like I'm stupid.

"The problem with being a genius is that it takes another genius to
recognize it." --Elder Runolfson

[Kese]

Nate Patrin wrote:

> Nate Patrin <patr...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in article
> <01bcc78c$5c1414a0$08195ea0@default>...
>

> > If anybody thinks they can help- I mean /help/, not toss crap at me in
> the
> > vein of "you have to work for fifteen years to get really good and even
> > then you won't reach the levels of Terrie Smith and besides you complain

> > too much"...

I don't know Nate, it's almost like you really can't give someone a
formula for sure fire success in any sort of art field. (If anyone has one
though I'd love to know it;) Art is one of those things where I either
it hits you in the gut or it doesn't(this is a general statement not a value
judgement on your art). If your veiwer feels like they're getting a peek
inside your head they tend to respond. It's what makes me respond(or not)to
any art or literature. I've seen some art that was great on an asthetic level,
but totally devoid of feeling(Most erotic art is like this, with the expection
of a few artists whose work almost makes you feel like you're looking into
their bedroom;). I can tell when someone's heart is in it and when they're
merely trying to play to a specific audience. Maybe that the key to it *shrug*
, I don't know I haven't found it myself, but I tend to get the most comments
from the art that was drawn with a particular feeling or event in mind.

Kese

>
>

[Rainshadow]

Hey Nate, will ya humor a fellow coyote for a sec and take a kinda twisted
look at the fandom with me? Okay? Okay.

Let me start with a conjecture, founded most precariously only on something
I overheard at a panel at AAC: Noone is making a living off of furry art.
Neither our best and brightest artists, nor our most insightful and
compelling writers. Noone. (Please, if there are exceptions, will you let
me know? I'd be _glad_ to hear otherwise. :)

Now imagine for a second you're a technically talented artist, or maybe a
writer, who has discovered this genre that absolutely floors you... you
think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and by gawd you're gonna
try with every breath left in yer body to make it sing.

Now imagine for a second that you've tried to make it sing.... you've put
in hours, weeks, years. You've taken out loans to go to art school, you've
gone without food to self-finance a comic book, you've done the rounds
at publishing houses a world away; you've even put up with
ridicule from friends, family, and society for engaging in something which
many of them wouldn't hesitate to label "abnormal"... in the clinical sense.
You've even put up with ridicule from others _within_ this genre.
Now imagine how much that hurts. (I know you don't need to, Nate.)

Now think for a second how this would make you feel... and make
the inexcusasble jump and assume for a second that, to a greater or lesser
extent, every one of the name artists in this fandom has felt exactly that way.
Now sit back and ask yourself how on earth anyone could reasonably expect
furry fandom to be a friendly place.

And now, sit back in amazement and wonder on the fact that, despite such
long odds, furry fandom is, by and large, quite a friendly place... with the
exception of the occasional email and Usenet post, that is. :)

I'm sorry to say it, but for many people this fandom may be a total lemon- a
veritable boulevard of broken dreams.... try to keep that in mind the next
time a furry knocks you upside the head with one.
...and maybe, instead of seeing nothing but bitterness, take a look around and
marvel at all the lemonade that seems to be sloshing around... :)

---

End note: As an exercise (yeah, I _am_ a fledgling academic; how'd you guess? :)
think about the above for a second with respect to this fandom's concensus
on fanboys... Imagine you're one of the above artist and some random sot keeps
pestering you with absurdist demands and hero worship... it would be more'n
a little hard to take, yeah? :)

-Dan "Rainshadow" Pankratz, guilty as charged :)

[Rainshadow]

Wolf, my prayers are with you.

/We turn away to face the cold, enduring chill
/As the day begs the night for mercy
/Your sun so bright it leaves no shadows, only scars
/Carved into stone, on the face of earth

/The moon is up, and over One Tree Hill
/We see the sun go down in your eyes

/You run like a river,
/on like the sea
/You run like a river
/Runs to the sea

/And in the world a heart of darkness, a firezone
/Where poets speak their heart, then bleed for it
/Jara sang his song a weapon, in the hands of love
/You know his blood still cries from the ground

/It runs like a river
/runs to the sea
/It runs like a river
/to the sea

/I don't believe in painted roses, or bleeding hearts
/While bullets rape the night of the merciful
/I'll see you again when the stars fall from the sky
/And the moon has turned red over One Tree Hill

/We run like a river
/runs to the sea
/We run like a river
/to the sea

/And when it's raining
/raining hard
/And when it's raining
/raining hard...

-One Tree Hill; copyright U2

[Don Sanders]

In article <01bcc78c$5c1414a0$08195ea0@default>, "Nate Patrin" <patr...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>WARNING: The following post was written by Nate Patrin. The author holds no
>responsibility for any flames generated by conflict of opinion. If you have
>the urge to reply to this post with something along the lines of "quit
>whining", I advise you to quit your newsreader, take a few deep breaths,
>and for the love of [insert favorite deity here] THINK before you write- or
>think and then /not/ write. It's worked for me.

The above is great Nate, I could not say it better myself, most of my
disclaimers are nothing more than bended knee pleas to not get bent out of
shape, but I'm digressing.

*** Snipped, sorry Nate, it was great, really, but I need the room for my .02
cents.***

I know how you feel Nate, for me, even more, I'm a late bloomer in the art
stuff, after wasting 14 years in the military, finally getting a chance to put
pencil to paper and create. They say it requires something to make it big in
the fandom, all I wanted is to at least be known, not as a artist like the big
names, but as a artist who is at least trying. Trust me, You have tried the
hardest, as all amateurs in the field.

ok, I'm done now, time for me to go back into hiding.

Don (Dsan has gone underground again) Sanders.

[Doodles]

no one in particular wrote:
>
> (Wolf leaves internet for other places and wishes
> he could sleep long enough to dream again...)

Normally, rabbits and wolves don't get along very well, but in your case
I make a very large exception.

If you can make it back, here's one bunny who'll be very happy to see
you. Be well.

[CMelvi6195]

In article <01bcc78c$5c1414a0$08195ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:

>I know about the problems of being "gifted". Someone (my brother, actually)
>told me once that being intelligent can be a burden because without naivete
>it's easier to notice how stupid, apathetic and cruel some people can be.
>While my peers in the sixth grade listened to Guns 'N' Roses and read "The
>Official Novelization of 'Friday the 13th, Part 3", I listened to John
>Coltrane and read Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions". Initially I felt
>that the stuff I did didn't make me any better than these other kids. But
>it wound up getting me ostracized and, as w@yd recalls, getting funny
>looks. I wound up starting to revile these kids. I don't know what would
>have happened if I didn't. Maybe I would have joined them and either let my
>mind go to waste with drugs and vandalism and Beavis-esque stuff (that's
>why I like that show- reminds me of some of the kids I knew in junior
>high), or filled them in on some of the kinds of things I liked and maybe
>turned a couple of them around. Instead I wound up being hassled and
>hassling them back. Maybe those kids trusted pop culture and the status quo
>more than their own abilities or another person's opinion. Maybe they'd
>been convinced by their parents that smart kids are bad, or were just plain
>ignored by their parents to begin with.

I don't mean to sound crass about this, but I don't find your
story thus far to be so extraordinary. I can empathize with it a great
deal, in fact, since I -have- been done the same road, more or less. I was
far enough ahead of my contemporaries that I found school to be lacking,
and that I wound up being ostracized, not for being smart but for daring to
show it. The one thing school taught me was to hate it, a condition I
didn't overcome until I was several years out of high school and took to
taking further education at my own expense through night courses.
Moreover, I tend to expect that several other folks here, writers
and artists, come from similar backgrounds. It seems that these kind of
dysfunctional beginnings make for creative people, generally speaking.
The thing is, that the conditions that make us unique among the
everyday people that we know or have known, only make us ordinary folk
within -this- circle. We've been there, we've done it too. We can be
sympathetic, but not really impressed.

>Whatever the case, grade school and junior high left me reasonably bitter.
>I found a slight niche in high school- a small one that I didn't fit into
>entirely, but was at least willing to accept me. It was a theater group-
>one of the kind that didn't perform things like "Our Town" and "Arsenic and
>Old Lace" but plays about police brutality and racism and conformity, the
>kinds of things that pissed me off and fueled a desire to write and try to
>change things with my art. I contributed writing to the school paper and
>later a comic called "Bill and Dave". I was hoping people would notice
>these things and possibly feel more fulfilled or at least aware of things.
>But my articles were usually ignored in favor of sports articles and fluff
>about homecoming. I had a small following of fans, but they were usually
>people who were already my friends. If other people liked my stuff, they
>never really told me.

Again, been there. I was also a high school paper cartoonist with
similar expectations and similar results.

In the case of Amara and Gene, I suspect that a good deal of their
success lay beyond their art. I mean, their art played a big factor, yes,
but they were very outgoing individuals who were genuinely having *fun*
with what they do and were active at making friends. And maybe -those
things- were what you -weren't- doing: enjoying yourself, and making
friends. Maybe you were stopping with just doing the art.

>The more I heard about other artists' successes, the more I started to feel
>bothered by my own lack of it. I started to resent the apparent "status
>quo", the constant stream of big names that went from intriguing to
>annoyingly overexposed, the proliferation of art that, despite being
>extremely popular, didn't move me in the least. Earlier this summer, I
>snapped.
>
>I posted to a.f.f. asking what it took to become popular in this fandom.
>What I got was a painful blow: the revelation that my art wasn't
>particularly well-done in the eyes of a lot of people. It was referred to
>as 'anatomically inaccurate', despite the fact I couldn't see any problems
>with it. In the months that followed it was referred to as "unmemorable",
>called "boring" and in one case was even accused of "drawing the same
>character with different markings". And the final blows came when I was
>told that to be truly successful I had to do what the fandom "wanted":
>pinup and spooge. Whether this was true or not was irrelevant. I was let
>down yet again by a group I thought I could become an integral part of, and
>I wound up becoming bitter and angry and hateful. Furs I cared about
>started becoming concerned; some even gave up on me. I developed a
>reputation as a cynical, angsty whiner. It wasn't my intent, but making my
>opinions known was something I felt was necessary to get this load off my
>shoulders.

>It didn't work.

It didn't work because you refused to -listen- to anybody.
Anytime someone gave you advice, you told them in so many words that they
didn't know what they were talking about. Communication is two-way; it
takes giving and receiving, and you weren't up to receiving if it wasn't
what you wanted to hear.

Expressing your opinions is fine; that's what this forum is for.
But you always tend to couch your opinions in judgemental bitchiness, and
that always puts people on the defensive. You also tend to start off with
a belief that we are going to be in agreement with your opinions or tastes,
such as your asides about music or certain artists. I can't speak for the
others, but I don't care to hear about how worthless you think a group I
might enjoy are in your estimation, or how boring or useless you think some
other artist's art is; that also makes me wary of even wanting to give you
any advice, as its an indicator that you've already made your mind up
anyway, so why should I even bother?

>People /have/ given me support. But I'm not sure if it's because I'm a good
>artist or if it's because I wound up a miserable sod (gotta love that Brit
>slang) who didn't like himself. It all seems so fake and sad to me, not
>getting support unless I vent or come under fire. But I'm not just speaking
>for myself. Many other artists out there that I've met feel terrible about
>their art. Many feel unwanted or ostracized or turned into scapegoats. Why?
>Because some people would prefer to ignore or flame people who have
>problems they want addressed. Because some people are impatient. Because
>some people have been around a long time and therefore assume that
>seniority justifies their condescending tone.

Does your junior status justify your arrogant tone? Because
-we've- had to deal with that. Maybe if you dropped it, communications
would proceed a little smoother. I mean, this has been one of your more
reasoned posts, but we're still getting that judgemental air coming through
here.
Condescending? Nate, in the original thread started when you
asked for people's opinions of your art, you were given several opinions
and lots of advice, especially from Lisa. Go back and read through and see
how you treated people during that thread. The truth is that no matter
what anybody tries to tell you, you either dismiss it or complain how
useless it is.

>Maybe it's just as well I'm this way. If I can't handle a.f.f. I probably
>can't handle bringing art out into the real world. Maybe I shouldn't show
>my art anymore. It's probably a lesson: don't try and strive for greatness
>when you can't handle being mocked by mediocrity. By mediocrity I mean the
>complete lack of respect that so many people here and elsewhere show. Some
>posts display such an arrogant, hateful ignorance and have angered me so
>much that I've whipped up angry, vitriolic replies to them, and I don't
>think they work very well (at least not when I do it). It's far too easy
>for someone to look at a post they don't agree with and belittle the writer
>to the point of psychological passive-aggressive mindfuckage. It's happened
>to me plenty.
>
>Lately I haven't been able to do much of anything art-wise and really throw
>myself into it. All I see is a picture ready to be dissected by people who
>care less about the total joy of making art and more about the so-called
>"need" to enforce a set of standards.

Excuse me, but I don't see where the two are mutually exclusive in
any way. The only standards ever mentioned in these discussions have been
those of quality, and I don't see how those interfere in any way with
taking joy in creating art. In fact, I would think that a work of art that
was severely -lacking- in any quality would be less of a joy to the artist;
the two are actually mutually -inclusive-.

>I know it would be easier for me to
>"just ignore these people", but after living through over a decade of
>insults both justified and unfair, I don't know what the hell to do. If
>anybody thinks they can help- I mean /help/, not toss crap at me in the
>vein of "you have to work for fifteen years to get really good and even
>then you won't reach the levels of Terrie Smith and besides you complain
>too much". I wish I could figure out what was working for me when I first
>showed my art online, what made me happy and proud to share it. I don't
>know when I'm going to be able to start drawing again. All I know is that
>right now my muse is dead of multiple stab wounds. And the disturbing part
>is... it could have been my knife.

You have always misunderstood -- and are -still- misunderstanding
-- everything we were trying to tell you about Terrie. First of all, yes,
the experience of fifteen years is a good rule of thumb; Terrie didn't
appear full-blown, she had to climb up into that position over a period of
several years. But more importantly, we were trying to impress on you that
if you wanted to achieve the same popularity as Terrie, the only way to do
that is to produce the same work as Terrie at the same level of quality.
Obviously you are unhappy with that prospect, but that, Nate, is
the face of reality. Your mistake is trying to face Terrie on her terms...
not because her work or level of quality isn't worth it, but because it -is
not what you want-. You've said so repeatedly, and yet you still want the
same popularity. It is -not- going to work that way.
Your mistake (to continue) is that you want to be popular. But
you can't be working against the grain if you want to be popular. You want
popularity at your own terms, and it isn't going to happen; you can't be
popular if you don't want to produce works that people -want- to see;
that's what popular -means-: producing for the general mass. Your
interests in general seem to run contrary to the general interests of what
furry fans are interested in, and that's why your work isn't as popular as
Terrie's or Ken's or half a dozen other furry artists.
That doesn't mean that your work is necessarily bad or unworthy.
It doesn't mean that there isn't a place here for you; after all, furry has
more than its share of oddballs and square pegs. But you're gunning for
the wrong target if Popularity is your chief goal in furry art... or in any
art, for that matter. That's why I have been encouraging you from the
beginning to simply do what you want to do, draw what you enjoy drawing,
and screw the whole concept of trying to be popular.
I am curious, though... if you don't consider observations as the
above to be -help-, then what exactly were you hoping for? Because I
honestly can't see what it is that you're expecting of us.

-Chuck Melville-
<http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html>

[Robert Bobby Holiday]

Wolf hurled:

>(Wolf coughs up something...)
> My health which has never been great to start
>with only worsens under stress. If being rejected in
>FORTY-NINE straight job interviews and applications
>in the space of just a few days over three weeks can't
>stress you, check your pulse, you might be dead already.
>Despite pleading, begging, kissing ass, being tough,
>being weak, being in-between, my finances have not
>improved, and my bills pile up. My family no longer
>smiles much and fears the coming of the mailman who
>now seems to bring nothing but more bills.

Cry me a riv.. erm. *giggle* Seriously, we all have RL problems in one
way or another.. `;} Tell me about it. The mailman doesn't dare risk coming to
my door anymore, lest I chew his head off..

> Not to mention the fact that although a number
>of individuals here have shown great promise, the group
>overall remains largely committed to unreality in
>the form of continuing denial of their own potential
>and the tragedy of its waste.

Eh? Promise? `:) In what? I deny nothing.. I have... 'The potential to
become a front runner in this faodom and be a furry art god!!' *dodges errant
flame and the cries of 'Ego! Eeego!!'* *giggle*

> I went a few tens of dollars deeper in debt and
>stuck out the nauseating ride to the CT shoreline on
>Saturday to see both Sarge's Comics operations in
>New London and Groton. They had the single largest
>collection of anthropomorphic stuff I have seen yet
>in one place. Millikardo Knights, Guardian Knights,
>Furrlough, Hepcats, Albedo, Genus, Zu, Furkindred,
>and a dozen other things including some Terrie
>Smith art portfolios.

*Wipes errant fanboy drool from lips and grins toothily*

> It is hard to reconcile that people who show
>such abilities and expansive thinking can still be
>as shortisighted in recognition of those abilities
>and the result of their not being used to their
>full logical potential, either in themselves, or in
>those around them.

I myself love a couple philosophies:
1) I'm this guy that draws stuff. Sometimes someone wants to buy
something I drew. Sometimes someone wants to put something I drew in a book.
And sometimes someone wants me to draw them something cause they like how I
draw. Coolies.
2) I'm a professional learner.

[Story snipped *wipes tear from his eye.. the tragedy.. the SORROW!!* `;) ]

I've been tested legally as having a genius IQ, 127 at 7, 134 at 9,
currently somewhere in the 140s. I skipped a grade in elementary school, and
was decreed 'Among the top 1% of students in my country!'. Now I've got a
lousy grade 10 education and can't get a job either. `;} Funny how things
change..
But degrees and such don't really show a person's creativity well.
Anyone can read a lot of books and pass some tests and be called 'Good' at
something, but the innovators and inventors of our world more often than not
are the ones that had to go against the grain due to circumstance, and find
new ways to climb the ladder. The types that tend to do crazy things like
bungee jump down to the top rather than climb upwards to it.. `;}

> The pain of watching this wasted and unused
>potential in myself is made greater by the constant
>knowledge that I am but one of thousands, and indeed,
>millions who are similarly cast by the wayside and
>left for garbage. I have tried everything I can think
>of, even as my ability to think is put out of focus
>and lessened by the stress of it. When you see a building
>in your mind, but are denied tools to build it, and
>land on which to place it, you can do naught but dream.
>Others have tools and make little use of them, never
>daring to dream.

Many of us dream, I'm sure. I myself wake up screaming more from
nightmares than from pain.. my dreams are achieving that impossible goal
called 'normality' and escaping my 'demented' and 'alternative' nature.
Someday, kids will call me 'Old fashioned'.. oh gawd.. the horror..

> I need time. I need to recharge and get some
>strength. I've been worn down below where I was at
>my last job. Down below where I was in '82 and '89.
>My head aches every day now, and my vision is blurred.
>My thoughts are clouded and I worry not for me, but for
>you. I had so much to say. So much to give you. And
>you of all people I have yet encountered deserved it
>most. And while I should not fear wearing myself to
>nothing if it means getting the last of this work done,
>I have one other pre-existing commitment and that is
>to my family.

This place we sought to learn from and explore, hath perhaps become
our home.. our 'family'... the ones that understand us better.

> Therfore, I must take leave of this place
>for an unknown period. I would like to say that it
>will be no longer than a week. I would like to say
>maybe a month. But I have no real idea how long it
>will be. It might be forever.

I, nor many of us, don't know you. But hey, I'll miss ya.. since
you're one of the finer writers around these parts. `;>

> I hope and pray that you do not think that
>you have forever to do what needs to be done. Forever
>to explore the areas of yourself that you deny. You
>don't. Maybe thirty years. Maybe seventy. Maybe
>one hundered. But no longer. And when you are gone,
>all that might be becomes what might have been and
>I can think of no sadder or tragic loss than that.
>Perhaps I am being selfish, but I truly wanted more
>than anything else to see your abilities fulfilled.

You'll never see that.
There's a reason for that.. which is: Our abilities are limitless. We
set the limits in our ways.. what ways they may be. We impose the restrictions
on what we can do consciously and subconsciously. There's many a time I've
said, 'I can't do that', or 'I'll never do that' and found later on that I
could, or did. I recently asked to be readded to SCFA, (left a long while
back due to disagreement with policy) and was accepted, hopefully to counter
the 'lower quality' of art there that people speak of in the best way
possible: Adding my best art there and making it a better archive. (I hope)
`:) My attitude changed.. I hope other people's can, as well.

Bobby
Bobby@FurryMuck - Bobby@FurToonia - Bobby@SPR - Bobby^@Tapestries
NEW EMAIL - hol...@pinky.wtower.com - NEW EMAIL
ftp://furry.olsy-na.com/pub/Images/Bobby
http://pinky.wtower.com/~holiday

[CMelvi6195]

In article <34269D...@your.door>, no wrote:

> I went a few tens of dollars deeper in debt and
>stuck out the nauseating ride to the CT shoreline on
>Saturday to see both Sarge's Comics operations in
>New London and Groton. They had the single largest
>collection of anthropomorphic stuff I have seen yet
>in one place. Millikardo Knights, Guardian Knights,
>Furrlough, Hepcats, Albedo, Genus, Zu, Furkindred,
>and a dozen other things including some Terrie
>Smith art portfolios.
> It is hard to reconcile that people who show
>such abilities and expansive thinking can still be
>as shortisighted in recognition of those abilities
>and the result of their not being used to their
>full logical potential, either in themselves, or in
>those around them.

Who says that we are not? Because we are not fulfilling them in
the way that you seem to -think- we should be, does not mean that we aren't
fulfilling them to the extents that -we- believe in. We don't all share in
your perception of what a logical outcome must be. Frankly, I think that
you're reading far too much into what we create, and are seeing things that
we never intended.

-Chuck Melville-
<http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html>

[Nate Patrin]

CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article

> In the case of Amara and Gene, I suspect that a good deal of their
> success lay beyond their art. I mean, their art played a big factor,
yes,
> but they were very outgoing individuals who were genuinely having *fun*
> with what they do and were active at making friends. And maybe -those
> things- were what you -weren't- doing: enjoying yourself, and making
> friends. Maybe you were stopping with just doing the art.

Afraid that's not the case. I was having fun and enjoying myself quite a
bit, but then a lot of the stuff on the SCFA turned into a popularity
contest and a big name-dropping contest, and I got kinda caught up in it.
The fact that I was still mostly forgotten among my peers there was
probably the first thing that really made me feel not-so-hot about my art.

> >It didn't work.
>
> It didn't work because you refused to -listen- to anybody.
> Anytime someone gave you advice, you told them in so many words that they
> didn't know what they were talking about. Communication is two-way; it
> takes giving and receiving, and you weren't up to receiving if it wasn't
> what you wanted to hear.

I still think people are more willing to listen to one another when both
parties refrain from condescending remarks. I tend to tune out anything
preceded by an "I've been in this fandom for (x number of years) and I
should know that the fandom (does/wants/thinks) this". I thought the fandom
was a wide-ranging group with several subcultures and room for all sorts of
people, not some conformist rule-following clique straight out of high
school (or worse, underground music).

> Expressing your opinions is fine; that's what this forum is for.
> But you always tend to couch your opinions in judgemental bitchiness, and
> that always puts people on the defensive. You also tend to start off
with
> a belief that we are going to be in agreement with your opinions or
tastes,

What? I never assume people will. I always assume people WON'T. Trust me,
almost nobody shares my tastes. I just can't resist a good pop culture
metaphor. And that last comment of yours was kind of odd coming from
someone who expects me to know who all these fantasy artists are when I
could care less about 75% of the fandom. You don't know of Kevin Smith's
work, and I don't know about Steve Galacci's (sp?). We're even. As for
"judgmental bitchiness"... I don't go for Terrie Smith or Doug Winger and
therefore I am made to feel like some kind of idiot because of that. People
are judgmental towards me, I have a right to return the favor.

> such as your asides about music or certain artists. I can't speak for
the
> others, but I don't care to hear about how worthless you think a group I
> might enjoy are in your estimation, or how boring or useless you think
some
> other artist's art is;

Then... uh, well... you know, you don't HAVE to /read/ my posts. And if you
can't handle other peoples' opinions (i.e. mine) then you're just as bad as
I am.

> that also makes me wary of even wanting to give you
> any advice, as its an indicator that you've already made your mind up
> anyway, so why should I even bother?

Yeah, why bother when the only advice you have to give to me involves some
arbitrary rules and standards? "The fandom wants this, the fandom likes
that..." For all I care, there *IS NO* fandom.

> Does your junior status justify your arrogant tone? Because
> -we've- had to deal with that. Maybe if you dropped it, communications
> would proceed a little smoother. I mean, this has been one of your more
> reasoned posts, but we're still getting that judgemental air coming
through
> here.

How compliant to your standards of discourse do you want me to be here? All
I was doing was trying to explain the source of my problem and you
automatically assumed (a) it was a troll for pity, (b) I was gonna be a
snotty bastard (which you probably think I'm being now- but trust me, this
is about as civil as I can get regarding a topic like this) and (c) you'd
benefit from "putting me in my place". Why else do you think I've stopped
caring about your advice?

> Condescending? Nate, in the original thread started when you
> asked for people's opinions of your art, you were given several opinions
> and lots of advice, especially from Lisa. Go back and read through and
see
> how you treated people during that thread.

You know what most of the points on that thread mentioned? That to be truly
successful you have to do pin-up...! You even agreed! (see below: "if you

wanted to achieve the same popularity as Terrie, the only way to do that is

to produce the same work as Terrie"...) That kind of mentality has almost
*destroyed* some artists, many of whom started out convinced that erotica
was what furrydom was about and wound up being unhappy about their work
later on. To have to do pinup or whateverthehell the fandom "wants" to be
popular is a /myth/- a myth perpetuated by the fans and artists itself. I
mean, look at it this way: what would happen if Terrie Smith started out
drawing Chester Ringtail not only fully clothed but looking like some
scruffy, oddly-dressed street punk? What if Ken Sample drew all his females
looking like Patti Smith? (NOTE: Patti Smith is skinny and non-buxom,
albeit not particularly ugly. Another pop culture ref explained... sigh.)
If they were truly "quality work", I doubt the fans would care. And if they
did... well, I pity them. Saying that pinup is the only way to become truly
popular is a damaging sentiment.

I don't give a shit about people giving me some advice on things to fix as
long as they try and give me some support- either artistic or moral- which
I got a total lack of from most of those people until Lisa e-mailed me with
a critique and actually told me what she *liked*. Too bad Roz Gibson or Elf
Sternberg didn't follow that example. (Then again, they just flat-out told
me my art was 'unmemorable', which I consider less a realistic artistic
appraisal than an opinion fueled mostly by annoyance or inflated 'I've been
here for decades' standards.) I treated people the way they treated me-
difference was, they were subtle about it. And if it's one thing that
disgusts me, it's people talking down to you under a veil of fake
impartiality.

> The truth is that no matter
> what anybody tries to tell you, you either dismiss it or complain how
> useless it is.

Not "anybody". Maybe you. Half the time most of the "advice" I get here is
either not worth listening to due to a personal bias from the author
(therefore exhibiting a lack of impartiality) or is counterproductive to
the way I want to go about my artistic endeavors. I /have/ gotten good
advice, and I /have/ followed it. It's just that here, practically nobody
gives anyone good advice (except in e-mail correspondence).

> >Lately I haven't been able to do much of anything art-wise and really
throw
> >myself into it. All I see is a picture ready to be dissected by people
who
> >care less about the total joy of making art and more about the so-called
> >"need" to enforce a set of standards.
>
> Excuse me, but I don't see where the two are mutually exclusive in
> any way. The only standards ever mentioned in these discussions have
been
> those of quality,

You did mention the standard of what's "popular" (i.e. acceptable)- Terrie
Smith-style work. And define 'quality'. Try to convince me that I'm not
doing 'quality work'.

> and I don't see how those interfere in any way with
> taking joy in creating art. In fact, I would think that a work of art
that
> was severely -lacking- in any quality would be less of a joy to the
artist;
> the two are actually mutually -inclusive-.

What, so people who don't draw so well are soulless, joyless automatons who
just crank out work because they're forced to at gunpoint?

It's not that I'm unhappy about my work. I'm unhappy about peoples'
reactions to it. It's easy to like one's own work when it hasn't been
casually dismissed by people with far more clout than you.

> You have always misunderstood -- and are -still- misunderstanding
> -- everything we were trying to tell you about Terrie. First of all,
yes,
> the experience of fifteen years is a good rule of thumb; Terrie didn't
> appear full-blown, she had to climb up into that position over a period
of
> several years.

Of course I know that. What I'm wondering (and what I was wondering in the
first place) is, how much /longer/ will I have to work, since my subject
matter is evidently not what the fandom wants?

> But more importantly, we were trying to impress on you that
> if you wanted to achieve the same popularity as Terrie, the only way to
do
> that is to produce the same work as Terrie at the same level of quality.

But you don't understand this:

1) You're concentrating more on technical prowess and less on emotion,
subject matter and uniqueness. Several people who've complimented my work
pointed out that my characters seem more "real" (i.e. expressive- something
that's important in cartooning) than the artists who concentrate more on
technical prowess.
2) You're assuming that to become popular, you have to "produce the same
work as Terrie"? So you want me to copy her? Yeah, right.
3) I find Terrie Smith's work uninspiring. I'm sorry if that sounds
blasphemous, but it /is/ my opinion and I stick by it. If I want
inspiration for what 'quality' can do there's plenty of other equally
talented- and far more unique- artists.
4) I'm a cartoonist. There's a chance that I may become syndicated a few
years from now- with a furry comic, no less. I may gain nothing more than
marginal-to-adequate success in the comic strips and more people will be
familiar with my work than Terrie's. In other words, one can become popular
within the fandom by working outside it. (Does Bill Holbrook- who draws
both furry strip "Kevin and Kell" and the more widely-distributed "Safe
Havens"- care about the fandom? The fandom seems to care about him).

Yes, I know this thing probably takes more hard work than I bargained for
but shouldn't there be some kind of way to turn people on to my art in the
meantime?

> Obviously you are unhappy with that prospect, but that, Nate, is
> the face of reality. Your mistake is trying to face Terrie on her
terms...
> not because her work or level of quality isn't worth it, but because it
-is
> not what you want-. You've said so repeatedly, and yet you still want
the
> same popularity. It is -not- going to work that way.

I don't want Terrie Smith's popularity, Chaz. I want my own. I want a
different following than her, I want a different fanbase than her, I want
exposure in different places for different reasons. I don't want fanboys
following me around asking me to draw gay bondage scenes, I don't want
people to be oversaturated with my work to the point of annoyance, and I
sure as shit don't want to get a year-long backlog of commission requests,
no matter how much it pays.

> Your mistake (to continue) is that you want to be popular. But
> you can't be working against the grain if you want to be popular.

I hate to throw another 'obscure musical reference' at you, but look at Bob
Dylan. When he started, the Beach Boys and other musically conservative
groups ruled the airwaves. In comes this nasal kid from Hibbing, Minnesota
with a Woody Guthrie jones and an untapped style of pop music and *bam*, he
redefines a whole *decade*. Or look at a bunch of guys in New York City who
figured out in the late '70s how to make music by sampling and scratching
old funk and disco LPs. Or a handful of German and British guys who
experimented with the concept of "electronic pop music". If you're telling
me that furry fandom can't possibly accommodate that kind of shakeup, then
this "fandom" is probably too resistant to change.

> You want
> popularity at your own terms, and it isn't going to happen; you can't be
> popular if you don't want to produce works that people -want- to see;

That, my friend, is bullshit. A lot of people didn't want to see Michael
Moore's films, a lot of people didn't want to hear the Ramones' music, a
lot of people didn't want to read Vonnegut's novels, but they all wound up
gaining a following and eventually even influencing other artists. (It's
not my fault if you've never heard of any of them, though.) I guess I'd
rather get what they got: accidental popularity.

> that's what popular -means-: producing for the general mass. Your
> interests in general seem to run contrary to the general interests of
what
> furry fans are interested in, and that's why your work isn't as popular
as
> Terrie's or Ken's or half a dozen other furry artists.

Huh? My work isn't as popular as Terrie's or Ken's or half a dozen other
furry artists because I haven't been to a con, haven't been in a 'zine,
haven't marketed any prints or portfolios. In other words, I haven't
promoted myself painstakingly and (to an extreme) annoyingly. Anyone with
any sort of messed-up, crazy vision can make it with the right support and
the right exposure.

> That doesn't mean that your work is necessarily bad or unworthy.
> It doesn't mean that there isn't a place here for you; after all, furry
has
> more than its share of oddballs and square pegs. But you're gunning for
> the wrong target if Popularity is your chief goal in furry art...

It's not my chief goal. I've told you and many, many others that if I cared
about popularity I'd do pinup and spooge and rapidly hasten my rise to the
ranks of Ken and Terrie. But by taking the "harder" route, I'm still at
least staying true to myself. My goal's not so much popularity as it is
subversion of the concept of what's supposed to be popular.

> or in any
> art, for that matter. That's why I have been encouraging you from the
> beginning to simply do what you want to do, draw what you enjoy drawing,
> and screw the whole concept of trying to be popular.

Uh... if I didn't draw what I wanted to, you'd know.

> I am curious, though... if you don't consider observations as the
> above to be -help-, then what exactly were you hoping for? Because I
> honestly can't see what it is that you're expecting of us.

Well, seeing as how your post just wound up making your original point look
(to me) more insulting and made my subsequent remarks (to others) look
overly frustrated, I don't think you helped that much. I consider "help"
to be something along the lines of questions, not answers. If you don't
know what I'm /really/ trying to get at with art, if you don't ask me,
you're just preaching to the converted.

Hate to sound pissed off like that, but I can't reply to posts and please
everyone at the same time. It's just my personality. Take it or leave it.
--
-Nate "General bitchiness" Patrin
=====================================
"I'm the 'yote you hated, art infatuated.... yeah!"
Leader, S.A.F.E. (Slackers Against Fandom Elitism) ;o)>
=====================================
Furry Code v. 1.2: FCC3adm/FCF3adm A++ C- D-
H- M++ P- R- T++ W Z Sm# RLA*/- a20 cn+ d++
e+ f+ h* iwf++ p* sm#

[Robert Bobby Holiday]

Chuck spewed, and Nate overflowed:

>Afraid that's not the case. I was having fun and enjoying myself quite a
>bit, but then a lot of the stuff on the SCFA turned into a popularity
>contest and a big name-dropping contest, and I got kinda caught up in it.
>The fact that I was still mostly forgotten among my peers there was
>probably the first thing that really made me feel not-so-hot about my art.

Art fads. Gene and Amara are art fads. Admittedly, they're both
posessed of a large fan base, but they've got fans for the same reason you
want popularity: Being against the 'flow' of overdone spooge art and pinup.
Amongst the crowd of SCFA, which is less emphasizing on pinup/spooge and more
on humour and G-rated art, their artwork hit the nail on the head.

>> >It didn't work.
>>
>> It didn't work because you refused to -listen- to anybody.
>> Anytime someone gave you advice, you told them in so many words that they
>> didn't know what they were talking about. Communication is two-way; it
>> takes giving and receiving, and you weren't up to receiving if it wasn't
>> what you wanted to hear.

Well, that's not entirely true, Chuck.. he did acknowledge what people
said. And his work has improved, I think, so he obviously listens.

>I still think people are more willing to listen to one another when both
>parties refrain from condescending remarks. I tend to tune out anything
>preceded by an "I've been in this fandom for (x number of years) and I
>should know that the fandom (does/wants/thinks) this". I thought the fandom
>was a wide-ranging group with several subcultures and room for all sorts of
>people, not some conformist rule-following clique straight out of high
>school (or worse, underground music).

I thought the fandom was a group of people who enjoyed looking at
anthropomorphic materials. Gofig..
This fandom is NOT a fandom. It's becoming split into a 'fandom' of
art fans, critics, artists, etc, and a 'culture' of furry lifestylers, et
cetera. They cross, but that division is becoming more apparent judging from
the history of things. (No, I won't say how long I've been around, it's
meaningless) The 'fans' are the people who like looking at the art/reading the
stories for their artristic value to them. The 'culture' is a group of people
who not only do that, but subscribe to some of the philosophies and beliefs
that are represented in said artwork/writing.
There's so many diverse areas of specifics in the furry culture that
appeal to people, that a single person's art cannot effectively appeal to the
masses any longer. For example.. I drew.. 2 pics depicting 'Macro furries',
out of maybe 250 pics online in the past year. Those 2 pics garnered me
compliments from people who couldn't give a damn about the rest of my work..
they just liked those specific subjects and the way I drew them. I get a lot
of praise for my male skunks (don't ask me why) and get praise for my drawings
depicting crossdressing furries, from the people who specifically keep up with
those things. (side note: I'm not drawing any more crossdressing furries, a
pic of Cobalt will be the last one I do; personal reasons)

>What? I never assume people will. I always assume people WON'T. Trust me,
>almost nobody shares my tastes. I just can't resist a good pop culture
>metaphor. And that last comment of yours was kind of odd coming from
>someone who expects me to know who all these fantasy artists are when I
>could care less about 75% of the fandom. You don't know of Kevin Smith's
>work, and I don't know about Steve Galacci's (sp?). We're even. As for
>"judgmental bitchiness"... I don't go for Terrie Smith or Doug Winger and
>therefore I am made to feel like some kind of idiot because of that. People
>are judgmental towards me, I have a right to return the favor.

Everyone's judgemental nowadays. You put art on display, people will
judge it. That's the facts. You can't prevent them from judging it.. I
personally like it. Sure, it doesn't LEAP from the page and bring me to tears
or howl in laughter (if anyone out there can do this to me with art, please,
let me know `:)), but it's unique and enjoyable to look at for a change. I
don't go for Terrie Smith either.. but you'll note that her work is a lot more
'mainstream'. It's the work that is seen by people outside the furry culture
and even outside the fandom. It's popular in that manner because it's like a
'flagship' for furry art. Does that mean it's the best? No, but it means it's
the most widely known due to being popular outside furry fandom/culture.
Popularity outside fandom/culture will always leak in.. we're not all living
on a desert island now. `;}

>Then... uh, well... you know, you don't HAVE to /read/ my posts. And if you
>can't handle other peoples' opinions (i.e. mine) then you're just as bad as
>I am.

Couldn't have put it better. And really, Chuck.. I've been noticing a tendancy
to leap out at almost everything someone says when it's of a more unique and
personal nature, and criticize or disagree with (ie, W@YD's post on his
leaving). Can't you accept someone's post as.. *GASP* expressing an opinion
for others to hear, and not something meant to stir up a debate? Rather than
post your own opinion that differs, it becomes a 'No, that's not correct,
actually..' war that drags on, and on, and ON..

>Yeah, why bother when the only advice you have to give to me involves some
>arbitrary rules and standards? "The fandom wants this, the fandom likes
>that..." For all I care, there *IS NO* fandom.

The fandom doesn't exist, like I said. When posting a personal
opinion, there's no right or wrong. It's when one person states [THIS IS FACT]
when it's not, that is the fuel for debate. A person's personal views are
meant to enlighten us and show us viewpoints we might not have been able to
concieve ourselves, not to force beliefs on us.

>How compliant to your standards of discourse do you want me to be here? All
>I was doing was trying to explain the source of my problem and you
>automatically assumed (a) it was a troll for pity, (b) I was gonna be a
>snotty bastard (which you probably think I'm being now- but trust me, this
>is about as civil as I can get regarding a topic like this) and (c) you'd
>benefit from "putting me in my place". Why else do you think I've stopped
>caring about your advice?

Here, I'll disagree, noting that you seem to be assuming, Nate, that
he was assuming, etc, ad infinitum.. the secret here is to use 'You seemed
to'.. or similar, rather than stating 'You did'. That'll cause you to come off
as less judgemental. This is an open forum.. when it feels like words are
being put in someone's mouth, they'll react.

>You know what most of the points on that thread mentioned? That to be truly

>successful you have to do pin-up...! You even agreed! ..

[SNIP]

Ok.. take a breather here, guys..
Look. yer trying to define what is popular. Good, LUCK. The determing
factor behind popularity can't be achieved until you determine who you want to
be popular AMONGST. If you want to be popular in all of FANDOM, then yes, the
comic book publishing/erotica route is one of the easier and better ones to
choose. Is it right? No, unless you enjoy going that route. I do, somewhat..
but I like VARIETY. I've gone through a phase of drawing crossdresser furs,
the 'nude skunks' phase, etc.. whatever. `:) Whatever I draw, I draw.. it's
popular amongst at least one section of the fandom/culture, and it gets me
known. (And of course, plugpluging my webpage, etc alla time doesn't hurt
either `;))

[SNIP]

I prefer to be told flat out what someone's opinion is. I don't have
to agree with it.

Everyone's personally biased. It's hard NOT to be in this group. Even
I am, and I'm trying to be somewhat neutral right now. Opinions are based on
personal bias.. I can't say 'Well, I think it sucks, but by the standards of
most people, this'd be pretty good!'.. it's not possible for me to say that.

[SNIP antagonism]

[SNIP more of same]

Artists who produce lower quality work in our eyes are not working any
less hard at it. They simply lack the technical prowness in our opinion.

>It's not that I'm unhappy about my work. I'm unhappy about peoples'
>reactions to it. It's easy to like one's own work when it hasn't been
>casually dismissed by people with far more clout than you.

Admittedly, critique can have the opposite effect to it's intent.. it
can reduce a person's self-confidence. I accept critique any time I can,
however.. one example: I asked Rich Chandler about Gallery and the possibility
of me being good enough. He replied in a nice manner that no, I needed work on
anatomy, et cetera, and pointed out the things he looks for in art. Ok, fine,
I learn from it and move on. I'm not good enough NOW, but maybe later on, will
be. `:)

>Of course I know that. What I'm wondering (and what I was wondering in the
>first place) is, how much /longer/ will I have to work, since my subject
>matter is evidently not what the fandom wants?

You'll have to work as long as it takes. How long? Who knows. Things
change overnight sometimes, or never change at all. You could work forever and
never get anywhere, or you could suddenly be catapulted to the top in an
instant. It all depends.

>1) You're concentrating more on technical prowess and less on emotion,
>subject matter and uniqueness. Several people who've complimented my work
>pointed out that my characters seem more "real" (i.e. expressive- something
>that's important in cartooning) than the artists who concentrate more on
>technical prowess.

I'll be honest: Chuck's work has little emotion in it from what I have
seen. It's technically good, but it doesn't impress me overly. It's just More
Standard Furry Art. He's not going for the popularity amongst furries,
however.. he's publishing and making money in non-furry climes.

>2) You're assuming that to become popular, you have to "produce the same
>work as Terrie"? So you want me to copy her? Yeah, right.

I don't think he meant it that way. But I digress..

>3) I find Terrie Smith's work uninspiring. I'm sorry if that sounds
>blasphemous, but it /is/ my opinion and I stick by it. If I want
>inspiration for what 'quality' can do there's plenty of other equally
>talented- and far more unique- artists.

Ditto.

>4) I'm a cartoonist. There's a chance that I may become syndicated a few
>years from now- with a furry comic, no less. I may gain nothing more than
>marginal-to-adequate success in the comic strips and more people will be
>familiar with my work than Terrie's. In other words, one can become popular
>within the fandom by working outside it. (Does Bill Holbrook- who draws
>both furry strip "Kevin and Kell" and the more widely-distributed "Safe
>Havens"- care about the fandom? The fandom seems to care about him).

I'm an artist. But I don't give a damn if I ever get popular in
fandom.. I don't feel a need for it. Doesn't stop me from spreading my URL
around however.. being popular has it's advantages at times. `;}

[SNIP - I agree fully on Nate's point here]

[SNIP]

Furry fandom is dynamic, but also diverse. Just like music.. there's
trends, things come and go.. but there's always popularity within a genre.
Country music has it's own popularity within it, rap music, techno, folk,
etc.. being popular in just 'music in general' is an almost impossible goal
unless you're remarkably good at selling the commodities that the majority
want:

>> You want
>> popularity at your own terms, and it isn't going to happen; you can't be
>> popular if you don't want to produce works that people -want- to see;
>
>That, my friend, is bullshit. A lot of people didn't want to see Michael
>Moore's films, a lot of people didn't want to hear the Ramones' music, a
>lot of people didn't want to read Vonnegut's novels, but they all wound up
>gaining a following and eventually even influencing other artists. (It's
>not my fault if you've never heard of any of them, though.) I guess I'd
>rather get what they got: accidental popularity.

Well, clarify. You want popularity within your own circles.. the
alternative artwork, the things you enjoy.. you can achieve that. If you want
MAINSTREAM popularity that crosses all genre within fandom/culture, then yes,
you have to opt for things that appeal to everyone. Sex appeals to a lot of
folks, like it or not.

>It's not my chief goal. I've told you and many, many others that if I cared
>about popularity I'd do pinup and spooge and rapidly hasten my rise to the
>ranks of Ken and Terrie. But by taking the "harder" route, I'm still at
>least staying true to myself. My goal's not so much popularity as it is
>subversion of the concept of what's supposed to be popular.

Which I've done, though I DO stick to myself a lot. I've done my share
of nudes/etc.. but I also do what I enjoy, and I enjoy doing nudes. *shrug*

bobby

[allen kitchen]

Rainshadow wrote:
> Noone is making a living off of furry art.
> Neither our best and brightest artists, nor our most insightful and
> compelling writers. Noone. (Please, if there are exceptions, will you let
> me know? I'd be _glad_ to hear otherwise. :)

Lisanne Norman is a furry writer. She has 3 looooong books out
and a 4th coming out. She is also GOH at CF9. (The first book
is called > Turning Point < for those of you interested in seeking
out the material. )

In general, you are correct. Very few writers or artists are
'making a living' on the furry scene. Most of the furs I know would
not want that anyway, as then it would be a job, and not a lifestyle.
This is supposed to be fun. When you lose the fun part, it is time
to take a break from it and come back a couple weeks later when
the sense of play has returned.

And if Nate is still bothered by the occasional snipe someone throws
his way, let him know that I would love to be able to draw only half
as good as he does.
--
Allen Kitchen aka Shockwave @ FurryMuck
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/
***
Furry Code v1.22
FCW3amws/FCF3aw A- C* D++ H+ M+ P+ R+ T++ W+ Z++ Sm+
RLE a+ cm+++$ d-- e++ f h++++ iwf++$ p-- sm#
***
All unrequested email from Commercial Emailers will be charged
a 250$ access fee.

[JDupont378]

Terrie Smith?

Who knows whats wrong with me, I can't even remember anything before 6th
grade. I never took any drawing clases and I can only draw somthing that I
like when I am pissed as hell and am as lucky. My best picture I drew as a
protest to another picture, I have no idea why I can't draw anything if I
want to. I just draw, I don't know how to draw I just try. And my art is
kinda redundent, but thats a another story. I think there is a moral here.
As far as I am concerned, Nate's work is VERY good. Now think about this:
Skippy & Liska, great comic by RT Matheson. It's funny as hell, and while
the art is not superrelisitc, Its a great comic. Nates art is much better
than my stuff, and its funny as hell. My art is a giant lump of inclosed
freakyness, no refrence, no substance, just my twisted mind. Who is Terrie
Smith? I mean really, Who? And what about Gene Catlow, I don't trust him,
he is just TOO nice! I mean, NOBODY is that nice and not hideing somthing.
There is a moral here.

My art totaly sucked, it got better (Thanks to Al) but it's now, viewable,
not good.

Nates art is good, his humor is great. If you want a great picture get a
damn camera, you can't create humor with a machine.

Same with Skippy & Liska, great comic, but does anyone care?

And who is Terrie Smith?

And more importantly NO RAIN!

Speaking of that, Rain. Rain is not only a good artist, the art is "it",
thats all I can describe this stuff with.

NOW!

]All my opinions are wrong, bla bla bla, if you don't agree with me good,
your right and I'm wrong.

NOTE: The above post make no sense, do not read it.

Buster "Just say NO to 300" Charlie

Did I mention my computer sucks?

[Robert Bobby Holiday]

In article <19970924043...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, cmelv...@aol.com (CMelvi6195) wrote:

hi:) this isn't bobby speaking righte now:) anywasy i tried reading
all thsi adn it was really hard because the post is liek the same size as a
25k file adn its really time consuming to read:( but anyways

i read enough fo it to understand whats going on adn i jjust waht to say that
you gusy shouldnt argue so much adn stuff adn instead should spend atll the
time you spend posting ehre drawing more art becaise its more fun to look at
art:)
im sorry i cant type its very ahrd for me to type wellrand i try my best so
thatsn all i can do

rhea:)

[Nate Patrin]

Jeez, man... people're gonna start thinking we're posting binaries here.

CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article

<19970924043...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

> I have no idea what you're referring to by a popularity contest or
> a name-dropping contest on SCFA. I think you've mentioned it before, but
> I'm not aware of any such thing during the time I've been there. Could
you
> clarify?

Wellllll, there was the "Let's all draw Gene!" craze, the AAWD craze, the
Spaceroo craze, the Trixi craze... ehh. Such perturbing things shouldn't
happen to such nice artists.

> >I still think people are more willing to listen to one another when both
> >parties refrain from condescending remarks.
>

> And again I'm not sure what you mean. What condescending remarks
> do you mean? My experience with you so far has been that it usually
turns
> out to be what you -interpret- as condescension.

Basically, a lot of posts I've recieved have a "since I don't like your
tone I'm going to make cracks about your attitude, your skill as an artist
and how much more experienced I am than you" tone to them. Not particularly
yours, but there're others.

> Unfortunately, when you come looking for advice, it's usually
> going to come from those who have experience in either the fandom, the
art,
> or both. And It isn't so much a case of telling you what it wants as it
is
> giving you how we analyze it. Hey, we -were- there.

I've seemed to notice remarks aplenty along the lines of "what the fandom
wants". Maybe I misinterpreted them. And some people analyze the same thing
in different ways (the blind guys and the elephant metaphor), some more
accurate or inclusive than others.

> What, you want
> somebody who wasn't there just to make something up? Maybe your tuner
> needs some adjustment; it may not be what you want to hear, but that
> doesn't mean it isn't what you -need- to hear.

I can still think of people who "were there" (wherever the hell "there" is)
who have less of a grip on what really matters than people who watch from
the sidelines. It works both ways.

> >I just can't resist a good pop culture
> >metaphor.
>

> Try.

No.

> >And that last comment of yours was kind of odd coming from
> >someone who expects me to know who all these fantasy artists are when I
> >could care less about 75% of the fandom.
>

> A little different situation there, Nate. For one thing, your
> world of Pop Culture is severly different from mine.

And to be blunt, I feel richer for it.

> For another, if
> you're indulging in a group or interest, then, yes, I do expect you to be
> knowledgable about it. It has nothing to do with whether you like the
> other 75% or not (although that would certainly help); it has to do with,
> at the very minimum, having a passing awareness of it. Geez, even I try
to
> keep track of what I think is -bad- stuff in the fields I'm interested
in.

<snip>

Well, at least do me one favor: Don't give me funny looks and stares down
the bridge of your nose 'cuz I'm not familiar with as many names in the
fandom.

> No, we don't think you're an idiot for not liking Terrie or Doug's
> work.

Nah. You just regard my opinion as "unfortunate".

> But saying you have a right to return an attitude for what you think
> is an attitude is a conceit; and two wrongs still don't make a right.

Yeah... standing up for yourself can be a mess, huh? Oh well. To be honest,
maybe it's better to respond in a civil tone so that the other poster looks
like a crack addict in comparison.

> >Then... uh, well... you know, you don't HAVE to /read/ my posts. And if
you
> >can't handle other peoples' opinions (i.e. mine) then you're just as bad
as
> >I am.
>

> Opinions are one thing. But the timing could be better... like
> not giving them when asking for advice. There's also a time and place
for
> some opinions. For instance, I never offer negative opinions of people's
> work in public; I'll save it for private conversation. In public, I grit
> my teeth a lot.

That's because you're an editor. You're high-profile, you work with a lot
more artists than I do. Of course I can understand why you don't go off on
rants in front of everyone. But when people give me advice and I find it to
be negative or destructive, I'm sorry, I have to let them know how I feel
about it. Though I've found it helps to use less profanity than I'm used
to.

> There is nothing arbitrary about standards of quality... and I've
> said nothing at all about rules. I don't know why this continues to be a
> sore point with you. You -do- believe in creating a good piece of art,
right?

Yes. What I'm concerned about is what some people consider 'good'. I don't
mean technically, I mean in aesthetics and subject matter.

> >How compliant to your standards of discourse do you want me to be here?
>

> Politeness (or at least less causticness), sensibility,
> rationability...

Hey, I'm trying here... but when you've got as many problems from the
outside world coming in as I do, being polite's not that easy. I don't
/want/ to come off as an asshole. Maybe an eccentric, nonconformist and
irreverent freaky type with a nonsequitorial bent, but not a rude person.
(Rude meaning uncivil, not ska-like.)

> >All
> >I was doing was trying to explain the source of my problem and you
> >automatically assumed (a) it was a troll for pity,
>

> I haven't actually assumed that... but you're not convincing me it
> isn't either.

Sorry for the bad choice of words such as "you assumed" (bobby pointed that
out). Basically I exhausted any trolling for pity I had in me; I'd rather
have understanding, which is why I outlined my background and tried to
exhibit why I'm the way I am in the artistic regard.

> (b) I was gonna be a
> >snotty bastard (which you probably think I'm being now- but trust me,
this
> >is about as civil as I can get regarding a topic like this)
>

> More's the pity. I'll keep hoping for better.

And I'll keep trying. But no guarantees.

> I'm not convinced you cared to begin with, which is why I'm
> leaning more to believeing you simply enjoy whining.

What's "whining" to you is, to me, the addressing of problems that I need
worked on. I care about your opinions, mostly because I think they don't
apply that well to my philosophy and I'm trying to find a way to toss ideas
back and forth so we get a general idea of where things are, so to speak.
I've missed some of your points, you've probably missed several of mine,
but hopefully /something/ good's gonna come of this.

> I'm -not- interested
> in 'putting you in your place'; frankly, the advice was well-intentioned.

> I can't help it if it isn't what you would prefer to hear.

Alright, outline to me in simple, non-judgemental terms what you were
trying to get at. Word it carefully. Try not to imply anything regarding an
attitude that "the fandom wants this", "draw this kind of thing" or "you
can't do that". If you do, then I can't find much validity in your opinion
because it's a completely different philosophical bent than mine- a
philosophy that exists to encourage individuality, give respect to the
under-rated and under-exposed, toss standards of content out the window and
focus more on aesthetics, always assume that an artist can improve without
conforming to anothers' style or another genre, and- this is an important
one to me- break down any preconcieved images of what this fandom and it's
concept of popularity /is/ and try to strive for what it /could be/.

> >You know what most of the points on that thread mentioned? That to be
truly
> >successful you have to do pin-up...! You even agreed! (see below: "if
you
> >wanted to achieve the same popularity as Terrie, the only way to do that
is
> >to produce the same work as Terrie"...)
>

> Incorrect. I never said you had to do pin-ups to be successful.
> I said you would have to do them to be popular as Terrie... and that you
> would have to match Terrie at being able to do them.

Maybe we're getting 'successful' and 'popular' confused, though I'm not
sure how exclusive those things are. You mentioned that to be truly popular
(ergo, successful) you had to do steer towards "general trends that are
more popular with the majority than the other trends". You mentioned that
what the fandom wanted: "Fans prefer... Terrie Smith... Michele Light...
Doug Winger... it's furry art as defined by Terrie, Michele, Wookiee, Doug,
et al. It remains popular, and that's the way the wind blows." I don't
know if there's something you forgot to add in there, but I still think
you're contradicting yourself, assuming popularity is a prerequisite for
success (and 95% of the time it usually is).

> >Saying that pinup is the only way to become truly
> >popular is a damaging sentiment.
>

> No, it is a truth.

That 'truth' has driven many artists to things they didn't want to do and
wound up jeopardizing their careers by being pigeonholed. It sure as hell
/is/ damaging.

> The fandom... and not just this fandom, but
> all other popular fandoms... are largely composed of people who look for
> certain vicarious thrills, and the nude, the pin-up, the thinly-or-not
> disguised erotica are a large portion of most fandoms.

<snip>

Then why are comics like "The Sandman" and "Sam and Max", which are either
practically devoid of sex or not very serious about it, successful?

Does the constant presence of sex neccesarily make the fandom better? Is it
for the greater good of all people involved? I think maybe we'd be better
off if the majority of furry art dwelled on something that didn't have to
involve the libido... and not for the annoying Tipper Gore-ian "think of
the children!" reasons. There's a theory that overexposure to
sexually-styled items debases sex itself, makes it seem less vicarious and
more routine. I'd say that well over half the images on isc.br are of a
sexual nature either vaguely or overtly (maybe up to 1/3 overtly). When
sexuality is less of a 'subversive' aspect and more of a mainstream aspect,
it loses its carnal thrill and becomes routine and in some cases even
boring. Big boobs interested me immensely when I was 14. Six years later
I've gotten a bit too familiar with seeing drawings of 'em. I mean, I'm a
college student who's tired of boobs. This has to be concerning to
/someone/. (No, this doesn't mean that I'm gay. I'm even more bored with
weenuses.)

> If Terrie and Ken hadn't drawn the sort of sensual figures they
> had been back in the beginning, there wouldn't have been much of a core
to
> furry fandom, then.

Well, were they the only furry artists doing anything? Were the only furry
artists "back then" the ones that specialized in erotica? What the hell is
going on? My head hurts.

> Same with the early work of Reed Waller or Steve
> Martin. Keep in mind that when these people were starting, the leading
> funny-animal fanzine... in fact the -only- funny-animal fanzine,
really,,,
> was VOOTIE. And much of VOOTIE'S style owed more to the classic
> undergrounds of the sixties and seventies: Crumb, Richards, et al. (In
> fact, Dennis Kitchen was a Vootie) There was very little at that time
that
> even resembled what goes on in furry fandom today.

Must've been cool. No offense. Just that something so different from what
I'm constantly exposed to now seems intriguing.

> But what remained after VOOTIE's collapse to draw together furry
> fandom? It was interest in work by people like Ken and Steve, and later
> Terrie. It was the soft erotic glamour that really coalesced small
groups
> of individuals across the country together into small groups.

Usagi Yojimbo and TMNT (pre-Saturday Morning era), however, accounted for
nothing? Hey, *those* were the comics that got /me/ into the fandom, and
more likely than not a lot of other people, too.

> that was the
> real beginning of furry fandom.

Well, is it going to be the end?

> And that is still at its heart.

As are a lot of things.

> But... and this is a big but... simply because they were drawing
> work of this nature, because they were giving more attention to glamour
> than to experimentation, does not mean that they weren't producing works
of
> quality.

It also doesn't mean they were producing pictures beyond belief that'll
never be equalled.

> Or that they weren't striving for that quality. And most fans in
> the fandom... not all, but most... tend to prefer the pin-up over the
story
> or portrait or the abstraction or whateverelse have you.

And you've taken a poll? Almost none of my friends find yiffiness more
interesting than expressiveness or uniqueness... (guess that's why they're
my friends.)

> >I don't give a shit about people giving me some advice on things to fix
as
> >long as they try and give me some support- either artistic or moral-
which
> >I got a total lack of from most of those people until Lisa e-mailed me
with
> >a critique and actually told me what she *liked*.
>

> What? Advising you to draw what you're most comfortable with is
> -not- moral support!? Geez...
> Let me bang my head against the wall a few more times. I'm
> getting to like it.

Maybe you'll wind up with brain damage and do crazy shit like agree with
me. There's a reason I pretty much ignored your advice for me to draw what
I feel comfortable with, though: I'd heard it nearly a dozen other times
from a dozen other people long before I knew or cared about your opinions.

> >Too bad Roz Gibson or Elf
> >Sternberg didn't follow that example. (Then again, they just flat-out
told
> >me my art was 'unmemorable', which I consider less a realistic artistic
> >appraisal than an opinion fueled mostly by annoyance or inflated 'I've
been
> >here for decades' standards.) I treated people the way they treated me-
> >difference was, they were subtle about it.
>

> Horseshit.

Tell me, Chuck... how often have you gotten negative criticism? And have
you ever really stopped to look at what's being said and examine the tone?
And have you even read some of the stuff I recieved in e-mail? Methinks
that horseshit's rubber, stamped "Made in Taiwan" and comes from Spencer
Gifts.

> (I'm piqued now.)

Really...

> You bit my head off the very first time I ever spoke to you on
> this forum, when all I tried to do was offer you some of that advice you
> publicly asked everybody here for. What was your first words to me?
> "Don't butt in when you're not wanted. Who asked you?" (words to that
> effect.)

I have all my posted items to a.f.f. saved starting with some remarks about
'The Outcast of Redwall' in April '97. I didn't say you weren't wanted,
just that you seemed a bit too underinformed to comment well enough on the
topic at hand ("I'm coming into this kinda late, having only just becoming
aware of it" is what you said) and then saying nothing even remotely
*resembling* advice but "Micole already wrote what I wanted to say"
instead. Why would I tell you not to butt in if you had /something to say/
in your own words?

> And that's been a general constant for you; you generally treat
> people the way you seem to -think- they're -going- to treat you.

If a person's been brutally beaten by an angry crowd over the course of an
hour or so, and then one man walks through the crowd and towards that
beaten-up person with a cold look in his eyes, what else is that beaten-up
person going to do but recoil and hold his hands in front of his face,
expecting a continuation of the thrashing?

> And how do you decide if it's fake or not? Truthfully, you don't
> know any of us here except through our posts. How do you tell, without
> inflection or body language, if our impartiality is fake?

Because eventually these people break down and flat-out tell me what they
think. One person who mailed me tried to give an impartial tone but then
wrote me again regarding some comments about various artists... and said
that s/he hated all those artists (and made snotty comments about 'em). I
read a lot, and I can tell the tone and what a person feels through the
usage of language. I'm assuming you can, too- otherwise you wouldn't be
going on about how whiny I am.

> >> The truth is that no matter
> >> what anybody tries to tell you, you either dismiss it or complain how
> >> useless it is.
> >
> >Not "anybody". Maybe you.
>

> From what I recall of the original thread, Nate, you were trashing
> everybody for a couple of weeks before I ever spoke up... including Lisa.

Looking back, I was partially trashing, partially being defensive,
partially joking around, and partially admitting to some of my faults. It
was a weird combination and I've been dropping the 'trashing' part (though
looking at my tone maybe you can't tell). Yeah, that was pretty stupid for
the most part, but I'd never been jumped on by so many people before.

> >Half the time most of the "advice" I get here is
> >either not worth listening to due to a personal bias from the author
> >(therefore exhibiting a lack of impartiality)
>

> Again, how do you divine that? How do you know the author isn't
> giving you advice based on the extend of his own experiences?

Because that author says so in the first place- "I don't think toonish art
is that good, and...", "There's nothing I find particularly interesting
about your work...", et al. I don't trust people who have a problem with my
style itself telling me how to improve the other facets of my art. Why
should someone who thinks 'manga sucks' tell John Barrett how to improve
his art, f'rinstance?

> >or is counterproductive to
> >the way I want to go about my artistic endeavors.
>

> Now that sounds like an attitude right there. Like I said, it
> wasn't what you -wanted- to hear. My experience in art has always been
> that the best advice has always been contrary to the ways I -wanted- to
go.
> Let's look at it this way: have you ever considered -trying- them
> to experiment and see if they were any good or not?

Well, there's a pic I did recently... mara.jpg, under my SCFA directory. I
took everyone's advice- paid more attention to anatomy, worked with more
detailed airbrushing methods, worked with dynamicism, and to top it off
made it look somewhat titillating and pin-up-esque. Now I enjoyed drawing
it, and I like to point it out as proof that I'm capable of doing things
people would take a lot of interest in. But when I compare it to all the
other pinup pics out there, I find it loses the uniqueness that it once
held in my general ouevre and looks like most of the other stuff out there
in the pin-up field. I'm working on finding a medium between the two
(subversive pin-up? Uh-oh.), but let's face it: I still have far more fun
doing my usual work, the stuff I'm comfortable with. I may have already
said this- several times- but if I didn't take some peoples' advice my
art'd still look like the stuff I did when I was a high school sophomore.

> Or do you just simply
> -accept- that they will be of no help?

So far you, as an example, haven't helped. Everything you've told me has
been said before- "The fandom wants pinups" was said by Elf Sternberg;
many, many people told me to just draw what I like; and the pleas for
civility and impartiality to others' advice has already been given to me by
people I trust far more than you. Other people I've run across have given
me constructive advice, and as far as I can tell there's only two or three
people /total/, both on a.f.f. and the MUCKs, that I'd immediately ignore
when they try to dispense advice. I'll leave it to your imagination who
those people are.

> >I /have/ gotten good
> >advice, and I /have/ followed it. It's just that here, practically
nobody
> >gives anyone good advice (except in e-mail correspondence).
>

> At leat, none that you will take seriously.

I don't take things that've been said to me six or seven times that
seriously, especially after I've already reached a decision over whether
that advice's valid or not a while back.

<snip>

> >You did mention the standard of what's "popular" (i.e. acceptable)-
Terrie
> >Smith-style work. And define 'quality'. Try to convince me that I'm not
> >doing 'quality work'.
>

> I don't know; to date, I still haven't seen your work. I never
> said you weren't doing quality work, specifically for that reason.

Well, to be honest, I don't know if I'd trust your opinion. Go ahead-
http://rat.org/pub/furry/patrnate - but just as I'm the only person who can
be truly happy with my art, I'm also the only person who has a final say in
what I do. Technical advice regarding inking and brushwork, anatomical
properties, Photoshop colorization and other things along those lines will
be noted. Jabs at subject matter, aesthetics, style, or anything else
concerning a particular method of thinking and seeing will be ignored,
since opinions on matters such as those are not the kinds of things I could
benefit from.

> The standard of popularity came up because you brought it up
> beforehand, and you keep coming back to it. Let's consider your
appraisal
> of the situation at SCFA with Amara and Gene:

<snip>

> That sure sounds like you're searching for a standard of
> popularity to me.

It's not that simple. When you're doing something and your peers are doing
something similar with more success, it can be a blow to one's self-esteem.
I may search for any particular flaws in my work, get advice from these
artists in question, weigh it, apply it if neccesary, and improve my work-
yet continue to be ignored. It may not merely be an egotistical drive to be
popular but maybe some sort of hope that something might pull me out of
this uneasiness I have. Whatever the case, I'm wondering if I should give
up any questions regarding self-confidence.

> >> I would think that a work of art
> >>that was severely -lacking- in any quality would be less of a joy to
the
> >>artist; the two are actually mutually -inclusive-.
> >
> >What, so people who don't draw so well are soulless, joyless automatons
who
> >just crank out work because they're forced to at gunpoint?
>

> No, of course not. Where do you get that from!?

The statement you made not ten lines back: "A work of art that was severely
lacking in any quality would be less of a joy to the artist". You stated in
so many words that people who aren't that skilled aren't particularly happy
with their work.

> >It's not that I'm unhappy about my work. I'm unhappy about peoples'
> >reactions to it. It's easy to like one's own work when it hasn't been
> >casually dismissed by people with far more clout than you.
>

> Well, there's nothing you can do about -that-. I can sympathize,
> but that's a risk you're always going to run. If your work has the same
> ragged edge you have, or along the lines of what you describe, then it
will
> probably get more rejections than not from people. Not because of a lack
> of ability, but because it does not connect with people in the way you
want
> it to. That's all.

It's not like the stuff I do consists entirely of super-cynical esoteric
blahdeblah. Some of the pictures I do hit people on a gut level for
something other than suject matter- maybe a certain expression, a line of
movement, even dialogue. It's less of more people disliking my work than
liking it than it is a few scattered people who have power and experience
disliking it. If Mike Curtis hated my stuff, I wouldn't get into Shanda. If
Lynx thought I was boring, I wouldn't be accepted into Pawprints. (Neither
of those individuals, however, have said anything to that effect yet. The
latter situation is shaping into a realistic one, the former... uh... well,
I won't hold my breath.) In short, if people who have connections don't
like you, your chances of success are limited, because your lines of
communication are cut, so to speak.

> Seriously, that's a wall you may never break. Does that really
> matter? If the work is proficient, if you're satisfied with it, then
don't
> give any consideration to what others think of it.

I may have to (see preceding scenario). I'm past the point of learning to
like my own work here and getting to the point of trying to find an ideal
way to exhibit it and promote it. One thing I (and probably all of us) live
for is to hear someone tell me they were affected positively by something
I've done. As much as I enjoy drawing, I want to entertain people with it,
too... without compromising my style. Don't assume that can't be done.

> >What I'm wondering (and what I was wondering in the
> >first place) is, how much /longer/ will I have to work, since my subject
> >matter is evidently not what the fandom wants?
>

> Seriously? Forever. I'm not being faceitious or denigrating
> here. But if the fandom isn't interested in the subject matter, then you
> will never reach that same position of acclaim.

Well, maybe I'll just have to make the fandom interested- by reaching a
different 'majority' than Terrie reached. You're assuming- rather oddly-
that an entire fandom or even a majority will not like a certain subject
matter. Terrie appeals to the pin-up fans, but there are some pin-up fans
that also like cartoons, or music, or fast-paced action or satire or
irreverence... not every fan is interested in just one genre, much less one
artist. I honestly believe that there are probably enough people who could
find something in my work that appeals to them, for a different reason than
a pin-up artist appeals to them. And when sex becomes commonplace, like it
has in the fandom, some people might turn to something else for a fix of
subversive thrill...

> I do
> not agree with your position that Terrie has no emotion or feel in her
> work. It's at a different level than what you prefer or expect, perhaps,
> but it -is- there.

All I stated was that some artists feel to me (and others) like they have
/more/ emotion, or at least a wider range of them, than Terrie Smith. Just
because technicality's her strong suit doesn't mean she suffers in the
other areas, though... and besides, we're still talking about opnions here.

> And emotional content and expressivness (which I agree with you is
> highly important, being a cartoonist), is no more or less important than
> technical prowess. I place a high emphasis on -both-. And I expect it.

I admit I pretty much underestimated you in that regard.

> >2) You're assuming that to become popular, you have to "produce the same
> >work as Terrie"? So you want me to copy her? Yeah, right.
>

> Don't be assinine. Of course I don't expect you to copy Terrie.
> If anything, I actively encourage people to -not- imitae other artists
> (unless it's something done as an homage or a parody); I want people to
> speak with their own voices.

Well, that's fair enough, but...

> That has never been what I'd meant by producing the same work as
> Terrie.

Strange. What does it mean, then? Because "the same as" usually has, well,
a reasonably obvious connotation.

> >3) I find Terrie Smith's work uninspiring. I'm sorry if that sounds
> >blasphemous, but it /is/ my opinion and I stick by it. If I want
> >inspiration for what 'quality' can do there's plenty of other equally
> >talented- and far more unique- artists.
>

> I don't find your opinion blasphemous, but I do find it
> unfortunate.

Yeah. Sad I don't share your opinion, huh? I'm a lost soul.

> But because you find her individual style or approach to be
> uninspiring, it has nothing to do with her level of quality. I am
> seriously beginning to believe that you and I are speaking of two
entirely
> different things when we speak of quality, and I have to ask just what
> -you- are defining the term as meaning?

Quality means... well, hell, good stuff that's been worked on a lot. I just
don't think she's the last word in what to look for in a furry artist,
that's all. She's good at what she does, but I just... don't... like it. I
was less questioning the quality of Smith's work than the fact she seemed
to be your "perfect example" of a furry artist. It's hard for me to get
what you're saying because I can't relate to that work.

> No reflection on your work, but not only is the
> syndication game incredibly tough to break in -- you have better odds of
> winning the Lotto -- but the last thing any of them want is a funny
animal
> strip. I know; I've been there.

Define 'funny animal strip'. This ain't gonna be 'Garfield'.

> Still, stranger things have happened...

Never underestimate the power of a frazzled and utterly determined 20
year-old.

<somewhat tangential stuff about Bill Holbrook snipped>

> But you're right. There -is- a world outside of furry fandom, and
> it is possible to make it there if not here.

Judging from what you said, it's probably /easier/.

> >shouldn't there be some kind of way to turn people on to my art in the
> >meantime?
>

> Mmmm... I don't want to say yes or no on that one. Like life,
> it's a toss-up. The only sure way is just by getting it out there.

Which I've been doing and will continue to do.

> >I don't want Terrie Smith's popularity, Chaz. I want my own.
>

> That's Chuck, thank you.

Meh. Taking a mentally imbalanced cartoonist college student far too
seriously again... do you even know what the concept of 'lightheartedness'
is? And how is 'Chuck' less casual or strange-sounding than 'Chaz'? Hey,
it's good enough for Chas Chandler, and he was in the Animals /and/
discovered Jimi Hendrix. (Er... sorry.)

> >I want a
> >different following than her, I want a different fanbase than her, I
want
> >exposure in different places for different reasons. I don't want fanboys
> >following me around asking me to draw gay bondage scenes, I don't want
> >people to be oversaturated with my work to the point of annoyance, and I
> >sure as shit don't want to get a year-long backlog of commission
requests,
> >no matter how much it pays.
>

> Well, okay. Now you're making sense.

Really? Holy damn. How hard did you hit your head against that wall? ;o)>

<snip>

> >I hate to throw another 'obscure musical reference' at you, but look at
Bob
> >Dylan.
>

> Didn't stop you, I see, but that's okay, now you're talking pop
> that I can understand.

>
> >When he started, the Beach Boys and other musically conservative
> >groups ruled the airwaves. In comes this nasal kid from Hibbing,
Minnesota
> >with a Woody Guthrie jones and an untapped style of pop music and *bam*,
he
> >redefines a whole *decade*.
>

> You're not entirely wrong, but he didn't come into pop... he came
> into the folkie scene, which was very big for a short period. He later
> became ostracized from that same crowd who idolized him so much when he
> dared playing folk music with an electric guitar. It was a few years
later
> that he reached a pop level.

Before he went electric, though, he did manage to introduce the Beatles to
folk (and pot), resulting in songs like "You've Got to Hide Your Love
Away". He wasn't popular in a Beatles sense, though- but he /did/ have a
very, very large fanbase and a wide influence (Joni Mitchell, Richie
Havens, and... uh... Donovan). Then again, maybe I could have replaced Bob
Dylan with Nirvana and '60s with '90s, but maybe people wouldn't relate to
the metaphor as well.

> But I get your point.

<snip>

> You weren't around when we had the big debates over
> whether or not there was too much adult material in furry fandom.

Well, in case that debate's not over, my answer's "Yeah". Then again, I
think you knew that.

> Well, I've heard -of- the Ramones, and I've read Vonnegut.
>
> But what you're talking about isn't popularity; it's cultism.
> They have cult followings, rather than a general popularity.

Just a minute: Moore's "Roger & Me" is probably the single most critically
acclaimed documentary of all time. Vonnegut has had many books on the NY
Times Bestseller list. And while the Ramones never had much exposure on
Billboard, they wound up influencing the next twenty years of rock music
from 1976 on. For "cult followings", they've had a remarkable effect on
general pop culture, and I still believe it's the strange, unusual, unique
and new that has the most potential to catch on while it's still exciting.
That's what keeps popular culture from stagnating.

> >Huh? My work isn't as popular as Terrie's or Ken's or half a dozen other
> >furry artists because I haven't been to a con, haven't been in a 'zine,
> >haven't marketed any prints or portfolios. In other words, I haven't
> >promoted myself painstakingly and (to an extreme) annoyingly. Anyone
with
> >any sort of messed-up, crazy vision can make it with the right support
and
> >the right exposure.
>

> ...and...?

I'm not obligated to answer that question. The answer should be obvious by
now.

> You were
> wondering why people weren't responding to your work the way they were
> responding to Terrie's or to Amara's or to Gene's and it was because you
> were deliberately going in the opposite direction.

Not the opposite. Another.

> Did you think -that-
> was going to garner a lot of attention!? Nobody was looking, because you
> weren't doing what they wanted to see!

You underestimate peoples' willingness to explore new concepts.

> >Uh... if I didn't draw what I wanted to, you'd know.
>

> I'm not so sure anymore...

Well, try finding another thread, then.

> >Well, seeing as how your post just wound up making your original point
look
> >(to me) more insulting and made my subsequent remarks (to others) look
> >overly frustrated,
>

> I don't how I've done that. And frankly, I thought your remarks
> -were- overly frustrated.

But /I/ don't know how /I/ pissed of Jennifer Ilena Reiter in that SCFA
thread's first reply. I think it's safe to assume that you (and a lot of
other people) don't immediately understand the impact of their words.

> >I don't think you helped that much. I consider "help"
> >to be something along the lines of questions, not answers. If you don't
> >know what I'm /really/ trying to get at with art, if you don't ask me,
> >you're just preaching to the converted.
>

> ...so I'm supposed to answer your questions with questions...?

I think some more inquiry into what I felt and what I do would be in order
if I felt like continuing this vicious cycle of a thread.

> Maybe you should have explained that in the first place. I didn't
realize
> it was meant to be a puzzle. I sincerely thought you were asking for
> straightforward advice, and tried to give that as I saw best.

You don't even know what my art looks like. How can you give me accurate
advice?

> >Hate to sound pissed off like that, but I can't reply to posts and
please
> >everyone at the same time. It's just my personality. Take it or leave
it.
>

> Yeah; I think I'll just leave it.

Does this mean you're not going to respond to this? Because if it does,
then I challenge you to collect your thoughts and give up on this thread
and any other threads regarding my work- the damage has been done by both
parties and there's nothing constructive left to comment on.

I can't believe I spent an hour of my life responding to this... I'm
dragging my ass to bed. Got a headache... and six hours of sleep to look
forward to.
--
-Nate "Deeeeeep hurrrrrrting!" Patrin

[CMelvi6195]

In article <01bcc859$5d8d09e0$a21a5ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:

>CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article
>
>> In the case of Amara and Gene, I suspect that a good deal of their
>> success lay beyond their art. I mean, their art played a big factor,
>yes,
>> but they were very outgoing individuals who were genuinely having *fun*
>> with what they do and were active at making friends. And maybe -those
>> things- were what you -weren't- doing: enjoying yourself, and making
>> friends. Maybe you were stopping with just doing the art.
>
>Afraid that's not the case. I was having fun and enjoying myself quite a
>bit, but then a lot of the stuff on the SCFA turned into a popularity
>contest and a big name-dropping contest, and I got kinda caught up in it.
>The fact that I was still mostly forgotten among my peers there was
>probably the first thing that really made me feel not-so-hot about my art.

I have no idea what you're referring to by a popularity contest or

a name-dropping contest on SCFA. I think you've mentioned it before, but
I'm not aware of any such thing during the time I've been there. Could you
clarify?

>> >It didn't work.

>>
>> It didn't work because you refused to -listen- to anybody.
>> Anytime someone gave you advice, you told them in so many words that they
>> didn't know what they were talking about. Communication is two-way; it
>> takes giving and receiving, and you weren't up to receiving if it wasn't
>> what you wanted to hear.
>
>I still think people are more willing to listen to one another when both
>parties refrain from condescending remarks.

And again I'm not sure what you mean. What condescending remarks

do you mean? My experience with you so far has been that it usually turns
out to be what you -interpret- as condescension.

>I tend to tune out anything

>preceded by an "I've been in this fandom for (x number of years) and I
>should know that the fandom (does/wants/thinks) this". I thought the fandom
>was a wide-ranging group with several subcultures and room for all sorts of
>people, not some conformist rule-following clique straight out of high
>school (or worse, underground music).

Unfortunately, when you come looking for advice, it's usually

going to come from those who have experience in either the fandom, the art,
or both. And It isn't so much a case of telling you what it wants as it is

giving you how we analyze it. Hey, we -were- there. What, you want

somebody who wasn't there just to make something up? Maybe your tuner
needs some adjustment; it may not be what you want to hear, but that
doesn't mean it isn't what you -need- to hear.

>> Expressing your opinions is fine; that's what this forum is for.
>> But you always tend to couch your opinions in judgemental bitchiness, and
>> that always puts people on the defensive. You also tend to start off
>with
>> a belief that we are going to be in agreement with your opinions or
>tastes,
>
>What? I never assume people will. I always assume people WON'T. Trust me,
>almost nobody shares my tastes. I just can't resist a good pop culture
>metaphor.

Try.

>And that last comment of yours was kind of odd coming from
>someone who expects me to know who all these fantasy artists are when I
>could care less about 75% of the fandom.

A little different situation there, Nate. For one thing, your
world of Pop Culture is severly different from mine. For another, if

you're indulging in a group or interest, then, yes, I do expect you to be
knowledgable about it. It has nothing to do with whether you like the
other 75% or not (although that would certainly help); it has to do with,
at the very minimum, having a passing awareness of it. Geez, even I try to
keep track of what I think is -bad- stuff in the fields I'm interested in.

>You don't know of Kevin Smith's

>work, and I don't know about Steve Galacci's (sp?). We're even.

Hardly. Is Kevin Smith in furry fandom? You should be aware of
Steve at the least because of the impact his work had in helping to form
the fandom in the first place. Don't think so? This newgroup was
originally formed as a focus for his work, and was originally named for his
book: alt.fan.albedo.
I don't know Kevin Smith because he has no impact on any of my
interests. Steve, on the other hand, has a major impact on one of yours,
whether or not you follow his work.

>As for
>"judgmental bitchiness"... I don't go for Terrie Smith or Doug Winger and
>therefore I am made to feel like some kind of idiot because of that. People
>are judgmental towards me, I have a right to return the favor.

No, we don't think you're an idiot for not liking Terrie or Doug's
work. But saying you have a right to return an attitude for what you think

is an attitude is a conceit; and two wrongs still don't make a right.

>> such as your asides about music or certain artists. I can't speak for

>the
>> others, but I don't care to hear about how worthless you think a group I
>> might enjoy are in your estimation, or how boring or useless you think
>some
>> other artist's art is;
>
>Then... uh, well... you know, you don't HAVE to /read/ my posts. And if you
>can't handle other peoples' opinions (i.e. mine) then you're just as bad as
>I am.

Opinions are one thing. But the timing could be better... like

not giving them when asking for advice. There's also a time and place for
some opinions. For instance, I never offer negative opinions of people's
work in public; I'll save it for private conversation. In public, I grit
my teeth a lot.

>> that also makes me wary of even wanting to give you

>> any advice, as its an indicator that you've already made your mind up
>> anyway, so why should I even bother?
>
>Yeah, why bother when the only advice you have to give to me involves some
>arbitrary rules and standards? "The fandom wants this, the fandom likes
>that..." For all I care, there *IS NO* fandom.

There is nothing arbitrary about standards of quality... and I've

said nothing at all about rules. I don't know why this continues to be a
sore point with you. You -do- believe in creating a good piece of art, right?

>> Does your junior status justify your arrogant tone? Because

>> -we've- had to deal with that. Maybe if you dropped it, communications
>> would proceed a little smoother. I mean, this has been one of your more
>> reasoned posts, but we're still getting that judgemental air coming
>through
>> here.
>
>How compliant to your standards of discourse do you want me to be here?

Politeness (or at least less causticness), sensibility,
rationability...

>All

>I was doing was trying to explain the source of my problem and you
>automatically assumed (a) it was a troll for pity,

I haven't actually assumed that... but you're not convincing me it
isn't either.

(b) I was gonna be a

>snotty bastard (which you probably think I'm being now- but trust me, this
>is about as civil as I can get regarding a topic like this)

More's the pity. I'll keep hoping for better.

and (c) you'd

>benefit from "putting me in my place". Why else do you think I've stopped
>caring about your advice?

I'm not convinced you cared to begin with, which is why I'm
leaning more to believeing you simply enjoy whining. I'm -not- interested

in 'putting you in your place'; frankly, the advice was well-intentioned.
I can't help it if it isn't what you would prefer to hear.

>> Condescending? Nate, in the original thread started when you

>> asked for people's opinions of your art, you were given several opinions
>> and lots of advice, especially from Lisa. Go back and read through and
>see
>> how you treated people during that thread.
>
>You know what most of the points on that thread mentioned? That to be truly
>successful you have to do pin-up...! You even agreed! (see below: "if you
>wanted to achieve the same popularity as Terrie, the only way to do that is
>to produce the same work as Terrie"...)

Incorrect. I never said you had to do pin-ups to be successful.

I said you would have to do them to be popular as Terrie... and that you
would have to match Terrie at being able to do them.

>That kind of mentality has almost

>*destroyed* some artists, many of whom started out convinced that erotica
>was what furrydom was about and wound up being unhappy about their work
>later on. To have to do pinup or whateverthehell the fandom "wants" to be
>popular is a /myth/- a myth perpetuated by the fans and artists itself. I
>mean, look at it this way: what would happen if Terrie Smith started out
>drawing Chester Ringtail not only fully clothed but looking like some
>scruffy, oddly-dressed street punk? What if Ken Sample drew all his females
>looking like Patti Smith? (NOTE: Patti Smith is skinny and non-buxom,
>albeit not particularly ugly. Another pop culture ref explained... sigh.)
>If they were truly "quality work", I doubt the fans would care. And if they
>did... well, I pity them. Saying that pinup is the only way to become truly
>popular is a damaging sentiment.

No, it is a truth. The fandom... and not just this fandom, but

all other popular fandoms... are largely composed of people who look for
certain vicarious thrills, and the nude, the pin-up, the thinly-or-not

disguised erotica are a large portion of most fandoms. Comic books (check
out the Image super-heroines in skin-tight spandex), SF & Fantasy (lots of
popular book covers with half-naked damsels or heroines)... This element
runs through the entire gamut of fannish interests.

If Terrie and Ken hadn't drawn the sort of sensual figures they
had been back in the beginning, there wouldn't have been much of a core to

furry fandom, then. Same with the early work of Reed Waller or Steve

Martin. Keep in mind that when these people were starting, the leading
funny-animal fanzine... in fact the -only- funny-animal fanzine, really,,,
was VOOTIE. And much of VOOTIE'S style owed more to the classic
undergrounds of the sixties and seventies: Crumb, Richards, et al. (In
fact, Dennis Kitchen was a Vootie) There was very little at that time that
even resembled what goes on in furry fandom today.

But what remained after VOOTIE's collapse to draw together furry
fandom? It was interest in work by people like Ken and Steve, and later
Terrie. It was the soft erotic glamour that really coalesced small groups

of individuals across the country together into small groups. that was the
real beginning of furry fandom. And that is still at its heart.

But... and this is a big but... simply because they were drawing
work of this nature, because they were giving more attention to glamour
than to experimentation, does not mean that they weren't producing works of

quality. Or that they weren't striving for that quality. And most fans in

the fandom... not all, but most... tend to prefer the pin-up over the story
or portrait or the abstraction or whateverelse have you.

>

>I don't give a shit about people giving me some advice on things to fix as
>long as they try and give me some support- either artistic or moral- which
>I got a total lack of from most of those people until Lisa e-mailed me with
>a critique and actually told me what she *liked*.

What? Advising you to draw what you're most comfortable with is

-not- moral support!? Geez...
Let me bang my head against the wall a few more times. I'm
getting to like it.

>Too bad Roz Gibson or Elf

>Sternberg didn't follow that example. (Then again, they just flat-out told
>me my art was 'unmemorable', which I consider less a realistic artistic
>appraisal than an opinion fueled mostly by annoyance or inflated 'I've been
>here for decades' standards.) I treated people the way they treated me-
>difference was, they were subtle about it.

Horseshit.

(I'm piqued now.)

You bit my head off the very first time I ever spoke to you on
this forum, when all I tried to do was offer you some of that advice you
publicly asked everybody here for. What was your first words to me?
"Don't butt in when you're not wanted. Who asked you?" (words to that

effect.) And that's been a general constant for you; you generally treat

people the way you seem to -think- they're -going- to treat you.

>And if it's one thing that

>disgusts me, it's people talking down to you under a veil of fake
>impartiality.

And how do you decide if it's fake or not? Truthfully, you don't

know any of us here except through our posts. How do you tell, without
inflection or body language, if our impartiality is fake?

>> The truth is that no matter

>> what anybody tries to tell you, you either dismiss it or complain how
>> useless it is.
>
>Not "anybody". Maybe you.

From what I recall of the original thread, Nate, you were trashing

everybody for a couple of weeks before I ever spoke up... including Lisa.

>Half the time most of the "advice" I get here is

>either not worth listening to due to a personal bias from the author
>(therefore exhibiting a lack of impartiality)

Again, how do you divine that? How do you know the author isn't

giving you advice based on the extend of his own experiences?

>or is counterproductive to

>the way I want to go about my artistic endeavors.

Now that sounds like an attitude right there. Like I said, it

wasn't what you -wanted- to hear. My experience in art has always been
that the best advice has always been contrary to the ways I -wanted- to go.
Let's look at it this way: have you ever considered -trying- them

to experiment and see if they were any good or not? Or do you just simply

-accept- that they will be of no help?

>I /have/ gotten good

>advice, and I /have/ followed it. It's just that here, practically nobody
>gives anyone good advice (except in e-mail correspondence).

At leat, none that you will take seriously.

>> >Lately I haven't been able to do much of anything art-wise and really

>throw
>> >myself into it. All I see is a picture ready to be dissected by people
>who
>> >care less about the total joy of making art and more about the so-called
>> >"need" to enforce a set of standards.
>>
>> Excuse me, but I don't see where the two are mutually exclusive in
>> any way. The only standards ever mentioned in these discussions have
>been
>> those of quality,
>
>You did mention the standard of what's "popular" (i.e. acceptable)- Terrie
>Smith-style work. And define 'quality'. Try to convince me that I'm not
>doing 'quality work'.

I don't know; to date, I still haven't seen your work. I never

said you weren't doing quality work, specifically for that reason.

The standard of popularity came up because you brought it up
beforehand, and you keep coming back to it. Let's consider your appraisal

of the situation at SCFA with Amara and Gene: " I watched as they gained

success and support and a huge following in the fandom. And, yes, I was
definitely happy for them. But at the same time I was confused- what were
they doing that I wasn't? It's not like I was any worse (or better) than
they were, but for some reason I just started to feel left out- again."

That sure sounds like you're searching for a standard of
popularity to me.

>> and I don't see how those interfere in any way with
>> taking joy in creating art. In fact, I would think that a work of art
>that
>> was severely -lacking- in any quality would be less of a joy to the
>artist;
>> the two are actually mutually -inclusive-.
>
>What, so people who don't draw so well are soulless, joyless automatons who
>just crank out work because they're forced to at gunpoint?

No, of course not. Where do you get that from!?

>It's not that I'm unhappy about my work. I'm unhappy about peoples'

>reactions to it. It's easy to like one's own work when it hasn't been
>casually dismissed by people with far more clout than you.

Well, there's nothing you can do about -that-. I can sympathize,

but that's a risk you're always going to run. If your work has the same
ragged edge you have, or along the lines of what you describe, then it will
probably get more rejections than not from people. Not because of a lack
of ability, but because it does not connect with people in the way you want
it to. That's all.

Seriously, that's a wall you may never break. Does that really
matter? If the work is proficient, if you're satisfied with it, then don't
give any consideration to what others think of it.

If that isn't acceptable, then you have to meet their expectations
halfway. But it's going to have to be one or the other.

>> You have always misunderstood -- and are -still- misunderstanding
>> -- everything we were trying to tell you about Terrie. First of all,
>yes,
>> the experience of fifteen years is a good rule of thumb; Terrie didn't
>> appear full-blown, she had to climb up into that position over a period
>of
>> several years.
>
>Of course I know that. What I'm wondering (and what I was wondering in the
>first place) is, how much /longer/ will I have to work, since my subject
>matter is evidently not what the fandom wants?

Seriously? Forever. I'm not being faceitious or denigrating

here. But if the fandom isn't interested in the subject matter, then you
will never reach that same position of acclaim.

>> But more importantly, we were trying to impress on you that

>> if you wanted to achieve the same popularity as Terrie, the only way to
>do
>> that is to produce the same work as Terrie at the same level of quality.
>
>But you don't understand this:
>
>1) You're concentrating more on technical prowess and less on emotion,
>subject matter and uniqueness. Several people who've complimented my work
>pointed out that my characters seem more "real" (i.e. expressive- something
>that's important in cartooning) than the artists who concentrate more on
>technical prowess.

No, I am not eschewing the one for the other. For one thing, I do

not agree with your position that Terrie has no emotion or feel in her
work. It's at a different level than what you prefer or expect, perhaps,
but it -is- there.

And emotional content and expressivness (which I agree with you is
highly important, being a cartoonist), is no more or less important than
technical prowess. I place a high emphasis on -both-. And I expect it.

>2) You're assuming that to become popular, you have to "produce the same

>work as Terrie"? So you want me to copy her? Yeah, right.

Don't be assinine. Of course I don't expect you to copy Terrie.

If anything, I actively encourage people to -not- imitae other artists
(unless it's something done as an homage or a parody); I want people to
speak with their own voices.

That has never been what I'd meant by producing the same work as
Terrie.

>3) I find Terrie Smith's work uninspiring. I'm sorry if that sounds

>blasphemous, but it /is/ my opinion and I stick by it. If I want
>inspiration for what 'quality' can do there's plenty of other equally
>talented- and far more unique- artists.

I don't find your opinion blasphemous, but I do find it
unfortunate. But because you find her individual style or approach to be

uninspiring, it has nothing to do with her level of quality. I am
seriously beginning to believe that you and I are speaking of two entirely
different things when we speak of quality, and I have to ask just what
-you- are defining the term as meaning?

>4) I'm a cartoonist. There's a chance that I may become syndicated a few

>years from now- with a furry comic, no less.

Lots of luck. No reflection on your work, but not only is the

syndication game incredibly tough to break in -- you have better odds of
winning the Lotto -- but the last thing any of them want is a funny animal
strip. I know; I've been there.

Still, stranger things have happened...

>I may gain nothing more than

>marginal-to-adequate success in the comic strips and more people will be
>familiar with my work than Terrie's. In other words, one can become popular
>within the fandom by working outside it. (Does Bill Holbrook- who draws
>both furry strip "Kevin and Kell" and the more widely-distributed "Safe
>Havens"- care about the fandom? The fandom seems to care about him).

Actually, I think Holbrook -does- care to some extent, as they are
his most enthusiastic fans, and he seems to have taken to them at
Confurence this past year.

But you're right. There -is- a world outside of furry fandom, and
it is possible to make it there if not here.

>Yes, I know this thing probably takes more hard work than I bargained for

>but shouldn't there be some kind of way to turn people on to my art in the
>meantime?

Mmmm... I don't want to say yes or no on that one. Like life,

it's a toss-up. The only sure way is just by getting it out there.

>> Obviously you are unhappy with that prospect, but that, Nate, is

>> the face of reality. Your mistake is trying to face Terrie on her
>terms...
>> not because her work or level of quality isn't worth it, but because it
>-is
>> not what you want-. You've said so repeatedly, and yet you still want
>the
>> same popularity. It is -not- going to work that way.
>
>I don't want Terrie Smith's popularity, Chaz. I want my own.

That's Chuck, thank you.

>I want a

>different following than her, I want a different fanbase than her, I want
>exposure in different places for different reasons. I don't want fanboys
>following me around asking me to draw gay bondage scenes, I don't want
>people to be oversaturated with my work to the point of annoyance, and I
>sure as shit don't want to get a year-long backlog of commission requests,
>no matter how much it pays.

Well, okay. Now you're making sense.

>> Your mistake (to continue) is that you want to be popular. But

>> you can't be working against the grain if you want to be popular.
>
>I hate to throw another 'obscure musical reference' at you, but look at Bob
>Dylan.

Didn't stop you, I see, but that's okay, now you're talking pop
that I can understand.

>When he started, the Beach Boys and other musically conservative

>groups ruled the airwaves. In comes this nasal kid from Hibbing, Minnesota
>with a Woody Guthrie jones and an untapped style of pop music and *bam*, he
>redefines a whole *decade*.

You're not entirely wrong, but he didn't come into pop... he came

into the folkie scene, which was very big for a short period. He later
became ostracized from that same crowd who idolized him so much when he
dared playing folk music with an electric guitar. It was a few years later
that he reached a pop level.

But I get your point.

>Or look at a bunch of guys in New York City who

>figured out in the late '70s how to make music by sampling and scratching
>old funk and disco LPs. Or a handful of German and British guys who
>experimented with the concept of "electronic pop music". If you're telling
>me that furry fandom can't possibly accommodate that kind of shakeup, then
>this "fandom" is probably too resistant to change.

It may be. You weren't around when we had the big debates over

whether or not there was too much adult material in furry fandom.

>> You want

>> popularity at your own terms, and it isn't going to happen; you can't be
>> popular if you don't want to produce works that people -want- to see;
>
>That, my friend, is bullshit. A lot of people didn't want to see Michael
>Moore's films, a lot of people didn't want to hear the Ramones' music, a
>lot of people didn't want to read Vonnegut's novels, but they all wound up
>gaining a following and eventually even influencing other artists. (It's
>not my fault if you've never heard of any of them, though.) I guess I'd
>rather get what they got: accidental popularity.

Well, I've heard -of- the Ramones, and I've read Vonnegut.

But what you're talking about isn't popularity; it's cultism.

They have cult followings, rather than a general popularity.

>> that's what popular -means-: producing for the general mass. Your
>> interests in general seem to run contrary to the general interests of
>what
>> furry fans are interested in, and that's why your work isn't as popular
>as
>> Terrie's or Ken's or half a dozen other furry artists.
>
>Huh? My work isn't as popular as Terrie's or Ken's or half a dozen other
>furry artists because I haven't been to a con, haven't been in a 'zine,
>haven't marketed any prints or portfolios. In other words, I haven't
>promoted myself painstakingly and (to an extreme) annoyingly. Anyone with
>any sort of messed-up, crazy vision can make it with the right support and
>the right exposure.

...and...?

>> That doesn't mean that your work is necessarily bad or unworthy.
>> It doesn't mean that there isn't a place here for you; after all, furry
>has
>> more than its share of oddballs and square pegs. But you're gunning for
>> the wrong target if Popularity is your chief goal in furry art...
>
>It's not my chief goal. I've told you and many, many others that if I cared
>about popularity I'd do pinup and spooge and rapidly hasten my rise to the
>ranks of Ken and Terrie. But by taking the "harder" route, I'm still at
>least staying true to myself. My goal's not so much popularity as it is
>subversion of the concept of what's supposed to be popular.

Then I fail to see what your initial problem was. You were

wondering why people weren't responding to your work the way they were
responding to Terrie's or to Amara's or to Gene's and it was because you

were deliberately going in the opposite direction. Did you think -that-

was going to garner a lot of attention!? Nobody was looking, because you
weren't doing what they wanted to see!

>> or in any

>> art, for that matter. That's why I have been encouraging you from the
>> beginning to simply do what you want to do, draw what you enjoy drawing,
>> and screw the whole concept of trying to be popular.
>
>Uh... if I didn't draw what I wanted to, you'd know.

I'm not so sure anymore...

>> I am curious, though... if you don't consider observations as the

>> above to be -help-, then what exactly were you hoping for? Because I
>> honestly can't see what it is that you're expecting of us.
>
>Well, seeing as how your post just wound up making your original point look
>(to me) more insulting and made my subsequent remarks (to others) look
>overly frustrated,

I don't how I've done that. And frankly, I thought your remarks
-were- overly frustrated.

>I don't think you helped that much. I consider "help"

>to be something along the lines of questions, not answers. If you don't
>know what I'm /really/ trying to get at with art, if you don't ask me,
>you're just preaching to the converted.

...so I'm supposed to answer your questions with questions...?

Maybe you should have explained that in the first place. I didn't realize
it was meant to be a puzzle. I sincerely thought you were asking for
straightforward advice, and tried to give that as I saw best.

>Hate to sound pissed off like that, but I can't reply to posts and please

>everyone at the same time. It's just my personality. Take it or leave it.

Yeah; I think I'll just leave it.

-Chuck Melville-
<http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html>

[AllanGldmn]

In article <01bcc8cd$22618ac0$823e5ea0@default>, "Nate Patrin"

<snip - the Nate verses Chuck debates >

Lets try to define 2 conflicting ideas as they relate to furry fandom:

Popular - your place in the fandom - the external stuff.

Successful - the personal fulfillment you get from your artwork - the
internal stuff.

Lets keep artistic skill out of the debate. Must these two ideas conflict?

(1) You can be popular by giving the people exactly what they want. (easy)

(2) You can be popular by giving the people something new and
innovative. (hard)

(3) You can be successful by lowering your standards. (easy)

(4) You can be successful by increasing your effort. (hard)

The people who have told Nate to draw pin ups and please the fans are
consciously telling him to do #1 and unconsciously telling him to do # 3. I
think that is the root of Nate's sometimes angry responses - he has, even
if not shown to the group, high personal standards.

Nate, by insisting on being independent despite what the fans find
most popular is trying to doing #2 but may not be fully aware of #4. He has
chosen the hard path but may not like the trudging and the cuts on his feet.

Nate, I say go for the number 2. Fandom - not just furry but all of
comics - needs new ideas and the different attitude you bring to your
characters (alternative rock / hip-hop / urban contemporary / graffiti
culture / angst ridden / skateboard / what-ever-the-trend-is-this-week).
But just remember #4 - it's going to take a lot more effort to sell this
stuff among furry fandom.

That furry fandom may not like your stuff is not an attack on fandom
or an attack on you, it is a hard fact that if you accept will make it
easier to obtain your larger goals. Get over it, and move on.

First, I would recommend you explore the comics world outside furry
fandom. Read through a few recent issues of the Comics Journal if you don't
already. It would be a good to try to move out of furry fandom and into
the kind of culture your stuff gets it influences from. Not to abandon
furry, but to enrich you horizons. You can do both - Albedo is both furry
and science fiction, You can be both furry and hip-hop. Getting your
artwork before a larger group of people will bring you new influences and
possibly a larger and more supportive audience. I'm not up on current
culture (I'm kind of a furry / freethinker / Fortean / horror / Kustom
Kulture / wildlife artist / techie myself :-) ) You might want to hang
around on newsgroups geared towards the influences on your artwork or read
paper fanzine about these topics . For fanzine information pick up an issue
of Factsheet 5 (recommended - but it only comes out once every 6 months) at
your local cool record or book store.

The same fandom that has room for both a hundred furry porn zines
and Albedo has room for Nate. The only question is how will Nate, or any
other new furry, choose to fit in.

E-mail to follow.
Al Goldman

[Fauxx the Indiglo]

AllanGldmn wrote:
>
> Lets try to define 2 conflicting ideas as they relate to furry fandom:
>
> Popular - your place in the fandom - the external stuff.
>
> Successful - the personal fulfillment you get from your artwork - the
> internal stuff.
>
> Lets keep artistic skill out of the debate. Must these two ideas conflict?
>
> (1) You can be popular by giving the people exactly what they want. (easy)
>
> (2) You can be popular by giving the people something new and
> innovative. (hard)
>
> (3) You can be successful by lowering your standards. (easy)
>
> (4) You can be successful by increasing your effort. (hard)
>
> The people who have told Nate to draw pin ups and please the fans are
> consciously telling him to do #1 and unconsciously telling him to do # 3. I
> think that is the root of Nate's sometimes angry responses - he has, even
> if not shown to the group, high personal standards.

<snip>

> The same fandom that has room for both a hundred furry porn zines
> and Albedo has room for Nate. The only question is how will Nate, or any
> other new furry, choose to fit in.
>
> E-mail to follow.
> Al Goldman

Aaah, the first sensible talk I have seen watching this whole Nate vs.
The People debate. I should admit right now that I was drawn to his
artwork for it's anticultural style, and was kinda excited when I ran
into him on FurToonia ("Hey, aren't you Nate Patrin?" Heh..).

Thank you, Al, for your comments. They were enlightening.

Fauxx the Rhetoritician

[BlackHat]

I almost forgot to add that I like Nate Patrin's work. Keep it up man!
Fight the struggle and such and such....

Dwayne Madison
aka BlackHat

[Robert Bobby Holiday]

Buster Charlie.. uhm.. uh.. somethinged:

[SNIP]

Um.
Whoa.
That's deep, man.
I'm going to like.. um.. go out and.. um.. do things now.
Bye.

[Busterchar]

Hope you all like it, Chapter one is posted in ALF, if you see any major
mistakes you do not think are on perpouse, please tell me. Strong language
ect ect.

Weasel War Dance: Down time
Version 2.5
Written by Edmund DuPont
(C) 1997 All Rights reserved.

Special thanks to : Al Jones <alj...@cyberus.ca>
Special appearances by Nate and Faranus

CHAPTER ONE: Ay me! Operation six pup, and the Nate Brigade!

Spots, spots, spots,

NOT AGAIN!

Nuscko's. Do you hum Waltzing Mustela? Or do you scream Die Walkure at the
top of your lungs? Hell no, you get down and get funky.

And of course we use the blue lese and pop a track of insane ferret posse!

Vamparto bouncing his mink ass all over the place screaming "What If Dog
was one of us...." over and over.

Liquid music, Buster recommends... I sat down and I check my stool for
nouns. Now there is a common myth. Made sense? No, that's a good thing.

I Got to stick to Tone (C), because ferrets and alcohol don't mix. Well
at least that's what he says. Oh boy, its Prozak, the raccoon DOOD. And
lookie! Now there is something you don't see every other day, a pink
tinted rabbit... with pink bows... and lavender spray pain....

I just recommend to myself that this would be a good time to leave, and
scream if necessary. Boo-ya!

Starting to scream like my tail is caught in a hydraulic press... got on
da floor NOW!
Buster: "NOOOOO!"
Alex: "Hey, I told you to lay off that Tone shit, now get your sorry ass
of the floor!"

Buster: "GET AWAY! IT WILL KILL US ALL!"

There is the giggle-bunny of death, and a coyote dressed in black
leather, with some nasty shades...

Leather coyote dude: "Damn, too early! I guess I do get to hear the ending
again..."

and with that, the Leather coyote dude slacks off into the sunset...

Alex: "AH! SHIT YEAH!"

No, we gonna get some action foof!

Alex: "Vamparto, shut up buster and get Wonko!"

Buster: "NOOOOOOO!"

*SMASH*

*POINT!*

The world folded up and continued....

*WONK!*

Buster: "PINE MARTEN!"

I reached for my Sword, 9mm.

Wonko came out of the crowd running after the yote with a large mallet.

Buster: "Hey Alex, you look like a Samurai Pizza Skunk!"

Alex: "Shut up, get up, and LETS ROCK!"

Out of nowhere Peaches grabs my arm...

Peaches: "Violence is not the answer."

Alex: "Unless you got bigger guns!"

Peaches: "Nevermind..."

Seeing the uselessness of a speech on nonviolence Peaches goes to the bar
to get some popcorn for the impending fight scene... And like any good
throat stoat Wonko got a weird look, grabs the nearest table, and throws it
into the crowd.

All hell broke loose, again.

The door blew in and a menacing figure stepped in the room... He was
wearing leather and dark sunglasses, carrying a sawed-off and.... a 44 oz
Dr. Pepper? Only one yote is so full of angst, so whiny, and has such good
music taste, that he shoot any DJ for playing a "Spice Squirrels" song.
Raise the flag of nihilism everywhere, because its...

Wonko: "All my smell?"
Vamparto: "The dealer-man?"
Peaches: "A Clockwork Tang?"
Prozack: "Pulp vixen?"
Intel: "LOOK AT MY BUTT! LOOK AT IT!!"
*SCRAT?"*
Buster: "IT'S Canis latrans Nate!?"
Alex: "Nate is one BAD MOTHER-"
Buster : "Shut yo mouth!"
Alex : "I was just talking about Nate!"
Buster: "Then we can dig it!"
Nate doing the worst Austrian Accent I have ever heard: "Come with me if
you want to live."

Then all hell broke loose again!

Alex: "Hey Buster, will you and Wonko fix that damn thing!"

Buster: "Why?"

Alex: "Hell keeps breaking loose!"

Buster: "Damn, HEY WONKO!"

Wonko: "Yeah?"

Buster: "Did the DJ play that "Barbie vixen" song again?"

Wonko: "Yeah, and I flushed the DVD down the Toilet!"

Intel: "DVD? You mean 8 Gigs of mindless drivel on one disk?"

Buster: "Shut up Intel, well Wonko, looks like you left the toilet lid up
because Hell broke loose again!"

Wonko: "Sorry about that, let me go put it away..."

*SNAP-BONG*

Buster: "Hey Prozak, what is your opinion on spots?"

Prozak: "Sluts?"

Buster: "SPOTS!"

Prozak: "Splots?"

Buster: "No stupid, SPOTS!"

Prozak: "Splots?"

Buster: "SPOTS!"

Prozak: "Spock?"

Buster: "SPOTS!"

Prozak: "Splots?"

Buster: "SPLOTS!"

Prozak: "Spots?"

Buster: "Ya know, One of these days I gonna take a bit out of you ass if
you don't stop these mind-games!"

Prozack: "Oooh NO! The Big bad Farten Freak gonna get midevil on my ass!
Oh wait, I forgot That Evil-clown-ass-mind-games are YOUR deal."

Buster: "Ah so, the freak-down-up-and-noun Raccoon breaka gonna pat?"

Prozack: "huh?"

Buster: "PRAT YA! BOOO!"

Yeah, about this time Prozack takes time out to wire my head with
explosives. Prozak is you average raccoon, he likes to outsmart people. HA,
little dose Prozak know I have secretly switched his shampoo with
Lo-can-coffee crystals. But before we can all appreciate this...

Vamparto comes stumbling up to the bar with a plastered look on his face
that was a little to similar to all my break neck, in a crazy sort of way
of course.

Vamparto: "Hey Buster, I like spots!"

Buster: "Sure you do Vamparto, We all know how much you minks like spots."

Vamparto: "That's not entirely true, I once had a cousin..."

Buster: "Tell me later Vamparto, where is everyone else?"

Vamparto: "Well Buster, Alex is getting drunk as usual."

Alex was now in the process of emptying bottle number 16. He looked at
Vamparto, tried to get up, and fell over, crashing to the floor.

Alex: "Shut yo trap bitch!"

I guess skunks and alcohol don't mix either.

Vamparto: "Wonko is over there moshing to Smashing Punkins and Peaches is
trying to lecture a wall about the problems with society."

Buster: "How about Intel?"

Vamparto looked over his shoulder and pointed to the other end of the bar.

Vamparto: "He is trying to get a drink at the bar, but being a hacker he
is of course under the legal drinking age, and of course all hackers can do
anything so..."

Intel walks up to Vamparto holding a can of Buster Beer.

Intel: "Hellow everfreakeee"

Buster: "How did you manage this one?"

Intel: "I used my skills to hacked into the bar dude..."

Vamparto: "Yeah man, like the fucking bar dude has a fucking modem built
into him!"

Vamparto grabbed his sides and falls to the ground laughing, either that
or he just had another episode...

Buster: "Intel, do you really think they are ignorant enough to believe
that? Just how stupid do you think the audience is?"

Intel looks at camera and smiles. Then tries in vain to open the can of
Buster Beer.

Intel: "I'd rather not say. But Buster, I didn't use his modem, I used his
serial port..."

Buster: "I give up, some times I think you are just making this things up.
And remember, you need to turn the two keys at the same time to launch,
err, open a can of Buster Beer."

Vamparto: "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful, hate me for so many other
reasons..."

Vamparto let out another burst of laughter and passes out on the floor.
Peaches walks up to the bar.

Peaches: "Wow, I need a drink. Lecturing inanimate objects takes a lot out
of you."

Buster: "Why don't you have Vampato's, Uhh, beer I guess..."

Peaches: "Buster, you know I don't drink..."

Intel Screams and jumps on Peaches head, then tries to plug his computer
into Peaches ear.

Intel: "I knew it! HE'S AN ANDROID!"

******

Had you worried there, didn't I? Or maybe not.

After loading Intel with downers (I sure hope he didn't have too much to
drink...) we sat down to discuss the one thing that is going through my mind.

Buster: "Were the fuck did Nate go?"

A loud scream is heard above the music and we turn around just in time to
see Wonko fly trough the air and slams into the bar.

Wonko: "I think the moral of the story is, don't mosh with a Wolf who is
two feet taller than you..."

Buster: "You okay?"

Wonko: "As soon as I get out of here, hey, what's the deal with Intel."

Buster: "The squirrel in question is currently laying on the floor, slowly
collecting muchies in his fur, and now that you mention it..."

Time to give our little friend a boot to the head. No response.

Buster: "I think he is dead. But that's not important, were is Nate?"

Wonko: "He decided the Android Coyote gig is not his thing and left, I got
a funny feeling he will end up in Chapter 2."

A huge wolf steppes out of the crowed and walked up to our group of
electrostatic Insanity. The wolf looked down at Wonko and gave his the evil
eye and a sadistic smile. The word "Sancho" is subtitled below the wolf.

Everyone in room at once screams: "SANCHO!"

Alex stands up straight and starts to scream.

Alex: "That's it man! Game over man! Game Over!"

Buster: "How cheap Alex, You would think that The author could get through
at least one fight scene with out that, but NO!"

Wandering Ass: "Not only are you harassing me, you are stealing my work!
I'll sue your ass off!"

Alex: "You would think the author could get through one chapter with a
fight scene, but NO! And What's with this vague reference to a bit of Furry
history have to do with the story?"

Author: "NOTHING! SO SHUT YO TRAP BITCH!"

Sancho pulls a sawed-off shotgun from his jacked and fire two shells into
Wandering ass. The whole bar applauds!

Then he levels the shotgun at Wonko's head, and being such a nice ferret I
step in front of the wolf.

Buster: "What do you think your doing lupass?"

Sancho: "Why does it concern you Fitch?"

Buster: "Because I get dibs on his LP collection."

Wonko: "What?"

Sancho: "Amigos!"

Buster: "Sancho! How are you?"

Bet you though we where going to fight, didn't you?

Alex: "Just when you thought there was going to be a cool fight scene,
this sucks!"

Prozak: "Hey Sancho, would you like to buy many small plastic trinkets?"

******

Okay this is the really weird part, so you may want to dress in black...

After his third drink Sancho is now telling us the insanely interesting
story about the invention of the Fission reactor.

Sancho: "So anyway, since the price of Flan has fluctuated, they had..."

You should have known I was going to use the word Flan in this story.

I noticed three badgers wearing black suits and butt-band sunglasses walk
into the bar.

Buster: "Hold on Sancho, I'm not sure why, but I have a feeling something
big is going to happen."

Sancho: "What do you mean..."

The front door exploded in a hail of splinters, a badger comes running in
with a wooden club and starts bashing up furniture. He just stands there
with a crazed look on his face, drooling slightly, then points his club at
a group of foxes sitting at a table.

Sunspot: "I am sunspot with mace!"

This is where we switch to a red lens and kick it.

Sunspot: "I have come to vanquish thee vermin!"

Buster: "Looks like the coffee patrol is in for some fun."

Alex: "Yeah, painful fun."

I noticed Alex was not even looking in the right direction, and then I
noticed that Alex was looking at a gang of Panzer vixens.

Buster: "Well, that isn't exactly what I had in mind, but I guess you
could be right."

The foxes stood up looked at each other and sat down again.

Wonko: "Hey buddy, give it a rest!"

Vamparto: "Yeah man, stay off the drugs! I mean look what happened to me!"

Sunspot: "Eeulaliaaaaaa!"

Vamparto: "Wow, I wonder what's he's been smoking, and were can I get some?!"

Sunspot lifted his mace and slammed it down on a table, causing it to
collapse. He then turned towards our little group.
Sunspot: "I shall brain thee, foul vermin!"

I blue furred ferret stood up from a table.

Faranus: "Vermin, he called us! Humph!"

Then he gave a "innocent ferret look" and sat back down.

Buster: "Looks like the author flipped! Lets get out of here!"

Sunspot started to foam at the mouth, lifted his mace and started to run
towards us.
The three Badgers in Black stood up, pulled out automatic pistols, and
pointed them at the badger.

First Badger in black: "Federal Badger Investigators! Freeze!"

Sunspot skidded to a stop and spun around to face the three well armed badgers.

Second Badger in black: "Sunspot, you are wanted In 42 districts and 3
dimensions for multiple accounts of first degree murder."

Sunspot: "Ye shalt never take me alive copper!"

Just when you thought things could not get any weirder, a hawk flies into
the room and dives at the three FBI agents. Sunspot takes this opportunity
to charge the FBI agents.

All hell broke loose. We really should secure that thing.

The first FBI Agent took down the hawk with a three round burst, reducing
it to a bloody pile of feathers and bone. The other two opened up on
Sunspot, riddling him with bullets.

Sunspot: "Nothing can kill me! I'm invincible! You fools forgot the good
guy effect!"

Author: "I don't think so Sunspot."

As if struck by reality, Sunspot collapsed and started to coughed up his
own blood.

Third Badger in black: "Sorry about the mess."

Sunspot started to twitch.

Peaches: "Maybe I should get a mop..."

******

The place had calmed down a bit after the FBI agents cleaned up and
removed the body, I looked at my watch, 0634 Zulu.

Buster: "I guess this party is over."

Wonko: "Yeah man, bummer!"

Vamparto: "What a rush..."

Alex: "Could somebody tell me what just happened?"

Intel: "Cool!"

Buster: "Hey, Intel, you alive!"

Alex: "Oh joy, I am so sorry to hear that."

Just when things are getting boring, a quite insane looking polecat walks
into the bar and slams his metal glove down on the bar.

Wartt: "I am Wartt Switchblade the pitiless one! I shall rule you vermin!"

Peaches: "I think you should calm down, before you hurt yourself. The
last thing we need in this story is more violence."

Alex: "Speak for yourself, I wouldn't mind wiping the floor with this guy."

Wartt: "Would you like some wine? I have a very nice silver cup.."

Two very large rats and a fox in nice white coats come walking into the
bar with a nice leather jacket with long sleeves....

Fox: "Excuse me, we are with the Nutty Institute of Mental Health. We are
here to take Mr. Switchblade home."

Fox: "Time to go home Wartt..."

Wartt: "Never!"

Fox: "Wartt, we aren't mad you escaped, all we want is for you to come
home. Besides, you haven't had your medicine today."

While the fox talked to the Polecat, the two rats flanked Wartt and
grabbed him by his arms. They then carried him out kicking and screaming.

Fox: "Sorry about the disturbance!"

Alex: "I never get to have any fun."

******

I grabbed another bottle of Tone (TM), I wonder why Wonko is still dancing?

Buster: "Wonko, the band left 3 hours ago, what are you doing?"

After getting no response I deiced that I didn't want to know.
DJ put on a Dave Matthew's Band DVD.

Peaches: "What did I do to deserve this crap?"

Peaches gets up and kicks the DJ out of his chair, and smashes the DVD player.

Peaches: "I guess violence dose solve some things."

I am not sure if that can be considered a bar fight, but I guess it will
have to do.

Alex: "I could have taken on that polecat!"

Buster: "I think I need more Tone!"

Wonko: "What happened to the music!?"

Intel: "I hacked into my foot and you'll never guess what I found out!"

Vamparto: "Wild! Look at the pretty colors!"

Peaches: "The horror, the horror!"

Sancho: "Amigos!"

FBI Badgers in black: "Where are Scaly and Moldy?"

Rat: "I pity a fool who doesn't like Tone!"

Another rat: "Hey Eric, what did you say before?"

Eric the rat: "I asked if you had any steak."

Another rat: "Why?"

Eric the rat: "I am going to come over to your house and eat all your MEAT!"

Prozak: "Icky Sticky, Very Tricky!"

switch to purple lens.

A group of stoats and rats dressed like pirates run into the room.

Pirate rat: "We be pirates, R!"

Buster: "Too late, this chapter is over."

Pirate stoat: "Maybe next time captain."

Buster: "Yeah, maybe next time."

Spam!, spam!, spam.

END OF CHAPTER 1!

[Kese]

BlackHat wrote:

>
>
> So far I've been by here and other places that are now regaurdin quality
> control and which artists we should totally suck up to now for whichever
> reason I don't care too much about and which ones that should be ignored
> beyond recognition.

I don't think I've ever seen that written here. Who's ever said which
artists we need to suck up to? Names that re mentioned are mentioned either
because A) they have a big impact on the fandom or B) a lot of people really
like their work. I've also never seen it written that we should ignore
other artists. Artists are ignored either because their work lacks a hook
that draws people in or they haven't made themselves visible enough to be
noticed. There's a lot of artwork out there. Just run a search engine with
"furry art" as the subject and you'll see why it's easy to get lost in the
shuffle.

> NTM goin on chat rooms getting the silence treatment
> or occasionaly told I lack skills when I post new art, though I usually
> remind people And it seems that if you don't draw the usuall big-eyed,
> big-breasted, candy-coated bullshit (in color BTW) most people take a
> glance at it, but never bother to take notice ever again.

Not entirely true. But even so, if that's the what's turning people's
heads, well then there's nothing that can be done about it. It's what the
people want.

> And of course
> if one complains about this and wants to try and make a difference in
> the so-called fandom he practicaly gets his/her head smashed up against
> the wall and told there's nothing he/she can do about it and go mind
> his/her business.

No, if they post asking what it takes to make it in the fandom they
will be shown examples of those that have already made it in the fandom and
they can draw their own conclusions from there. I don't see what's so
hard or upsetting about all this. If you want to make it in any business(and
if you want to market your art then it becomes a business) you have to give
your consumers(the art buying public) the things that they want. If you're
not into doing what the fandom wants at the moment, you shouldn't be overly
surprised that no one is buying it.
If you're only doing your art for your own satisfaction than all that
doesn't matter. Continue to draw what you like and post it for people to
look at, but don't expect that you'll rise to the top by going against the
grain. Sure it sucks that the public is at the moment fixated on one
particular style or subject matter. But tough, you can't change everyone's
mind overnight.

>
>
> Now I'm kinda understanding how Nate feels about this. While I am a bit
> outisde the borderline of furry fandom, I'm begining to find that this
> truly has grown into some sort of popularity contest. And why is it
> that some people have these attitudes toward artists who aren't a "be
> like Wookie, Ken, or Winger" type? It's a shame how some of the hot
> shots out there tell these people they must adhere to doing what I'm
> gonna call gimmicks (that's gonna get me in trouble alright)

What gimmick would that be? Every artist has their own personal quirk.
Your gimmick is my personal stamp. Or is it the use of erotic subject matter
what you consider a gimmick? I don't think so. I draw erotic art and pin ups
because I like to. I suspect most of the other who do it, do so for the same
reasons. If they didn't like doing it it would show in their art.

> just to be
> recognized even though that would mean drawing things they're not
> comfortabe doing.

Yes, that's about right. It's not a put down to say that, just a
statement of fact based on observation. Would you prefer people twist the
truth to make it more palatable?

>
>
> As for getting down an artists throat about quality, I thought the main
> reason why most people drew was becasue they simply enjoyed doing it.

So then do it for that reason and screw what everyone else has to say. You
can choose not to let things like that get to you.

> When I started off drawing comics I just focused on have unprecidented
> fun!! As time went on, I learned more things and eventually the quality
> did get better. Now of course I do get criticism by artists, some of
> which is good though they sounded like the really didn't mean it; but
> others just seem hell bent on blowing my self-confidence away with a
> sawed off shotgun.

When you put work up for all the world to see expect it. No one's
going to coddle you. People can be brutual, you can either let it ruin your
day or move on and glean what's useful from their criticism.

> artists out there just give up on drawing altogether. As for making
> money off of this, I said that same line when I first worked at
> McDonalds and I only kept that job for less than three months.

No one except those that publish make very much money off of this. I
wouldn't be able to make it on commissions even if I devoted all my time to
drawing. A few bucks here and there but nothing huge.

>
>
> I'd say more, but I don't need the extra abuse. I (or any other
> artist who faces this delema) am not going for populartiy, just wanted
> to let you know I'm down here. So now you can hate me for this post and
> tell me how much my art doesn't deserve to be on SCFA.

No one hates you, we don't even know you. Why does everyone put a
disclaimer at the end of their posts saying "go ahead and flame me" or "now
tell me I suck?" Most people just respond to what you write, they're not out
to get you. Enjoy doing your art if that's what your focus is.

>

Kese

[BlackHat]

For a couple of weeks now I've been lurking around in this newsgroup and
have read the heated arguments about furry art (or whatever the hell you
want to call this debate) and I do believe it's time I had a say in
this.

Now like most other artist, I've been drawing anthromorphs before I even
knew what the hell the name meant. My older brother's influence made me
go for a more somewhat serious approach to my style. I used to stay up
till 2am or later mostly drawing comics for myself, and had fun.

Now a year back I met another artist Sean Andersen on a now deceased
chat room. We talked, showed each other our work liked it. Soon I ran
into SCFA and the next thing I know I'm lurkin around here.

Not too long ago was able to get my art posted on the net with help from
StormWolf. I was reluctant to do so, but I decied to go for it, see what
people thought about on my work while I make progress an have a bit of
fun.

So far I've been by here and other places that are now regaurdin quality
control and which artists we should totally suck up to now for whichever
reason I don't care too much about and which ones that should be ignored

beyond recognition. NTM goin on chat rooms getting the silence treatment

or occasionaly told I lack skills when I post new art, though I usually
remind people And it seems that if you don't draw the usuall big-eyed,
big-breasted, candy-coated bullshit (in color BTW) most people take a

glance at it, but never bother to take notice ever again. And of course

if one complains about this and wants to try and make a difference in
the so-called fandom he practicaly gets his/her head smashed up against
the wall and told there's nothing he/she can do about it and go mind
his/her business.

Now I'm kinda understanding how Nate feels about this. While I am a bit

outisde the borderline of furry fandom, I'm begining to find that this
truly has grown into some sort of popularity contest. And why is it
that some people have these attitudes toward artists who aren't a "be
like Wookie, Ken, or Winger" type? It's a shame how some of the hot
shots out there tell these people they must adhere to doing what I'm

gonna call gimmicks (that's gonna get me in trouble alright) just to be

recognized even though that would mean drawing things they're not

comfortabe doing. I admit that I do draw a little spooge now and then,
but I just can't ever think of doing requests for it. Plus considering
another fact that I don't draw cute or fantasy oriented crap, so I guess
I'm shot there. I usually prefer artwork that's more down to earth and
grimm rather than your usuall Wookie or Terrie pic (damn! I hope I
wasn't sounding too much like Nate in that last sentence, even though I
do agree with what he mentions)

As for getting down an artists throat about quality, I thought the main
reason why most people drew was becasue they simply enjoyed doing it.

When I started off drawing comics I just focused on have unprecidented
fun!! As time went on, I learned more things and eventually the quality
did get better. Now of course I do get criticism by artists, some of
which is good though they sounded like the really didn't mean it; but
others just seem hell bent on blowing my self-confidence away with a

sawed off shotgun. SO I work myself overtime trying to correct mistakes
they said are supposedly there. While my art has improved greatly, I'm
getting to the point of where I can't even simply ink more than two pics
a day, let alone draw a comic. It makes me realize one reason why some

artists out there just give up on drawing altogether. As for making
money off of this, I said that same line when I first worked at
McDonalds and I only kept that job for less than three months.

I'd say more, but I don't need the extra abuse. I (or any other

artist who faces this delema) am not going for populartiy, just wanted
to let you know I'm down here. So now you can hate me for this post and
tell me how much my art doesn't deserve to be on SCFA.

There, that's my two cents.

Dwayne Madison
aka BlackHat

[CMelvi6195]

Bravo, Kese. Well said, all the way around.

-Chuck Melville-
<http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html>

[Mark Freid]

In article <3429FF...@prime-x.net>, bh...@prime-x.net says...
<snip>

Jeepers. The more I read into these messages the more I think I must have
been one of the lucky ones when I got into this fandom... or maybe it's
just my attitude.

>
> Now I'm kinda understanding how Nate feels about this. While I am a bit
> outisde the borderline of furry fandom, I'm begining to find that this
> truly has grown into some sort of popularity contest. And why is it
> that some people have these attitudes toward artists who aren't a "be
> like Wookie, Ken, or Winger" type? It's a shame how some of the hot
> shots out there tell these people they must adhere to doing what I'm
> gonna call gimmicks (that's gonna get me in trouble alright) just to be
> recognized even though that would mean drawing things they're not
> comfortabe doing. I admit that I do draw a little spooge now and then,
> but I just can't ever think of doing requests for it. Plus considering
> another fact that I don't draw cute or fantasy oriented crap, so I guess
> I'm shot there. I usually prefer artwork that's more down to earth and
> grimm rather than your usuall Wookie or Terrie pic (damn! I hope I
> wasn't sounding too much like Nate in that last sentence, even though I
> do agree with what he mentions)

Jeepers. The more I read into these messages the more I think I must have
been one of the lucky ones when I got into this fandom... or maybe it's
just my attitude.

In my eye, the biggest "popularity contest" in the fandom is with the
"name" artists. Those who are considered good in the eye of most people.

Popular artists? Popular Art? Good Art? Well, sure... people use the term
good art to refer to anything that is visually pleasing.

There's a hell of a lot of "spooge" art out there.... but unfortunately,
some of the artists who draw it have very very nice abilities and styles.
Teke James Hardiman for example, In many people's opinion, his art style
is excellent... but as for the subject matter....

I don't draw much adult work. It's personal preference, and I DO draw
because I enjoy it. I came to a realization a few months ago. As a naive
newcomer to the furry scene, I thought it would be neat to draw stuff
(since I like it), and show it to people, and get money for it! OOOOO! It
wasn't until a few months ago, that I "snapped" and wised up... I'm never
going to make money off of this! Why am I buying dealers tables, and
making prints? This is a hobby! and I've treated it that way since.

Many people, specifically those who have been in the "fandom" for a while
have realized this for themselves, Some of your favorite artists are
actually animators, computer programmers, delivery men, truck drivers...
etc.

On the other hand, you have the vast majority of the people, mostly the
"fans"... Furry popularity has exploded in the last few years, and
unfortunately some folks seem to have developed delusions of grandeur.
Cliques have formed, and as you say, it's become one big popularity
contest (esp. on-line)... Places like Furcadia, and Yiffnet have an
EXTREME clique-like reputation/feel to them.

Someone mentioned folks like Sully, Amara, etc. as something akin to the
current "fad".... I like people like Scotty Arsenault, Melissa
Drake, Albert Temple, Amy Provonost, etc. not because they are
"popular"... I don't know them, and don't talk to them on-line or
anything... but from messages, and such they seem friendly enough, and I
like their art a lot. It's generally very upbeat, nicely drawn, and
sometimes funny (and not spooge! gasp!)
Does this mean that I'm just fueling the big "popularity contest"?

Quite frankly, I don't have ill feelings toward anyone... although those
who I feel might develop, I simply ignore. Go figure.

>
> As for getting down an artists throat about quality, I thought the main
> reason why most people drew was becasue they simply enjoyed doing it.

Yep, so I thought too... as I said, I think this is true... but people
have yet to realize it.

As for now, I keep drawing, and am happy where I am... huh? I have seven
fanzine submissions due? Wow... this is fun. :P

--
Mark Freid ("Canuss"), Anthropomorphic Cartoonist
-------------------------------------------------
can...@yiffco.com http://wolf.tierranet.com
-------------------------------------------------
Creator & Moderator of the FurRing
(http://wolf.tierranet.com/furring.html)

Furry Code: FCW3dm A+++ C+ D H- M+ P+ R T W- Z+++
Sm RLCT a Can++ d e+ f++ h# iwf p++ s

[BlackHat]

Kese wrote:

[a lot]

Yes Kese I know all about the "give the consumers what you want" speech,
but I'm not gonna get into it and a few other statements or I'd sound
like I'd be repeating an earlier argument between a couple of other
artist.

> When you put work up for all the world to see expect it. No one's
> going to coddle you. People can be brutual, you can either let it ruin your
> day or move on and glean what's useful from their criticism.

I know, I know. I never thought I was good enough to me looked at anyway
untill a couple of people say I draw better than Paf (which is the most
stupidest thing I ever heard, I hope they were truly kidding), but it
seems those who are harsh on criticism want me to set a standard for my
art even though most everyone has a different deffinition on what thier
standards are. And it's gotten to my head so much that I now have to go
back to a slightly basic approach on my art just to prevent myself from
losing interest.

I try to enjoy art, and care less what people think of mine; after all I
did say I was a bit outside the borderline of this fandom. But
this kind of attitude I've been noticing within here makes me wonder
where this current trend will be headed in a not so distant future? Will
the furry art fandom thing become what most hip-hop is today --
uninspiring and just plain bland? Everytime I hear that the artists are
going for a mainstream audience and that's why they're so recognized,
etc., etc. I keep remembering a comment which I heard on a rock station
reguarding something like this, "The masses are asses"

This is why I'm going to remain to be an outcast and loving it.
*jumps back into his hole in the ground before the mob beats the
aardwolf within an inch of his life*

Dwayne Madison
aka BlackHat

[Nate Patrin]

Kese <soll...@erols.com> wrote in article <342A3B87...@erols.com>...

> I don't think I've ever seen that written here. Who's ever said
which
> artists we need to suck up to? Names that re mentioned are mentioned
either
> because A) they have a big impact on the fandom or B) a lot of people
really
> like their work.

Well, I can see /why/ they're being mentioned. I just don't jibe with the
fact that to be "popular" I have to draw like 'em.

> I've also never seen it written that we should ignore
> other artists. Artists are ignored either because their work lacks a hook
> that draws people in or they haven't made themselves visible enough to be
> noticed.

And because "the fandom goes for pinup/spooge and not that other stuff"?
It's what I've been told by several parties...

<snip>

> Not entirely true. But even so, if that's the what's turning people's
> heads, well then there's nothing that can be done about it. It's what the
> people want.

Well, people wanted fluorescent Geordi LaForge new-waver sunglasses and LP
copies of "A Flock Of Seagulls Greatest Hits" at one point, too. (Ugh, the
'80s...) Trends are there to be changed.

> > And of course
> > if one complains about this and wants to try and make a difference in
> > the so-called fandom he practicaly gets his/her head smashed up against
> > the wall and told there's nothing he/she can do about it and go mind
> > his/her business.
>
> No, if they post asking what it takes to make it in the fandom they
> will be shown examples of those that have already made it in the fandom
and
> they can draw their own conclusions from there.

He's right, though- I /was/ told there's nothing I can do about the
all-pervading popularity of pinup/spooge. And I still think I'm capable of
drawing my own conclusions without remarks to the effect of "you don't
really have much of a chance to get what you're looking for".

<snip>

> If you're
> not into doing what the fandom wants at the moment, you shouldn't be
overly
> surprised that no one is buying it.

Like I mentioned before, tastes fluctuate, and if it's popular in music,
cinema and fashion it's more than likely possible here. It's all in the
promotion, and how different or new the stuff is.

> If you're only doing your art for your own satisfaction than all
that
> doesn't matter. Continue to draw what you like and post it for people to
> look at, but don't expect that you'll rise to the top by going against
the
> grain. Sure it sucks that the public is at the moment fixated on one
> particular style or subject matter. But tough, you can't change
everyone's
> mind overnight.

I still think other peoples' standards and opinions- or as they call it,
'advice'- can have a detrimental effect on my work whether I follow it and
pay attention to it or not. And 'don't expect to rise to the top by going
against the grain'? I thought furry fandom *itself* was against the grain.
For a fandom that prides itself on its supposed 'nonconformity' against the
'mundanes' it seems to fall prey to the same attitudes that're exhibited by
the conformist, mundane people they mock. And I didn't say I wanted to
change peoples' minds overnight. That's not very realistic unless you're
Aaron Spelling.

> > It's a shame how some of the hot
> > shots out there tell these people they must adhere to doing what I'm
> > gonna call gimmicks (that's gonna get me in trouble alright)
>
> What gimmick would that be? Every artist has their own personal
quirk.
> Your gimmick is my personal stamp. Or is it the use of erotic subject
matter
> what you consider a gimmick? I don't think so. I draw erotic art and pin
ups
> because I like to.

Well, do people pay more attention to it than your other work? (Personally,
from what I've seen of your stuff, your PG work stands out fine on its own,
and it'd be a shame if people ignored it completely and still claimed to be
a 'fan of your work'.)

> I suspect most of the other who do it, do so for the same
> reasons. If they didn't like doing it it would show in their art.

I still think many of the more recently-established artists do pinup
because they were told it was... well, what the fandom wanted. Sure, they
might enjoy it (I've heard from plenty of artists that do it for the hell
of it- more power to 'em), but in some cases it's for recognition and money
instead of showing a true personal vision. (Not naming names, but I know
they're out there.)

> > just to be
> > recognized even though that would mean drawing things they're not
> > comfortabe doing.
>
> Yes, that's about right. It's not a put down to say that, just a
> statement of fact based on observation. Would you prefer people twist the
> truth to make it more palatable?

I prefer people work to change the situation so people won't /have/ to
twist the truth.

<snippage of stuff addressed in another post>

> No one except those that publish make very much money off of this. I
> wouldn't be able to make it on commissions even if I devoted all my time
to
> drawing. A few bucks here and there but nothing huge.

I've read about artists that make a couple thousand bucks per con. I don't
want commission money and such as a main income. More like a supplementary
one.

> No one hates you, we don't even know you. Why does everyone put a
> disclaimer at the end of their posts saying "go ahead and flame me" or
"now
> tell me I suck?" Most people just respond to what you write, they're not
out
> to get you.

Some of the responses I've gotten are just inches away from hate, and quite
a few have told me (in more polite terms) that I suck.

> Enjoy doing your art if that's what your focus is.

I'm trying here. I've only been showing my art to people for about 18
months and only specifically asking for critique for four. It's a difficult
process to get used to, especially when so many people care more about your
mistakes than your good points.
--
-Nate Patrin

[BlackHat]

> NTM goin on chat rooms getting the silence treatment
> or occasionaly told I lack skills when I post new art, though I usually
> remind people

Ooops! I goofed again!! In that last part I meant to say though I
usally remind people I'm just an amature.

I typed this late at night so I wasn't paying attention to errors. Hope
that clears up any confusion, or upcoming choas for that matter

BlackHat

[Kese]

Nate Patrin wrote:

> Kese <soll...@erols.com> wrote in article <342A3B87...@erols.com>...
>
>
>

> Well, I can see /why/ they're being mentioned. I just don't jibe with the
> fact that to be "popular" I have to draw like 'em.

But -right now- that's the way it is. What exactly do you use as a
yardstick for measuring popularity?

>
>
>
> And because "the fandom goes for pinup/spooge and not that other stuff"?
> It's what I've been told by several parties...

Not so much pin-ups and spooge. Most of my commissions are of the non spooge
varity and most of the comments I get are on the non-spooge work. I think they
lean more towards the "realistic" styles of art if anything.

>
>
> <snip>
>
> > Not entirely true. But even so, if that's the what's turning people's
> > heads, well then there's nothing that can be done about it. It's what the
> > people want.
>
> Well, people wanted fluorescent Geordi LaForge new-waver sunglasses and LP
> copies of "A Flock Of Seagulls Greatest Hits" at one point, too. (Ugh, the
> '80s...) Trends are there to be changed.

They change, but not overnight.

>
>
>
>
> He's right, though- I /was/ told there's nothing I can do about the
> all-pervading popularity of pinup/spooge. And I still think I'm capable of
> drawing my own conclusions without remarks to the effect of "you don't
> really have much of a chance to get what you're looking for".

But really there's nothing -you- alone can do. If you're looking into
making it as a Berekley Breathed type of cartoonist with a satrical edge, then
no I don't think you will ever get what you're looking for from the current
version of the fandom. You may very well make an impact in a more mainstream
type of audience.

>
>
> Like I mentioned before, tastes fluctuate, and if it's popular in music,
> cinema and fashion it's more than likely possible here. It's all in the
> promotion, and how different or new the stuff is.

And luck and timing and......

> I still think other peoples' standards and opinions- or as they call it,
> 'advice'- can have a detrimental effect on my work whether I follow it and
> pay attention to it or not. And 'don't expect to rise to the top by going
> against the grain'? I thought furry fandom *itself* was against the grain.

Every subculture has it's own standards.

> For a fandom that prides itself on its supposed 'nonconformity' against the
> 'mundanes' it seems to fall prey to the same attitudes that're exhibited by
> the conformist, mundane people they mock.

They mock a different set of standards. Sure furry fandom is a bit
looser in structure than the mundane world, but there is structure none the
less.

>
>
> Well, do people pay more attention to it than your other work? (Personally,
> from what I've seen of your stuff, your PG work stands out fine on its own,
> and it'd be a shame if people ignored it completely and still claimed to be
> a 'fan of your work'.)

Nope they don't, I'd say it goes 50/50. Which is great because I'm
interested in more than one type of art.

>
>
> I still think many of the more recently-established artists do pinup
> because they were told it was... well, what the fandom wanted. Sure, they
> might enjoy it (I've heard from plenty of artists that do it for the hell
> of it- more power to 'em), but in some cases it's for recognition and money
> instead of showing a true personal vision. (Not naming names, but I know
> they're out there.)
>

They are and I'll bet you that their pin up looks somewhat stiff and
forced. If you're not comfortable with a certain subject matter will show in
your finished product.

>
>
> I prefer people work to change the situation so people won't /have/ to
> twist the truth.
>

That's up to the people who are unhappy with that to do that. I see the
fandom a bit more 3-dimensionally than you do. It's not all spooge and pin-ups,
there's plenty of art out there of many different varieties. Your fixated on
this one aspect, but's not nearly the whole story.

>
>
> I've read about artists that make a couple thousand bucks per con. I don't
> want commission money and such as a main income. More like a supplementary
> one.

Those are artists who come equipped with tons of work and a plethora of
friends that help them along. Commissions are great for supplementary
income, but you don't get them without working. I'm in my mid-twenties Nate and
I'm only finally getting a handle on all the different aspects of art that have
helped push me ahead a little. Don't push so hard.

>
>
> Some of the responses I've gotten are just inches away from hate, and quite
> a few have told me (in more polite terms) that I suck.

Then hit the delete button and go on.

> I'm trying here. I've only been showing my art to people for about 18
> months and only specifically asking for critique for four. It's a difficult
> process to get used to, especially when so many people care more about your
> mistakes than your good points.

You've only been showing your art for 18 months and already you're
despairing about not getting ahead? Yeesh! I've been showing my art for over 4
years now(not on the internet in RL) and have only know been able to gather
positive reaction. You're only starting and you're expecting to catapult
to the front in a really short time. That doesn't happen to anyone. Ask any of
the bigger named artists how old they are and when they began to find their
feet. You're still experimenting, relax and enjoy the ride.

Kese

[Fauxx the Indiglo]

Nate Patrin wrote:

> Anyone willing to start a 'sub-fandom'?

I was waiting for words along those lines to creep up.

Fauxx the Indiglo

[D. J. Green]

>Nate Patrin wrote:
>> Anyone willing to start a 'sub-fandom'?

Well, I'm not much for submarines. How about catamarans?

[Nate Patrin]

Nate Patrin <patr...@tc.umn.SPAM.ME.AND.I.SMACK.YA.edu> wrote in article

> Like I mentioned before, tastes fluctuate, and if it's popular in music,
> cinema and fashion it's more than likely possible here.

Dammit! Not "if it's popular", meant 'if it's possible'. Blech.

[Nate Patrin]

BlackHat <bh...@prime-x.net> wrote in article <342A18...@prime-x.net>...

> I almost forgot to add that I like Nate Patrin's work. Keep it up man!
> Fight the struggle and such and such....

(boggles) Thanks...! Kinda warms my heart to get compliments and moral
support from people whose stuff is better'n mine. ;o)> Wanna borrow some
marshmallows? You can toast 'em over your tail as soon as a.f.f.'s elite
troop of Easily Annoyed Fandom Veterans reads your post and readies the
napalm...

(Oh yeh... your stuff's kewlashell, too.)

[Nate Patrin]

WARNING: If you've read one of my posts before and felt obligated to
respond to one to try and "correct" me, you might as well ignore this one.

BlackHat <bh...@prime-x.net> wrote in article <342AB1...@prime-x.net>...
> Kese wrote:

<snippage-a-go-go>

> > When you put work up for all the world to see expect it. No one's
> > going to coddle you. People can be brutual, you can either let it ruin
your
> > day or move on and glean what's useful from their criticism.

Often times it's the former- often peoples' comments and criticism have
already been noted by myself via other peoples' posts and e-mails, and when
somebody tells me to correct my work in such-and-such a manner I've already
been working on, the rest of their post is the only thing that stands out
and often it's full of condescending crap. And it doesn't help that most of
these "brutal" people are major players in the furry scene.

<snip>

> it seems those who are harsh on criticism want me to set a standard for
my
> art even though most everyone has a different deffinition on what thier
> standards are. And it's gotten to my head so much that I now have to go
> back to a slightly basic approach on my art just to prevent myself from
> losing interest.

Some people have standards so high that anything short of a masterpiece is
considered "not very good". While I agree that working on one's basic
artistic elements- anatomy, composition, space, inking etc.- are important,
the approach that people use to advise you on how to improve these is
fairly useless. "Your anatomy and inking need work", they say. Where? How?
Can somebody please point out examples so I don't keep making the same
mistakes? And sadly, most of those narrow-minded types are also rather
brutal in their approach to the point where you think they're right. Most
of these critiques have slithered down from "what Nate needs to do to be
noticed/popular" to "what Nate needs to do to refrain from being a
talentless hack, as he does now". Problem is, if I just take a "screw 'em,
who cares" attitude they'll probably just think I'm a whiny brat who
doesn't pay attention to "much-needed" advice. Odd that they tell you to
draw for yourself and forget other peoples' opinions- and in the next
paragraph make their opinions all too clear to be ignored.

> I try to enjoy art, and care less what people think of mine; after all I
> did say I was a bit outside the borderline of this fandom. But
> this kind of attitude I've been noticing within here makes me wonder
> where this current trend will be headed in a not so distant future? Will
> the furry art fandom thing become what most hip-hop is today --
> uninspiring and just plain bland?

Interesting analogy. I feel like a Phife in a sea of Puff Daddies. (no, I
don't expect most people to get that ref, but eh.)

To look at another music analogy (Tiring? Well, music /is/ one of the most
trend-intensive art forms out there, which helps prove a point in this
case): In the mid 1970s standards were /extremely/ high for what could not
only be played on the radio but what was "good". You had your hard rock
groups with super-virtuoso guitarists (Led Zeppelin), post-psychedelic rock
groups that composed 20-minute long experimental ambient/jazz/blues tracks
(Pink Floyd) and super-high-budget, theatrical syntho-classical bombast
(Emerson, Lake and Palmer). Now while many of these groups were pretty
damned cool (well, ELP excepted ;o)> ), record execs felt that anything
less than a Jeff Beck or an Electric Light Orchestra wasn't any good. Which
is why, in the mid '70s, a large underground contingent (spearheaded by the
New york groups like the Ramones, Talking Heads and the Patti Smith Group)
started playing music that, albeit not particularly high-concept or
super-talented, was damned fun music nonetheless, and was done /for the fun
of it/. They set a new standard: this is something that anybody can get a
chance to do if they just have enough raw emotion to make their stuff
enjoyable. Five years later lots of people were making their own music,
from hardcore punks in California to underground DJs in the Bronx. In
short, if the mainstream is not only constantly focusing on technical
prowess and big names but telling young and struggling artists that they're
not good enough to get attention, damn straight there's going to be
resistance.

> Everytime I hear that the artists are
> going for a mainstream audience and that's why they're so recognized,
> etc., etc. I keep remembering a comment which I heard on a rock station
> reguarding something like this, "The masses are asses"

The Spice Girls reached #1 on Billboard, Dr. Octagon and DJ Shadow barely
cracked the top 200 (if at all). This doesn't mean that Dr. Octagon and DJ
Shadow suck, just that the mainstream's too concerned with tits and fluff
to pay attention to nonconformity and innovation. I'm starting to think the
fandom's the same way.

> This is why I'm going to remain to be an outcast and loving it.

Anyone willing to start a 'sub-fandom'?

[Nate Patrin]

Kese <soll...@erols.com> wrote in article <342AF781...@erols.com>...

>
> Nate Patrin wrote:
>
> > Kese <soll...@erols.com> wrote in article
<342A3B87...@erols.com>...

> > Well, I can see /why/ they're being mentioned. I just don't jibe with
the
> > fact that to be "popular" I have to draw like 'em.
>
> But -right now- that's the way it is. What exactly do you use as a
> yardstick for measuring popularity?

How often they're mentioned, how many fanzines they get invited to, and of
course a general positive reaction to their name ("Mike Snilsnohilsno? Yeh,
he's a damn good artist").

> > And because "the fandom goes for pinup/spooge and not that other
stuff"?
> > It's what I've been told by several parties...
>
> Not so much pin-ups and spooge. Most of my commissions are of the non
spooge
> varity and most of the comments I get are on the non-spooge work. I think
they
> lean more towards the "realistic" styles of art if anything.

So would you agree it's an anti-cartoon bias, or something just more along
the lines of a low tolerance for technical error?

> > Well, people wanted fluorescent Geordi LaForge new-waver sunglasses and
LP
> > copies of "A Flock Of Seagulls Greatest Hits" at one point, too. (Ugh,
the
> > '80s...) Trends are there to be changed.
>
> They change, but not overnight.

I know. Occasionally some of 'em seem to come from nowhere... like that
'Barbie Girl' song, f'rinstance. Then again, I doubt that group'll be cared
about a year from now. Th' moral: Instant success is often followed by
instant failure. (see also: Vanilla Ice, Yahoo Serious, Dwight Gooden)

> But really there's nothing -you- alone can do. If you're looking
into
> making it as a Berekley Breathed type of cartoonist with a satrical edge,
then
> no I don't think you will ever get what you're looking for from the
current
> version of the fandom. You may very well make an impact in a more
mainstream
> type of audience.

Or something besides the 'current version' of the fandom- either a smaller
segment of the fandom or one that miraculously changes within a five-year
span... There is crossover potential too, I s'pose. Sam 'N' Max,
f'rinstance.

> > Like I mentioned before, tastes fluctuate, and if it's popular in
music,
> > cinema and fashion it's more than likely possible here. It's all in the
> > promotion, and how different or new the stuff is.
>
> And luck and timing and......

Other stuff. 8o)>

> Every subculture has it's own standards.

But who makes them? In the 'outside world' a lot of our tastes are
influenced and to a point dictated by magazines (Spin, Entertainment
Weekly), fashion designers, TV networks and the like. If it's different in
the fandom (and I sure hope it is), how do these standards come about?

> They mock a different set of standards. Sure furry fandom is a bit
> looser in structure than the mundane world, but there is structure none
the
> less.

(see previous comment)

> > Well, do people pay more attention to it than your other work?
(Personally,
> > from what I've seen of your stuff, your PG work stands out fine on its
own,
> > and it'd be a shame if people ignored it completely and still claimed
to be
> > a 'fan of your work'.)
>
> Nope they don't, I'd say it goes 50/50. Which is great because I'm
> interested in more than one type of art.

Cool. (grin) Then again, I believe Robert Holiday (sp?) did make a post to
the effect of "since I drew about 2 macro pics out of some 200+ pics I've
done I've gotten accolades for just those two pics from people that could
care less about the rest of my work". Sometimes it's different for
different people. And to be honest I haven't the slightest idea why that
happens either.

> > I still think many of the more recently-established artists do pinup
> > because they were told it was... well, what the fandom wanted.

<snip>

> They are and I'll bet you that their pin up looks somewhat stiff
and
> forced. If you're not comfortable with a certain subject matter will show
in
> your finished product.

It might also show if you're not particularly good at it, though. How do
you differentiate?

> > I prefer people work to change the situation so people won't /have/ to
> > twist the truth.
>
> That's up to the people who are unhappy with that to do that. I see
the
> fandom a bit more 3-dimensionally than you do. It's not all spooge and
pin-ups,
> there's plenty of art out there of many different varieties. Your fixated
on
> this one aspect, but's not nearly the whole story.

I guess this could be attributed to the fact that (A) I haven't been in the
fandom that long and (B) a few people with a lot of background /have/
stated to the effect that the adult art is the majority rule.

> Those are artists who come equipped with tons of work and a plethora
of
> friends that help them along. Commissions are great for supplementary
> income, but you don't get them without working. I'm in my mid-twenties
Nate and
> I'm only finally getting a handle on all the different aspects of art
that have
> helped push me ahead a little. Don't push so hard.

I /am/ pushing myself somewhat hard, standard-wise. You know, becoming
increasingly dissatisfied with my work, doing the same version of the same
picture over and over trying to get it "right"... I suppose these high
standards could be attributed to both a need to improve (as noted by
various critics) and a need to catch up to my peers, but it's draining a
lot of the spontaneity and fun I used to enjoy with my older work. Is this
a problem?

> > Some of the responses I've gotten are just inches away from hate, and
quite
> > a few have told me (in more polite terms) that I suck.
>
> Then hit the delete button and go on.

The last time I got an e-mail to that effect (and man was it a long one) it
hit me in the gut, made me write a long response, I started to feel
depressed, then I wound up tossing that response in the garbage without
mailing it and eventually just chucked the original message itself. I'm
working on eliminating those first few steps. ;o)>

> You've only been showing your art for 18 months and already you're
> despairing about not getting ahead? Yeesh! I've been showing my art for
over 4

> years now(not on the internet in RL) and have only now been able to
gather
> positive reaction.

I guess it's more meaningful than I think, then, to get compliments from
some of my SCFA peers. Which is the kind of "popularity" I should really go
for (and was trying to get at in the first place- but not too clearly)-
**getting people who would actually care about and relate to my art in the
first place** (not the overall fandom) to like my stuff. It probably means
more to me that Scotty Arsenault enjoys some of my work than the fact that
someone more 'established' like Roz Gibson doesn't.

>You're only starting and you're expecting to catapult
> to the front in a really short time. That doesn't happen to anyone. Ask
any of
> the bigger named artists how old they are and when they began to find
their
> feet.

Maybe it just seems like some of the other artists are gaining popularity
quicker than I am- but while they didn't join the SCFA until about
six-eight months after I did, they /had/ been doing furry art- well, at
least /good/ furry art- longer than me. To toss out an example- no, not
music, but baseball (my other bizarre fixation), Nolan Ryan kicked around
in the New York Mets' bullpen for over five years before he got a chance to
become a starting pitcher- and some 20 years later he wound up setting
mind-boggling strikeout records. I s'pose furry art requires that similar
blend of practice, patience and a 'big break'.

> You're still experimenting, relax and enjoy the ride.

Ack! That Nissan guy's following me! (hide)

Finally, a good debate/brainstorming session/advice dispensin' post that
doesn't make me want to injure myself in a bad way. ;o)>

[Robert Bobby Holiday]

Kese scribbled:

> Boy, I'm depressed, no one ever mentions my name and I've only been
>invited to a couple of 'zines. *sniff* ;)

My name's been mentioned twice in this thread! I'm famous now! Er,
wait. `;}

>> Cool. (grin) Then again, I believe Robert Holiday (sp?) did make a post to
>> the effect of "since I drew about 2 macro pics out of some 200+ pics I've
>> done I've gotten accolades for just those two pics from people that could
>> care less about the rest of my work". Sometimes it's different for
>> different people. And to be honest I haven't the slightest idea why that
>> happens either.
>

> This is not in any way a value judement, but I think it has a lot to do
>with the talent of the artist. I've never seen Holiday's work so I can't
>comment, but maybe he draws macros better than anything else and people can see
>the talent in it and respond. I think I'm as adept with pg rated material
>as I am with erotic material and people respond.(this is not to blow my own
>horn, though, most days I feel like I can't draw worth shit;)

http://www.furnation.com/bo... er, wait. Remember? The guy that quit?
http://pinky.wtower.com/~holiday . `;} The comments I got were specifically
because the pics were macro and cute. `:) I didn't use any different style on
them.. actually, I kinda thought they sucked. But hey, some people will go for
anything that's macro in the same way that some people will go for anything
that has Mickey Mouse on it if they like Mickey Mouse.. `=)

> One is being technical proficent in anatomy and composition but laking
>feeling, the other is just bad art. Yes, there is such a thing as bad
>art.(meaning, poor anatomy, poor composition...) See:
>http://glyphs.com/moba/ for examples of bad art.

YES!! YES!! The museum of bad art!! EVERYONE should see this page..
it's a laugh riot!!

> I've been into the fandom for a while. Not the online version mind you,
>but I was buying "Critters" , "Cerebus" and "Captain Jack" back in high school.
>Those where my first real taste of anthro fandom and not oneof them is filled
>with spooge. In terms of commission work, I think the adult work tends to
>take precedence, maybe that can be attributed to the fact that there actually
>is less spooge available and people have to contract out to get the images they
>want.

I've been into it for 8 years now. `;} Some of the stuff I saw was
mildly erotic.. but most of it was attractive for the content and portrayal of
the characters involved. Gawd.. what a concept.. it's attractive because
it's.. written well? NO!! `=)

> A big problem, once it becomes a chore, then it's no good. I limit the paid
>work I'll do to avoid that very problem. You're holding yourself to the
>strandard of a static artist and not a cartoonist. Stop it. Technical prowess
>is not the end all of cartoons. If you want to be a portrait artist or
>illustrator then I think you're right to work on the anatomy a bit. But if you
>want to cartoon concentrate on the things that are important for the cartoonist
>to know.

I barely even do paid work. I _love_ picture trades n'stuff though and
do them with uniquely styled artists whenever I can.

[Kese]

Nate Patrin wrote:

> Kese <soll...@erols.com> wrote in article <342AF781...@erols.com>...
> >
> > Nate Patrin wrote:
> >
> > > Kese <soll...@erols.com> wrote in article
> <342A3B87...@erols.com>...
>
>

> How often they're mentioned, how many fanzines they get invited to, and of
> course a general positive reaction to their name ("Mike Snilsnohilsno? Yeh,
> he's a damn good artist").

Boy, I'm depressed, no one ever mentions my name and I've only been

invited to a couple of 'zines. *sniff* ;)

> .

>
> So would you agree it's an anti-cartoon bias, or something just more along
> the lines of a low tolerance for technical error?
>

Not so much an anti-cartoon bias. Okay I'm going to give you a little
critisim and it has nothing to do with technique. I've looked through your
directory before and there's one problem that I can point out where I can see
why maybe you're having a problem with really catching attention. The bulk of
your artwork is static portraits. The cartoon art form doesn't really work with
that type of material. Cartoons(all cartoon characters) are popular because
they convey a definate personality which people can identify to. They work best
when put into situtations and have other characters to react off of.
I suspect Amara is popular because she's given a very clear personality to
the character that she does. The cartoon is less a drawing on the page than a
personality that people grab onto. Gene Catlow probably has the same thing
going on.
This doesn't mean you have to do a nine panel story everytime you post
something, just that you should start by building a stable of characters all
with distinct personalities. So far I've only seen one type of personality
prevalent in your work(the bearded slacker), you can have that one character,
but you also need other characters that will react to and contrast with.
Also in your drawing style itself: it seems to me like you would benifit
from a less controlled style in favor of a more scratchy style(like that
favored by Gerald Scarfe/Ralph Steadman). The drawings sometimes look
uncomfortable to me, as if you're trying too hard to make a clean line instead
of just letting the pen go and putting in some extra lines. The looser style
will also give your expressions more of a kick to them. You're god with
expression, but you look like you need to loosen up a bit. As a cartoonist you
need to be less concerned with getting a line perfect than you need to be
concerned with getting the feelings across.

>
>
>
> Or something besides the 'current version' of the fandom- either a smaller
> segment of the fandom or one that miraculously changes within a five-year
> span... There is crossover potential too, I s'pose. Sam 'N' Max,
> f'rinstance.

If you try what I'm saying in the above paragraph it might help.
Cartoons have nothing to do with putting across a technically brillant pic and
everything to do with conveying feeling and personality. It's the one thing I
can see that may very well be holding you back. You're straddling the line
between furry portrait artist and cartoonist and I'm afraid the two don't mix
very well.

>
>
>
> But who makes them? In the 'outside world' a lot of our tastes are
> influenced and to a point dictated by magazines (Spin, Entertainment
> Weekly), fashion designers, TV networks and the like. If it's different in
> the fandom (and I sure hope it is), how do these standards come about?

They're shaped by who ever holds the influence at the moment. They come
about by a group of people all liking the same thing and then a bunch of other
people latch on and want to do that thing too, and so on.....

>
>
> Cool. (grin) Then again, I believe Robert Holiday (sp?) did make a post to
> the effect of "since I drew about 2 macro pics out of some 200+ pics I've
> done I've gotten accolades for just those two pics from people that could
> care less about the rest of my work". Sometimes it's different for
> different people. And to be honest I haven't the slightest idea why that
> happens either.

This is not in any way a value judement, but I think it has a lot to do

with the talent of the artist. I've never seen Holiday's work so I can't
comment, but maybe he draws macros better than anything else and people can see
the talent in it and respond. I think I'm as adept with pg rated material
as I am with erotic material and people respond.(this is not to blow my own
horn, though, most days I feel like I can't draw worth shit;)

>
>

> It might also show if you're not particularly good at it, though. How do
> you differentiate?

One is being technical proficent in anatomy and composition but laking

feeling, the other is just bad art. Yes, there is such a thing as bad
art.(meaning, poor anatomy, poor composition...) See:
http://glyphs.com/moba/ for examples of bad art.

>
>

> I guess this could be attributed to the fact that (A) I haven't been in the
> fandom that long and (B) a few people with a lot of background /have/
> stated to the effect that the adult art is the majority rule.

I've been into the fandom for a while. Not the online version mind you,

but I was buying "Critters" , "Cerebus" and "Captain Jack" back in high school.
Those where my first real taste of anthro fandom and not oneof them is filled
with spooge. In terms of commission work, I think the adult work tends to
take precedence, maybe that can be attributed to the fact that there actually
is less spooge available and people have to contract out to get the images they
want.

>
>
>

> I /am/ pushing myself somewhat hard, standard-wise. You know, becoming
> increasingly dissatisfied with my work, doing the same version of the same
> picture over and over trying to get it "right"... I suppose these high
> standards could be attributed to both a need to improve (as noted by
> various critics) and a need to catch up to my peers, but it's draining a
> lot of the spontaneity and fun I used to enjoy with my older work. Is this
> a problem?
>

A big problem, once it becomes a chore, then it's no good. I limit the paid

work I'll do to avoid that very problem. You're holding yourself to the
strandard of a static artist and not a cartoonist. Stop it. Technical prowess
is not the end all of cartoons. If you want to be a portrait artist or
illustrator then I think you're right to work on the anatomy a bit. But if you
want to cartoon concentrate on the things that are important for the cartoonist
to know.

>
>

> I guess it's more meaningful than I think, then, to get compliments from
> some of my SCFA peers. Which is the kind of "popularity" I should really go
> for (and was trying to get at in the first place- but not too clearly)-
> **getting people who would actually care about and relate to my art in the
> first place** (not the overall fandom) to like my stuff. It probably means
> more to me that Scotty Arsenault enjoys some of my work than the fact that
> someone more 'established' like Roz Gibson doesn't.

So then be happy with that and don't obsess about the other stuff.

>
>
> > You're still experimenting, relax and enjoy the ride.
>
> Ack! That Nissan guy's following me! (hide)

Ugh, excuse me I'm T.V. impared. Didn't know that was a commercial.(The only
thing I've watched in the past month has been the news and South Park)

>
>
> Finally, a good debate/brainstorming session/advice dispensin' post that
> doesn't make me want to injure myself in a bad way. ;o)>

Good, but don't let anything anyone says push you that far:/

>

Kese

[Vaughan]

<...and the Lord said "Let there be snippage".>

> To look at another music analogy (Tiring? Well, music /is/ one of the most
> trend-intensive art forms out there, which helps prove a point in this
> case): In the mid 1970s standards were /extremely/ high for what could not
> only be played on the radio but what was "good". You had your hard rock
> groups with super-virtuoso guitarists (Led Zeppelin), post-psychedelic rock
> groups that composed 20-minute long experimental ambient/jazz/blues tracks
> (Pink Floyd) and super-high-budget, theatrical syntho-classical bombast
> (Emerson, Lake and Palmer). Now while many of these groups were pretty
> damned cool (well, ELP excepted ;o)> ), record execs felt that anything
> less than a Jeff Beck or an Electric Light Orchestra wasn't any good. Which
> is why, in the mid '70s, a large underground contingent (spearheaded by the
> New york groups like the Ramones, Talking Heads and the Patti Smith Group)
> started playing music that, albeit not particularly high-concept or
> super-talented, was damned fun music nonetheless, and was done /for the fun
> of it/. They set a new standard: this is something that anybody can get a
> chance to do if they just have enough raw emotion to make their stuff
> enjoyable. Five years later lots of people were making their own music,
> from hardcore punks in California to underground DJs in the Bronx. In
> short, if the mainstream is not only constantly focusing on technical
> prowess and big names but telling young and struggling artists that they're
> not good enough to get attention, damn straight there's going to be
> resistance.

Good point, Nate. :) Heyas, all, I've been following this thread for a
while, so like, here's my input or something. Going right along with the
music thing, I've got a quote here from a band who I consider of one
*the* most inrtospective bands of our time; they also helped pave the
road for a good deal of what the ska/punk scene is today: OPERATION IVY.
The words in the brackets are mine, and are used only to clarify the
message for those who are ska-challenged. *smirk*
Quote:

"Music [Furriness] is an indirect force for change, because it provides
an anchor against human tragedy. In this sense, it works towards a
reconciled world. It can also be the direct experience of change. At
certain points during some shows [conventions/MUCKS/etc.], the
reconciled world is already here, at least in that second, at that
place.
Operation Ivy [Artist/Writer/Insert-your-name-here] was very lucky to
have experienced this. THOSE SECONDS REVEAL THAT THE MOMENTUM THAT
DRIVES A SUBCULTURE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY PARTICULAR BAND
[Artist/Writer/Whoever]. THE MOMENTUM IS MADE OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO STAY
INTERESTED, AND KEEP THEIR SENSE OF URGENCY AND HOPE." -J.

I think that about sums it up, furs.

> Anyone willing to start a 'sub-fandom'?

*Syrano raises a paw* Sign me up. :)
_________________________________________________________________________

"I start it, I end it, I kill and words defend it. Got big plans, blood
stained hands, gonna put my name on a map, I'm on my way to save the
world..."
--OPERATION IVY, "Missionary"
Big Drew "The Phox" Vaughan
http://www.FurNation.com/big_drew
Fine Purveyor of Cool Furry Stuff

[Amara]

Nate Patrin wrote:
>
> Jeez, man... people're gonna start thinking we're posting binaries here.
>
> CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19970924043...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>
> > I have no idea what you're referring to by a popularity contest or
> > a name-dropping contest on SCFA. I think you've mentioned it before, but
> > I'm not aware of any such thing during the time I've been there. Could
> you
> > clarify?
>
> Wellllll, there was the "Let's all draw Gene!" craze, the AAWD craze, the
> Spaceroo craze, the Trixi craze... ehh. Such perturbing things shouldn't
> happen to such nice artists.

Geez, Nate..

I ahve said this before, and I will say it again and I was hoping I
wouldn't have to drag it out into public...

The AAWD was a freaking JOK! Not a popularity contest, it was just me,
gene, sully and mel and will onyl be me, gene, sully and mel.. :P

Well, to me..

Stop whining about it already, okay?

Amy- This is the only gripe I have, Nate, your art is improving though.
Maybe try soemthign other than gradient fills :)

--
"We count 30 rebel ships, Lord Vader, but our men are so pissed they
couldn't hit a bull's butt with a bass fiddle."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Amy 'Amara' Pronovost: Anthro/Star Wars Artist, RASSM Cool Person,
Psychovixen, Fox-Shark, Still crazy after all these years.
am...@snowmeow.com <*> http://rat.org/amara <*>

[Malik A. Khan]

On 26 Sep 1997 05:26:42 GMT, "Nate Patrin"
<patr...@tc.umn.SPAM.ME.AND.I.SMACK.YA.edu> wrote:

>> Then hit the delete button and go on.
>
>The last time I got an e-mail to that effect (and man was it a long one) it
>hit me in the gut, made me write a long response, I started to feel
>depressed, then I wound up tossing that response in the garbage without
>mailing it and eventually just chucked the original message itself. I'm
>working on eliminating those first few steps. ;o)>

Hey, Nate!

This type of thing isn't just in "the fandom" you know. Even folks
(like me) who do non-furry related work for t-shirt printers are
subjected to it.

Right now, I'm getting shit from this moron I'm working with who
doesn't seem to like the particular designs I come up with. Fine.
But the mistake he's making is thinking that since I'm coming up with
shit he doesn't like, he assumes I can design worth shit!!! (He even
said this to my face, more or less)

I could easily take those "shitty" designs, change em a little, then
shop em to another printer and they'll buy em on the spot! Not bad
for shitty designs, huh? :-)

Of course, it comes with the territory. I've learned quickly that you
gotten have a thick skin and a bad memory (to forget those idiotic,
unconstructive "Crtiques.") to make it in the artistic world. If you
let that shit stick to ya, you'll get depressed and start to feel like
"gee.. maybe I should be doing something else? Maybe I should go back
to Data Entry clerical work?" (Well, in MY case anyway) You'll start
to feel inferior. Worthless.

Yeah, I've been there.

BUT!!! After my brief "hiatus" periods I ALWAYS come back swinging.
During those periods I learn and evolve by looking at what's already
out there. If I like a particular design, I ask myself why. Then I
analyze it, and incorporate certain styles of that design into my own
work. Sometimes I even go beyond that.

And STILL fail to get attention (from this jackass that keeps
rejecting my shit--with NO suggestions for improvement!!)!

It ain't easy... But I know something good gonna come out of it.
Right now I'm working out my OWN line of sportswear, specifically
'toon (or furry, if you prefer) oriented. Since no one else I work
with is interested in doing that, I'm gonna do it.

I got the drive, I got the skills, I got the connections. All I need
is enuff $$$ to get the thing started (that, and $0 balance credit
card bills--ugh!).

Damn. What was the point of my post?

Oh. "Keep ya head up!" :-)
----------
Hoodkatt's Klique -- The Voice of Freedom
(And under construction too I might add)

http://www.wizard.net/~hoodkatt

Get Involved. Get Educated. Get Psyched.

Peace--Hoodkatt

[Nate Patrin]

Amara <am...@vision.nais.com> wrote in article

> > Wellllll, there was the "Let's all draw Gene!" craze, the AAWD craze,
the
> > Spaceroo craze, the Trixi craze... ehh. Such perturbing things
shouldn't
> > happen to such nice artists.
>
> Geez, Nate..
>
> I ahve said this before, and I will say it again and I was hoping I
> wouldn't have to drag it out into public...
>
> The AAWD was a freaking JOK! Not a popularity contest, it was just me,
> gene, sully and mel and will onyl be me, gene, sully and mel.. :P

Welllllll, alrighty then. And to prove I'm not petty or nothin', I'll
letcha join some group I make up as soon as I figure out if there's one I'm
worthy of leading. 8oP>

> Well, to me..
>
> Stop whining about it already, okay?

Well, I'm sick of being ignored. I suppose it's an irrational annoyance,
but it kinda hurts to be overlooked by people I admire. Eh.

> Amy- This is the only gripe I have, Nate, your art is improving though.
> Maybe try soemthign other than gradient fills :)

Well, yeah, I think I'm getting better, and thanks- but... gradient fills??
That's /airbrushing/. (headscratch) Am I really that bad at it?

--
-Nate Patrin
=====================================
"I'm the 'yote you hated, art infatuated.... yeah!"

http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m062/patr0044/main.htm

[Busterchar]

In article <01bcd202$aef9b820$893f5ea0@default>, "Nate Patrin"
<patr...@tc.umn.SPAM.ME.AND.I.SMACK.YA.edu> writes:

>
>Well, yeah, I think I'm getting better, and thanks- but... gradient fills??
>That's /airbrushing/. (headscratch) Am I really that bad at it?
>--

I suppose since All I do Is cause pain and suffering, I might as well
say... You need pointers on airbrushing?

DISCLAMER: This post was mean with the best possible possibilites. Knowing
I will offend some people, I am very sorry.

-Buster "Look at the freak in the cage!" Charlie

[Rainshadow]

In article <01bcd202$aef9b820$893f5ea0@default>, "Nate Patrin" <patr...@tc.umn.SPAM.ME.AND.I.SMACK.YA.edu> writes:

>
> Well, I'm sick of being ignored. I suppose it's an irrational annoyance,
> but it kinda hurts to be overlooked by people I admire. Eh.

Yeah, it does, but everybody's been in that boat before. I think what matters
most, though, is what one chooses to do next.

-Rain', that virtual vending machine of unsolicited opinion

[Richard J. Bartrop]

On 6 Oct 1997, Nate Patrin wrote:

>
> Well, yeah, I think I'm getting better, and thanks- but... gradient fills??
> That's /airbrushing/. (headscratch) Am I really that bad at it?
> --

Or it means that you're really that good at it, if you can lay down a
gradient of colour so perfect that it looks computer generated.

Richard Bartrop
Writer/Artist, "Zaibatsu Tears"
Published by Limelight Publishing
Grey on FurryMUCK.

[Scotty Arsenault]

Amara wrote:
> Whhat I meant was... tAke a look at other computer coloured stuff
> (Sully's latest) my web grap[phics.. Some of Ravenwolf's non computer
> stuff.
>
> What do you see?
>
> You see not solid colours, golly gee no. But you see a solid middle
> colour with computer airbrusgshed shading and sometimes even highlights.

Oooh. Photoshop talk..

*sits down and listens close.*
*Suddenly, he feels the urge to shout...*

Stay away from those #@!*$ lens flares!! They're the Photoshop tool of
the devil!!!!!

*Ooops... sowwy...*

Scotty 'Still has his first Etch-A-Sketch' Arsenault (Sully)
http://rat.org/pub/furry/arscotty/last.htm

ps. Hi, Amara!

[Amara]

> >
> > Geez, Nate..
> >
> > I ahve said this before, and I will say it again and I was hoping I
> > wouldn't have to drag it out into public...
> >
> > The AAWD was a freaking JOK! Not a popularity contest, it was just me,
> > gene, sully and mel and will onyl be me, gene, sully and mel.. :P
>
> Welllllll, alrighty then. And to prove I'm not petty or nothin', I'll
> letcha join some group I make up as soon as I figure out if there's one I'm
> worthy of leading. 8oP>

Well, I really don't want to join any sort of club. I just think u[pp
weird things and draw them.

>
> > Well, to me..
> >
> > Stop whining about it already, okay?
>

> Well, I'm sick of being ignored. I suppose it's an irrational annoyance,
> but it kinda hurts to be overlooked by people I admire. Eh.

Well, the more you whine, the more i get annoyed with you,
unfortunately,. I can onyl take too much of it before even my patience
begins to wear thin.

>
> > Amy- This is the only gripe I have, Nate, your art is improving though.
> > Maybe try soemthign other than gradient fills :)
>

> Well, yeah, I think I'm getting better, and thanks- but... gradient fills??
> That's /airbrushing/. (headscratch) Am I really that bad at it?
> --

> -Nate Patrin

It looks alot like gradient filles.. the colours look kind of wahed
out.. <:)

Maybe a little less white and a little more colour to make them bolder.

Amy

[Amara]

Nate Patrin wrote:

>
> Richard J. Bartrop <rbar...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
> > On 6 Oct 1997, Nate Patrin wrote:

> > > Well, yeah, I think I'm getting better, and thanks- but... gradient
> fills??
> > > That's /airbrushing/. (headscratch) Am I really that bad at it?

> > Or it means that you're really that good at it, if you can lay down a
> > gradient of colour so perfect that it looks computer generated.
>

> Oh.
>
> Good point, actually. I feel stoopid. (snicker)
>
> But Amara's point about me using it too much seemed vaguely negative. No
> matter, I still think I could go for just plain solid colors in a few pics
> (which is what I think she was suggesting anyways).
> --
> -Nate Patrin

<sighs and bangs her head on the desk> It wasn't negative, it was
_advice, Nate.

Whhat I meant was... tAke a look at other computer coloured stuff
(Sully's latest) my web grap[phics.. Some of Ravenwolf's non computer
stuff.

What do you see?

You see not solid colours, golly gee no. But you see a solid middle
colour with computer airbrusgshed shading and sometimes even highlights.

Now, before you say 'But I can't do that! IT's too hard!' fiddle around
with phoitoshop and you'll figure it out. That's what I did.

Amy- Wonders that if you see even simple advice like 'too much gradient
fill' as negativem, then perhaps you should stop beign so sensitive, or
become a hermit. OI've often opted for the hermit thing ;)

[Amara]

BlackHat wrote: A buncha stuff I snipped.

Black, I don't see what your post had anything to do with mine.

I wasn't putting down his art. :P

Amy

[Nate Patrin]

Richard J. Bartrop <rbar...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
> On 6 Oct 1997, Nate Patrin wrote:
> > Well, yeah, I think I'm getting better, and thanks- but... gradient
fills??
> > That's /airbrushing/. (headscratch) Am I really that bad at it?
> Or it means that you're really that good at it, if you can lay down a
> gradient of colour so perfect that it looks computer generated.

Oh.

Good point, actually. I feel stoopid. (snicker)

But Amara's point about me using it too much seemed vaguely negative. No
matter, I still think I could go for just plain solid colors in a few pics
(which is what I think she was suggesting anyways).
--
-Nate Patrin

[Gordon McVey]

In article <343ABB...@rat.org>, Scotty Arsenault <su...@rat.org> wrote:

>Amara wrote:
>> Whhat I meant was... tAke a look at other computer coloured stuff
>> (Sully's latest) my web grap[phics.. Some of Ravenwolf's non computer
>> stuff.
>>
>> What do you see?
>>
>> You see not solid colours, golly gee no. But you see a solid middle
>> colour with computer airbrusgshed shading and sometimes even highlights.

*shrug* I tend to use solid colours, with darker versions of the colours in
question to provide shading. It's fairly simplistic, but it works pretty
well. I thinks it makes things look a bit Warner Bros-esque (as the French
say), though I do lik the look of computer airbrushed shading. I'l;l have to
give that a try some time.

>Stay away from those #@!*$ lens flares!! They're the Photoshop tool of
>the devil!!!!!

*giggle!*

\|/
O O
.-----------------------------oOO(_)OOo------------------------------.
| http://www.zen.co.uk/home/page/g.mcvey/ 2:250/366.23@fidonet |
| http://rat.org/pub/furry/mcveygor/index.htm g.m...@zen.co.uk |
| ftp://furry.isc-br.com/pub/Images/Gordon-McVey/ AKA Fenn the Fox |
`--------------------------------------------------------------------'

o/~ I did not mean your lovely wife, who's shackin' up with a Wookie o/~

Furry Code 1.2
FCFf2adfm A++>++ C- D H++ M P+ R-- T+ W- Z Sm#
RLCT* a20 ca+++ d+ e+>+ f h- iwf++ p sm#

[Nate Patrin]

Amara <am...@vision.nais.com> wrote in article

<343A7E...@vision.nais.com>...

> > Well, I'm sick of being ignored. I suppose it's an irrational
annoyance,
> > but it kinda hurts to be overlooked by people I admire. Eh.
>
> Well, the more you whine, the more i get annoyed with you,
> unfortunately,. I can onyl take too much of it before even my patience
> begins to wear thin.

Gah. Jeez... now this is what bothers me. I'm starting to piss off friends
here. *sigh* What hath Nate wrought?

> > Well, yeah, I think I'm getting better, and thanks- but... gradient
fills??
> > That's /airbrushing/. (headscratch) Am I really that bad at it?

> > --
> > -Nate Patrin
>
> It looks alot like gradient filles.. the colours look kind of wahed
> out.. <:)
> Maybe a little less white and a little more colour to make them bolder.

Hrm. Maybe. (thinkthinkthinks...)

[Nate Patrin]

Amara <am...@vision.nais.com> wrote in article

<343AE5...@vision.nais.com>...

> BlackHat wrote: A buncha stuff I snipped.
>
> Black, I don't see what your post had anything to do with mine.
>
> I wasn't putting down his art. :P

Trust me, she wasn't. I know when people /really/ put down my art. ;o)>

While I do believe that some people have the harshest standards and tend to
ignore most anything positive about any work that's not totally stunning,
it's not entirely a huge conspiracy. Sure, there's yer Chucks and yer
Rozzes who've looked at my art and others', ehhh'ed and called it 'nothing
special', and the fact that they have 'clout' and opinions more respected
than mine or any other relative newcomer is rather annoying. Still, I have
times where I have to push aside my oh-so-brooding angst and just draw shit
that I like, in spite of (or, in some rather evil cases, /because of/) the
fact many people may not like it or relate to it. It keeps me going. I
/like/ it. It's the "showing it to others" part that's a grind, because
when people critique your art when they're mailing you from hundreds of
miles away sans fear of in-person retaliation, tact is a non-issue.

Somethin' else: there's some points I made a while back that I think some
people missed:

1) I NO LONGER CARE if I'm popular within the fandom at large. If you've
ever looked at the Top Vote Getters pics at http://db.yiffco.com , you get
a good sense of what the 'fandom at large' seems to like (over half of all
the 'favorite' pics were adult, some 15-20% blatantly NC-17 and not just
pinup). And that's not what I want to do, even though my doing that kinda
stuff would let me become popular a whole lot quicker.
2) I LIKE WHAT I DRAW. I draw for myself (mostly because I don't get
commissions... heh), and if a few people have problems with it, too
smegging bad. They may piss me off, but they won't succeed in making me
give up in the long run.
3) The reason I've been bummed recently- in fact, the reason I started to
become bummed in the first place- was the fact that I seemed to be
(operative word: "seemed") overlooked by *people I cared about* and in many
cases saw as friends. Like I mentioned before, it's probably an irrational
fear, but the feeling of being an outsider in a community you want to be a
part of- whether it's real or all in one's mind, it sucks. There has to've
been some point in our high school lives where we knew somebody cool or a
small group of people who had the same interests and hobbies as you, who
for some reason either didn't take to you or were turned off by a one-time
stupid faux pas. If that doesn't bother people sometimes, nothing does.

I guess this sounds like more whining. If it does, I'm sorry. I'm just
trying to clear things up and save face while I can. It's the worst thing
in the world to lose potential- or current- friends.

[Nate Patrin]

BlackHat <bh...@prime-x.net> wrote in article <343ACE...@prime-x.net>...
> I don't know who are these people out there who keeps putting down
> Nate's art.

Mostly because the ones that /really/ piss me off mail me instead of
humiliating me in front of hundreds of readers. That's the only thing those
tactless wonders have going for 'em, though.

> I personaly like the style he employs, I can't perfectly go
> as far as to say it's different but more like unique (okay, I suck on
> critiqing but I know cool art when I see it). It kinda sucks when some
> good talents like this are ignored just becasue it's so different people
> the fat cats shout "it's not what the public wants" or some other
> corporate catch-pharse.

So long as I'm reaching my peers. I'm starting to get far less concerned
about being "what the public wants", seeing as how "what the public wants"
seems to be the Spice Girls, horrendously lame 'Batman' sequels and Doug
Winger drawings.

> I think some artists would just like to know if ANYONE pays any
> attention to thier art at all? Casue over a matter of time of being
> ignored and stepped on by people they looked up too, one feels as if
> they're wasting thier time posting pics up on the net (i've expericenced
> this feeling a small while back).

All good things come in time. People are usually their own worst critics
(proof: myself), and if you do something that you work hard on and have put
a lot of practice into, some people will eventually notice your work and
the effort put into it. The problem is, getting the- *ahem*, "right" people
to notice your work can be inexplicably difficult. You can't approach them
with a brash attitude and say some crap like "You rule, you're way better
than me" without making them feel a bit weird and urpy inside (I know the
feeling). On the other hand, if you devote some time and effort
corresponding with them in a friendly, non-self-deprecating yet
non-kissing-up manner and they /still/ blow you off, maybe they're not
worth talking to in the first place.

> Well I'm not gonna continue on about this, I see that the war is already
> lost here. The loosers being those that want to add some flavor in the
> furry art fandom; and the winners being the hot shots who'll bash
> anyone's brain out for not being another "drone"

Admitting defeat only makes one look desperate and self-loathing. Not that
I'm losing any real respect for you or anything, but "this ain't right,
let's find ways to change it/subvert it/provide an alternative" makes a lot
more sense to me than "this ain't right, I give up". And I'll be damned if
I let the conformity-pimpin' facet of the fandom win.

> (go ahead Amy, flame me
> to hell and back over this and remind me of how my art is below yours, i
> don't care anymore! you win okay? and FYI i do draw g-rated work).

When'd Amara say her art was better than yours? (I never figured her as th'
kinda fur who'd say shit like that.)

> Change is bad, difference is for asymilation. More pinups and spooge
> for the masses!!
>
> I'm jumping off of this ship before it hits that iceberg. Only one
> lifeboat left, better get on while there's still time...

This is starting to sound like a caricature of itself. Odd thing is, you're
probably right in many respects.

> (btw Nate, I really don't draw better than you)

You don't draw any worse, tho.

> (btw Amy, Abe Groter was recently invited in a fanzine)

Lots of people are. But the fact that a relatively unconventional
non-porno/pinup artist like Amara wasn't invited to one is reasonable proof
that the fandom has conventional tastes, tho Groter seems to be a fortunate
exception. Maybe 'invited' was the wrong term, more like a publisher saying
'artist x inquired about maybe possibly submitting, let's get him/her to
contribute!' on one paw and 'artist y wants to submit some stuff, but it's
kinda out-there and artist z wants to display his/her 10-page portfolio of
big-bosomed skunks, so we might not have room'. Fortunately my zine-ish
experiences have been neither the former nor the latter.

> BlackHat
> "Misery loves me"

Does that make you company? (ducks and runs)

[Nate Patrin]

Scotty Arsenault <su...@rat.org> wrote in article
<343ABB...@rat.org>...

> Oooh. Photoshop talk..
>
> *sits down and listens close.*
> *Suddenly, he feels the urge to shout...*
>

> Stay away from those #@!*$ lens flares!! They're the Photoshop tool of
> the devil!!!!!

http://rat.org/pub/furry/patrnate/techg2.jpg

"Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned..."

[Nate Patrin]

Amara <am...@vision.nais.com> wrote in article

<343A7F...@vision.nais.com>...
> Nate Patrin wrote:

> > But Amara's point about me using it too much seemed vaguely negative.
No
> > matter, I still think I could go for just plain solid colors in a few
pics
> > (which is what I think she was suggesting anyways).
>

> <sighs and bangs her head on the desk> It wasn't negative, it was
> _advice, Nate.

/Vaguely/. Vaguely vaguely vaguely. (Hey, that's a fun word to say. ;o)> )
To me (and maybe a lot of other artists), anything that hints at 'you're
not doing something quite right' can be slightly negative, at least at
first, tho eventually they'll pay attention to it. No matter, it's not
/bad/ advice.

And don't hurt yer noggin on my account. You might wind up with brain
damage and get a sudden urge to draw rape/gore scenes of overendowed
hermaph vixentaurs in bondage gear. (j/k)

> Whhat I meant was... tAke a look at other computer coloured stuff
> (Sully's latest) my web grap[phics.. Some of Ravenwolf's non computer
> stuff.
>
> What do you see?

Uh... kewl. It's, like, spiffy art. Rad. (chuckle) Sorry, I'm being silly.
Continue.

> You see not solid colours, golly gee no. But you see a solid middle
> colour with computer airbrusgshed shading and sometimes even highlights.

Well, yeah. That's what I've been tryin' to do. I think I've got something
screwish with the airbrush pressure or the actual color I'm using or
something.

> Now, before you say 'But I can't do that! IT's too hard!' fiddle around
> with phoitoshop and you'll figure it out. That's what I did.

Fiddlin' round with Photoshop? Hey, it's the best thing about the whole
program, its... uh... fiddle-about-osity. Uh. Yeah.

> Amy- Wonders that if you see even simple advice like 'too much gradient
> fill' as negativem, then perhaps you should stop beign so sensitive, or
> become a hermit. OI've often opted for the hermit thing ;)

Gah. Well, dealin' with me in my 'the whole universe sucks' mindstate would
drive anyone to hermitdom.

> "We count 30 rebel ships, Lord Vader, but our men are so pissed they
> couldn't hit a bull's butt with a bass fiddle."

I still love that line. *chortle*

[Roz Gibson]

In article <01bcd3a6$1416c640$c43c5ea0@default>,
patr...@tc.umn.SPAM.ME.AND.I.SMACK.YA.edu says...

>
>Amara <am...@vision.nais.com> wrote in article

><343AE5...@vision.nais.com>...
>> BlackHat wrote: A buncha stuff I snipped.
>>
>> Black, I don't see what your post had anything to do with mine.
>>
>> I wasn't putting down his art. :P
>
>Trust me, she wasn't. I know when people /really/ put down my art. ;o)>
>
>While I do believe that some people have the harshest standards and tend to
>ignore most anything positive about any work that's not totally stunning,
>it's not entirely a huge conspiracy. Sure, there's yer Chucks and yer
>Rozzes who've looked at my art and others', ehhh'ed and called it 'nothing
>special', and the fact that they have 'clout' and opinions more respected
>than mine or any other relative newcomer is rather annoying.

I think you may be under the impression I sprung fully formed from my mother's
womb already commanding 'clout and respect'. Any clout or respect I may have
now ( and how much is wide open to debate), is due to many years of very hard
work. I've been involved in the fandom since '86, and it wasn't until years
later that I was first professionally published, and sold my first work at
cons. Anything I might have achieved was achieved through months and years at
the drawing desk; it wasn't handed to me on a silver platter as soon as I
arrived on the scene.

And yes, I was that unpleasant fur who told you to go to art school. Yes, I
understand you can't afford it. I couldn't either, but I knew my only chance
of making it professionally was to get a formal education in art, so I took out
a lot of student loans. I'm not going to say how much, but I'll be paying them
back until the next millenium. Virtually all the professional artists and
animators, the ones who make a GOOD living, went to art school.

Unfortunately for all of us, there are wunderkids out there who DO arrive on
the scene fully fleshed to huge acclaim, and go on to get high-paying jobs
without ever having to go to school. I know 3 furs who fit that description,
but they ain't me, or you, or anyone on this newsgroup. Motzart-esque talent
like that is incredibly rare, and infuriating (if you don't have it). But, as
it's been said, Life isn't Fair.

You're simply trying to rush what can't be rushed. A teacher of mine once said
that every artist has 10,000 bad drawing in them to get out before you can get
to the good stuff. The only way to do it is to sit down and get out those
10,000 bad drawings. It may take years. Are you willing to draw those 10,000
drawings to get to the good stuff?

There has to be _some_ advantages to getting past 30....

Still drawing after all these years
Roz G.

--
Furry Code
FFD2a A++++$ C++ D- H- M- P R++ T++ W+ Z++++ SF#
RLA A+ Cn++ D- E++ F+ H+++ I+ P++ SF#
Roz Gibson in real life, and nobody in furry muck.

[Nate Patrin]

Roz Gibson <rozha...@huzzah.net> wrote in article
<61fa2i$aml$1...@rat.org>...

<snip>

For some reason, I thought this was gonna be a diatribe on how obnoxious
I've been and the like, seeing as how most other people have written
something along that line as well as the fact that I've been... uh... using
ya as an example of 'The Man', only, uh, you're not a man, and... uh...
gah. Instead, I read some stuff that, several months after I heard it the
first time, seems a ways more rational to my Dr. Pepper-addled brain. Maybe
'cause I'm no longer a teenager. Maybe 'cause I'm sick of getting people
annoyed with me. Maybe 'cause I just got a copy of Prodigy's "Music For the
Jilted Generation" and all is right with the world. Anyways... ah, hell...
I've gots to develop me a work ethic or some crap. I've gotten to a point
where I draw every day (I don't sit in front of the TV set one minute
before grabbing the sketch pad). Hey, maybe in 10 years I'll have about two
dozen installments of 'The Masked Prankstas' in Furrlough. Or I'll have
published the entire 'Feral Corps Journals' in Yarf!* Or I'll have
abandoned the fandom completely to work on comic strips. Or I'll still be
complaining incessantly because I'm being outdone by people with 25 years
experience. ;o)> . Meh. Whatever the case, I feel not-so-crappy now. See?
Works out better when everyone involved has patience and tact and an empty
gas can... ;o)>

*OK, so I guess that was plugging my current projects. But if I abandon
those, this post will look stupid after the fact. Ah well.

[Mark Freid]

Nate Patrin <patr...@tc.umn.SPAM.ME.AND.I.SMACK.YA.edu> wrote in article <

> /Vaguely/. Vaguely vaguely vaguely. (Hey, that's a fun word to say. ;o)>
)
> To me (and maybe a lot of other artists), anything that hints at 'you're
> not doing something quite right' can be slightly negative, at least at
> first, tho eventually they'll pay attention to it. No matter, it's not
> /bad/ advice.

No, no no no no... don't look at it that way.
When I first started out, I got "you're not doing such-and-such quite
right" comments from Shon Howell, Stan Sakai and Conrad Wong (and a few
others)... but it was immediately followed by other comments... comments on
what was wrong, and how it might be fixed... or general information... very
very useful information. It was what people refer to as "constructive
criticism" and I either implemented it or have been trying to implement
their siggestions ever since. But I was never upset at being told something
wasn't right, in fact I won't soon forget the "constructive" aspects of the
criticisms.

And that goes to any aspiring artist. Most artists, provided their not
doing much at a particular time, and provided that they're nice people <g>
are happy to look at a few samples of art. Go to an artist who you respect
or admire, don't act like a slavering fanboy, but ask if they'd mind giving
a look and opinion on some art. Most people will give you some general
comments. Ask for advice. As long as you're professional and interested,
most people don't mind, and some are actually flattered.

Also, don't do this with just one particular artist. Maybe that one likes
realistic instead of cartoonish, or vice-versa... see what a few people
think. There are always people who won't cae for your art... but for the
ones who DO like it, it makes up for it.

-Mark

--
Mark Freid ("Canuss"), Anthropomorphic Cartoonist
-------------------------------------------------
can...@yiffco.com http://wolf.tierranet.com
-------------------------------------------------
Creator & Moderator of the FurRing
(http://wolf.tierranet.com/furring.html)

Furry Code: FCW3dm A+++ C+ D H- M+ P+ R T W- Z+++
Sm RLCT a Can++ d e+ f++ h# iwf p++ s

[Mark Freid]

Amara <am...@vision.nais.com> wrote in article
<343AE5...@vision.nais.com>...
> BlackHat wrote: A buncha stuff I snipped.
>
> Black, I don't see what your post had anything to do with mine.
>
> I wasn't putting down his art. :P
>

> Amy

Nor I... heck, I like his stuff in fact.

[Amara]

> Unfortunately for all of us, there are wunderkids out there who DO arrive on
> the scene fully fleshed to huge acclaim, and go on to get high-paying jobs
> without ever having to go to school. I know 3 furs who fit that description,
> but they ain't me, or you, or anyone on this newsgroup. Motzart-esque talent
> like that is incredibly rare, and infuriating (if you don't have it). But, as
> it's been said, Life isn't Fair.

Don't hate me Roz.. I'm one of these people.. I'm not a fine artist, but
without having taken any formal art training, I'm going to be a
professional cartoonist type person with a real paying job!

Amy- Starting to take watercolour courses.. and loves Roz's work :)

--

"We count 30 rebel ships, Lord Vader, but our men are so pissed they
couldn't hit a bull's butt with a bass fiddle."

[Will Sanborn]

Amara <am...@vision.nais.com> writes:

>>Unfortunately for all of us, there are wunderkids out there who DO arrive on
>>the scene fully fleshed to huge acclaim, and go on to get high-paying jobs
>>without ever having to go to school. I know 3 furs who fit that description,
>>but they ain't me, or you, or anyone on this newsgroup. Motzart-esque talent
>>like that is incredibly rare, and infuriating (if you don't have it). But, as
>>it's been said, Life isn't Fair.
>
>Don't hate me Roz.. I'm one of these people.. I'm not a fine artist, but
>without having taken any formal art training, I'm going to be a
>professional cartoonist type person with a real paying job!

You've found art work, Amy? Do tell, what will you be doing? And congrats.

--
Will A. Sanborn, wa...@shore.net
http://www.shore.net/~was1
(my creative writing: sci-fi, fantasy, furry, romance, speculative fiction)

[Jack Furlong - Artist/MUCKer]

In article <61g9qf$rck...@news.fysh.org>, g.m...@zen.co.uk (Gordon McVey) wrote:
>In article <343ABB...@rat.org>, Scotty Arsenault <su...@rat.org> wrote:
>>Amara wrote:

>>> Whhat I meant was... tAke a look at other computer coloured stuff
>>> (Sully's latest) my web grap[phics.. Some of Ravenwolf's non computer
>>> stuff.
>>>
>>> What do you see?
>>>

>>> You see not solid colours, golly gee no. But you see a solid middle
>>> colour with computer airbrusgshed shading and sometimes even highlights.
>

>*shrug* I tend to use solid colours, with darker versions of the colours in
>question to provide shading. It's fairly simplistic, but it works pretty
>well. I thinks it makes things look a bit Warner Bros-esque (as the French
>say), though I do lik the look of computer airbrushed shading. I'l;l have to
>give that a try some time.

It has its uses, but its easy to overdo it...<grin>
I'm not sure if I did on this one, as it's pretty close
to the source picture I worked from, in that respect.
http://www.furnation.com/jfurlong/gallery/romance.jpg

[Taura]

I'd just like to mention an important fact...

Of all the paint programs I've tried, PSP, APS, FP, GIMP, etc...
they do *not* have an airbrush tool. A true airbrush is an adjustable
texturizing tool.

There is a program called Picture Publisher 5 or 7 which (is the only program
I found) that has a programmable airbrush. If you program it just right,
you can create near photo realistic fur textures, see:
ftp://furry.ao.net/pub/Artists/LearFox/furry/1997.09/wolfpack.png

-Taura

Remove demon.NOSPAM from address to reply.

[Micole The Ermine]

Both Fractal Design Paint and Photoshop have an 'airbrush' tool. What
you're talking about sounds like the FDP, but PS's tool is actually very
useful as well. If you have a pressure-sensitive or vecter-sensistive
input device (read: tablets), the tools become more than what the simple
interface of a mouse has. As a real airbrush allows minute changes in
characteristics based on the pressure applied to the valve, so a
pressure-sensitive tablet can provide the needed information to the
program to simulate this change. I have great fun angling my Wacom
stylus to create calligraphic effects, too, and regular brush tools have
a proper change in line-width with the fast flick of the stylus, a more
'even' width with slow movement.

It's not the tools themselves, but how you use the tools.

ermine
To send Email, remove the (k)not in my address.

[CMelvi6195]

In article <01bcd3a6$1416c640$c43c5ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:

>Sure, there's yer Chucks and yer
>Rozzes who've looked at my art and others', ehhh'ed and called it 'nothing
>special', and the fact that they have 'clout' and opinions more respected
>than mine or any other relative newcomer is rather annoying.

I don't know what you're talking about, Nate. I've never seen
your art to so much as sneeze at, let alone say it was nothing special.
Nothing I've ever said has been directed at your art, and couldn't be since
I haven't seen any.

-Chuck Melville-
<http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html>

[Nate Patrin]

CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971010011...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> But I'm back, and I didn't want this last post to go
> uncommented on.

<sarcasm>Well, thank you *so* much for respecting my wishes to let the
thread *DIE*...</sarcasm>

So much for nettiquite.

[CMelvi6195]

First off, I apologize for posting a reply at this late date, but
I've been preoccupied of late with RL, a week of jury duty, and a week of
computer troubles. But I'm back, and I didn't want this last post to go
uncommented on.

In article <01bcc8cd$22618ac0$823e5ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:

>CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article

><19970924043...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>
>> I have no idea what you're referring to by a popularity contest or
>> a name-dropping contest on SCFA. I think you've mentioned it before, but
>> I'm not aware of any such thing during the time I've been there. Could
>you
>> clarify?
>
>Wellllll, there was the "Let's all draw Gene!" craze, the AAWD

The who whazis!?

>craze, the
>Spaceroo craze, the Trixi craze... ehh. Such perturbing things shouldn't
>happen to such nice artists.

You seriously consider this to be name-dropping!? You've a
completely new definition of the term from what I understand it as being,
then. What you're describing is nothing more than a bunch of fans all
drawing each other or each other's characters. Big deal. That's been a
common amusement in fandom for years; nothing new there, except for the
particular players. This is just people having fun.

>> >I still think people are more willing to listen to one another when both
>> >parties refrain from condescending remarks.
>>
>> And again I'm not sure what you mean. What condescending remarks
>> do you mean? My experience with you so far has been that it usually
>turns
>> out to be what you -interpret- as condescension.
>
>Basically, a lot of posts I've recieved have a "since I don't like your
>tone I'm going to make cracks about your attitude, your skill as an artist
>and how much more experienced I am than you" tone to them. Not particularly
>yours, but there're others.

I admit that's an unfortunate response, and doesn't say much for
those that offer it. On the other hand, when you project an attitude, you
can't expect that you won't get one in response.

>> Unfortunately, when you come looking for advice, it's usually
>> going to come from those who have experience in either the fandom, the
>art,
>> or both. And It isn't so much a case of telling you what it wants as it
>is
>> giving you how we analyze it. Hey, we -were- there.
>
>I've seemed to notice remarks aplenty along the lines of "what the fandom
>wants". Maybe I misinterpreted them. And some people analyze the same thing
>in different ways (the blind guys and the elephant metaphor), some more
>accurate or inclusive than others.

If you're talking about -popularity-, then, yeah, it does mean
it's what the fandom -wants-. Logically, if it wasn't, then it wouldn't
-be- popular.

>> What, you want
>> somebody who wasn't there just to make something up? Maybe your tuner
>> needs some adjustment; it may not be what you want to hear, but that
>> doesn't mean it isn't what you -need- to hear.
>
>I can still think of people who "were there" (wherever the hell "there" is)

"There" being the Fandom at the time when it was first coming
together as such.

>who have less of a grip on what really matters than people who watch from
>the sidelines. It works both ways.

"What really matters"? What do you mean? "Really matters" as far
as what? Fandom? Real Life? Art?

>> >I just can't resist a good pop culture
>> >metaphor.
>>
>> Try.
>
>No.
>

Try anyway. It only makes it look as though you're putting on
airs. It's just another variant of the name-dropping games you've been
complaining about. If you -must- drop pop culture references, keep them
relevant. Not everyone here shares your musical interests, follows sports,
or even watches television on a regular basis.

>> >And that last comment of yours was kind of odd coming from
>> >someone who expects me to know who all these fantasy artists are when I
>> >could care less about 75% of the fandom.
>>
>> A little different situation there, Nate. For one thing, your
>> world of Pop Culture is severly different from mine.
>
>And to be blunt, I feel richer for it.

But as that's a matter of viewpoint only, it's an irrelevant
observation.

>> For another, if
>> you're indulging in a group or interest, then, yes, I do expect you to be
>> knowledgable about it. It has nothing to do with whether you like the
>> other 75% or not (although that would certainly help); it has to do with,
>> at the very minimum, having a passing awareness of it. Geez, even I try
>to
>> keep track of what I think is -bad- stuff in the fields I'm interested
>in.
>
><snip>
>
>Well, at least do me one favor: Don't give me funny looks and stares down
>the bridge of your nose 'cuz I'm not familiar with as many names in the
>fandom.

Only if you return the favor by actively researching and getting
better know the fandom you're trying to participate in.

>> No, we don't think you're an idiot for not liking Terrie or Doug's
>> work.
>
>Nah. You just regard my opinion as "unfortunate".

That's true, but that's not the same thing. It's one thing to not
like a person's art, but another thing entirely to dismiss it completely
because it doesn't interest you personally. I think you shortchange
Terrie's abilities greatly, and I think you shortchange yourself by not
being willing or able to see the full range of her skills and talents. And
I think it's unfortunate that you are so certain her work is bland and
uninteresting. But you are, after all, entitiled to your opinion.

>> But saying you have a right to return an attitude for what you think
>> is an attitude is a conceit; and two wrongs still don't make a right.
>
>Yeah... standing up for yourself can be a mess, huh? Oh well. To be honest,
>maybe it's better to respond in a civil tone so that the other poster looks
>like a crack addict in comparison.

Standing up for yourself can be achieved without insulting other
people, or by copping an attitude.

>> >Then... uh, well... you know, you don't HAVE to /read/ my posts. And if
>you
>> >can't handle other peoples' opinions (i.e. mine) then you're just as bad
>as
>> >I am.
>>
>> Opinions are one thing. But the timing could be better... like
>> not giving them when asking for advice. There's also a time and place
>for
>> some opinions. For instance, I never offer negative opinions of people's
>> work in public; I'll save it for private conversation. In public, I grit
>> my teeth a lot.
>
>That's because you're an editor. You're high-profile, you work with a lot
>more artists than I do. Of course I can understand why you don't go off on
>rants in front of everyone. But when people give me advice and I find it to
>be negative or destructive, I'm sorry, I have to let them know how I feel
>about it. Though I've found it helps to use less profanity than I'm used
>to.

My being an editor is irrelevant. That has been my practice all
along. You don't do something that may be potentially humilating to
someone in public; that's just common sense and common courtesy.

>> There is nothing arbitrary about standards of quality... and I've
>> said nothing at all about rules. I don't know why this continues to be a
>> sore point with you. You -do- believe in creating a good piece of art,
>right?
>
>Yes. What I'm concerned about is what some people consider 'good'. I don't
>mean technically, I mean in aesthetics and subject matter.

And -I- mean aesthetically as well as technically. (The subject
matter is irrelevant.)

>> >How compliant to your standards of discourse do you want me to be here?
>>
>> Politeness (or at least less causticness), sensibility,
>> rationability...
>
>Hey, I'm trying here... but when you've got as many problems from the
>outside world coming in as I do, being polite's not that easy.

Polite is -never- easy. It's a practice, not a natural state.
And having problems, no matter how many, is -not- an excuse. Everybody
here has problems they have to contend with, some more serious than others.
You have no monoploy on that, and you never will. Deal Whitley had to
deal with sickle cell anemia and dialysis, and was in a constant state of
physical exhaustion, but still managed to get a few notable works done in
his short lifetime. And he was constantly struggling to get more done,
until he passed away. And the few times I'd met him, he was a gregarious
and overtly friendly person. After that, I'm not easily impressed by the
explanation, "I've got problems in my real life".

>> I'm -not- interested
>> in 'putting you in your place'; frankly, the advice was well-intentioned.
>
>> I can't help it if it isn't what you would prefer to hear.
>
>Alright, outline to me in simple, non-judgemental terms what you were
>trying to get at. Word it carefully.

Frankly, I'd thought that I -had-.

>Try not to imply anything regarding an
>attitude that "the fandom wants this", "draw this kind of thing" or "you
>can't do that".

Equally frankly, if you want -popular- then that is exactly the
info you need.

>If you do, then I can't find much validity in your opinion
>because it's a completely different philosophical bent than mine- a
>philosophy that exists to encourage individuality, give respect to the
>under-rated and under-exposed, toss standards of content out the window and
>focus more on aesthetics, always assume that an artist can improve without
>conforming to anothers' style or another genre, and- this is an important
>one to me- break down any preconcieved images of what this fandom and it's
>concept of popularity /is/ and try to strive for what it /could be/.

That's getting rather high-falutin'. What exactly do you mean by
what it -could- be? You're referring to a very nebulous goal over which
practically none of us around here agree on. I think you're better off
stating that -you're- striving for what -you- think it could be.
And that's not altogether a bad goal. It would certainly add a
new dimension to what furry art is. But it's a personal vision that we
can't really advise you on. All we can tell you is the reason for what it
is now, why it is that way, and give you advice in a general fashion.

>
>> >You know what most of the points on that thread mentioned? That to be
>truly
>> >successful you have to do pin-up...! You even agreed! (see below: "if
>you
>> >wanted to achieve the same popularity as Terrie, the only way to do that
>is
>> >to produce the same work as Terrie"...)
>>
>> Incorrect. I never said you had to do pin-ups to be successful.
>> I said you would have to do them to be popular as Terrie... and that you
>> would have to match Terrie at being able to do them.
>
>Maybe we're getting 'successful' and 'popular' confused, though I'm not
>sure how exclusive those things are. You mentioned that to be truly popular
>(ergo, successful) you had to do steer towards "general trends that are
>more popular with the majority than the other trends". You mentioned that
>what the fandom wanted: "Fans prefer... Terrie Smith... Michele Light...
>Doug Winger... it's furry art as defined by Terrie, Michele, Wookiee, Doug,
>et al. It remains popular, and that's the way the wind blows." I don't
>know if there's something you forgot to add in there, but I still think
>you're contradicting yourself, assuming popularity is a prerequisite for
>success (and 95% of the time it usually is).

No, it's entirely possible for a work to be either technically
successful, or aesthetically successful, but neither of these are
necessarily popularly successful. They all fulfill different conditions,
and may or may not overlap. I've seen many works that I thought were
brilliant that quickly faded away into oblivion because they did not catch
the public's fancy for whatever reason.

>> >Saying that pinup is the only way to become truly
>> >popular is a damaging sentiment.
>>
>> No, it is a truth.
>
>That 'truth' has driven many artists to things they didn't want to do and
>wound up jeopardizing their careers by being pigeonholed. It sure as hell
>/is/ damaging.

It's only true that pin-ups are popular. It doesn't necessarily
follow that anyone who does pin-ups will automatically become popular.
It's a trickier art than you suspect, and that's why Terrie is so good at
it: she knows how to make the format work for her. I really don't
reccomend it for any artist who isn't interested in it in the first place.

>> The fandom... and not just this fandom, but
>> all other popular fandoms... are largely composed of people who look for
>> certain vicarious thrills, and the nude, the pin-up, the thinly-or-not
>> disguised erotica are a large portion of most fandoms.
>
><snip>
>
>Then why are comics like "The Sandman" and "Sam and Max", which are either
>practically devoid of sex or not very serious about it, successful?

Who said that they were?

First off, "Sam and Max" was -not- successful as a comic. I was
working for Diamond Distributors when the SAM & MAX books came through
years ago, and they were poor sellers. In fact, the last solicited comic
was canceled by the publisher because of low orders. It -did- garner a
cult following, though, and that is where it's success lies. And it
managed to get a video game, but that was a result of some arcane
contractural deal that I don't know enough about to get into.

As for SANDMAN, yes that was immensely popular. It was also an
intelligently written fantasy intended for a specific audience. And if you
think there was no sex in that series, think again; it was handled on a
more subconscious and psychological level, as befits the nature of dreams.
If you don't think so, reread the "Doll House" and "A Game Of You" stories
in particular.

>Does the constant presence of sex neccesarily make the fandom better? Is it
>for the greater good of all people involved? I think maybe we'd be better
>off if the majority of furry art dwelled on something that didn't have to
>involve the libido... and not for the annoying Tipper Gore-ian "think of
>the children!" reasons. There's a theory that overexposure to
>sexually-styled items debases sex itself, makes it seem less vicarious and
>more routine. I'd say that well over half the images on isc.br are of a
>sexual nature either vaguely or overtly (maybe up to 1/3 overtly). When
>sexuality is less of a 'subversive' aspect and more of a mainstream aspect,
>it loses its carnal thrill and becomes routine and in some cases even
>boring. Big boobs interested me immensely when I was 14. Six years later
>I've gotten a bit too familiar with seeing drawings of 'em. I mean, I'm a
>college student who's tired of boobs. This has to be concerning to
>/someone/. (No, this doesn't mean that I'm gay. I'm even more bored with
>weenuses.)

Well, this is not a point that I'd disagree with you on.

>> If Terrie and Ken hadn't drawn the sort of sensual figures they
>> had been back in the beginning, there wouldn't have been much of a core
>to
>> furry fandom, then.
>
>Well, were they the only furry artists doing anything? Were the only furry
>artists "back then" the ones that specialized in erotica? What the hell is
>going on? My head hurts.

No, but they were the ones who caught people's imaginations more
than any other artists. In fact, the whole idea of adding sex to funny
animals, while not -new-, was still very much a novelty at the time.
But there were other furry artists as well, such as Reed Waller
doing OMAHA (more sex) and Steve Gallacci (hard SF), and Joshua Quaqmire
(old Bob Hope routines and vaudeville inuendos), and some others.

>> Same with the early work of Reed Waller or Steve
>> Martin. Keep in mind that when these people were starting, the leading
>> funny-animal fanzine... in fact the -only- funny-animal fanzine,
>really,,,
>> was VOOTIE. And much of VOOTIE'S style owed more to the classic
>> undergrounds of the sixties and seventies: Crumb, Richards, et al. (In
>> fact, Dennis Kitchen was a Vootie) There was very little at that time
>that
>> even resembled what goes on in furry fandom today.
>
>Must've been cool. No offense. Just that something so different from what
>I'm constantly exposed to now seems intriguing.

But it didn't last. It had no lasting appeal, not even to those
working on the strips. The ones who -did- maintain ann interest went on to
form ROWRBRAZZLE, and the rest went into other fields of cartooning and
commercial illustration.

>> But what remained after VOOTIE's collapse to draw together furry
>> fandom? It was interest in work by people like Ken and Steve, and later
>> Terrie. It was the soft erotic glamour that really coalesced small
>groups
>> of individuals across the country together into small groups.
>
>Usagi Yojimbo and TMNT (pre-Saturday Morning era), however, accounted for
>nothing? Hey, *those* were the comics that got /me/ into the fandom, and
>more likely than not a lot of other people, too.

Those came years later. They weren't even so much as a gleam in
their creators' eyes at that time.

>> that was the
>> real beginning of furry fandom.
>
>Well, is it going to be the end?

Maybe.

>> And that is still at its heart.
>
>As are a lot of things.

But it is the main core.

>> But... and this is a big but... simply because they were drawing
>> work of this nature, because they were giving more attention to glamour
>> than to experimentation, does not mean that they weren't producing works
>of
>> quality.
>
>It also doesn't mean they were producing pictures beyond belief that'll
>never be equalled.

I don't disagree with you there, either. But is that really the
-fandom's- aim... or the -artist's-?

>> Or that they weren't striving for that quality. And most fans in
>> the fandom... not all, but most... tend to prefer the pin-up over the
>story
>> or portrait or the abstraction or whateverelse have you.
>
>And you've taken a poll? Almost none of my friends find yiffiness more
>interesting than expressiveness or uniqueness... (guess that's why they're
>my friends.)

You want a poll? Go to the YIFFCO site. Pick up a catalog for Ed
Zolna's Mailbox Books. Browse the Tau-Ceti site and check out the ftp
stats, and see which artists are downloaded most often, and then check for
their content. I've seen the sales for the MU books over the years, and I
can tell you first hand which books gather the most sales.

>> >I don't give a shit about people giving me some advice on things to fix
>as
>> >long as they try and give me some support- either artistic or moral-
>which
>> >I got a total lack of from most of those people until Lisa e-mailed me
>with
>> >a critique and actually told me what she *liked*.
>>
>> What? Advising you to draw what you're most comfortable with is
>> -not- moral support!? Geez...
>> Let me bang my head against the wall a few more times. I'm
>> getting to like it.
>
>Maybe you'll wind up with brain damage and do crazy shit like agree with
>me. There's a reason I pretty much ignored your advice for me to draw what
>I feel comfortable with, though: I'd heard it nearly a dozen other times
>from a dozen other people long before I knew or cared about your opinions.

Therefore the advice becomes invalid!? Because -everybody- has
told you the -same- thing the advice couldn't possibly -be- true!? I must
be using a different application of math, because when -I- add up two plus
two, I still get four.

>> >Too bad Roz Gibson or Elf
>> >Sternberg didn't follow that example. (Then again, they just flat-out
>told
>> >me my art was 'unmemorable', which I consider less a realistic artistic
>> >appraisal than an opinion fueled mostly by annoyance or inflated 'I've
>been
>> >here for decades' standards.) I treated people the way they treated me-
>> >difference was, they were subtle about it.
>>
>> Horseshit.
>
>Tell me, Chuck... how often have you gotten negative criticism?

Constantly. It's an ongoing risk; not everybody likes what you
do. That's life.

>And have
>you ever really stopped to look at what's being said and examine the tone?
>And have you even read some of the stuff I recieved in e-mail? Methinks
>that horseshit's rubber, stamped "Made in Taiwan" and comes from Spencer
>Gifts.

No. I examine who it is coming from and what their experience is,
and consider that maybe they might have more of a clue than I have. Then I
go back and reexamine my work with a fresh outlook, try to see it the way
that they do.
Doesn't mean that they're right. They may be way off base. But I
have to give their experience and POV the benefit of the doubt long enough
to reexamine what I'm doing. Sometimes they -are- wrong. And sometimes
they're -right-.

>> (I'm piqued now.)
>
>Really...
>
>> You bit my head off the very first time I ever spoke to you on
>> this forum, when all I tried to do was offer you some of that advice you
>> publicly asked everybody here for. What was your first words to me?
>> "Don't butt in when you're not wanted. Who asked you?" (words to that
>> effect.)
>
>I have all my posted items to a.f.f. saved starting with some remarks about
>'The Outcast of Redwall' in April '97. I didn't say you weren't wanted,
>just that you seemed a bit too underinformed to comment well enough on the
>topic at hand ("I'm coming into this kinda late, having only just becoming
>aware of it" is what you said) and then saying nothing even remotely
>*resembling* advice but "Micole already wrote what I wanted to say"
>instead. Why would I tell you not to butt in if you had /something to say/
>in your own words?

Because I was offering support on her behalf, especially in light
of the beating you were giving her.

>> And that's been a general constant for you; you generally treat
>> people the way you seem to -think- they're -going- to treat you.
>
>If a person's been brutally beaten by an angry crowd over the course of an
>hour or so, and then one man walks through the crowd and towards that
>beaten-up person with a cold look in his eyes, what else is that beaten-up
>person going to do but recoil and hold his hands in front of his face,
>expecting a continuation of the thrashing?

But until he actually -gets- that beating, he has no right to
strike back -first-.

>> And how do you decide if it's fake or not? Truthfully, you don't
>> know any of us here except through our posts. How do you tell, without
>> inflection or body language, if our impartiality is fake?
>
>Because eventually these people break down and flat-out tell me what they
>think. One person who mailed me tried to give an impartial tone but then
>wrote me again regarding some comments about various artists... and said
>that s/he hated all those artists (and made snotty comments about 'em). I
>read a lot, and I can tell the tone and what a person feels through the
>usage of language. I'm assuming you can, too- otherwise you wouldn't be
>going on about how whiny I am.

You can trust me on this -- I -am- flat out telling you what I
think. I can't speak for anyone else's attitudes.

>> >Half the time most of the "advice" I get here is
>> >either not worth listening to due to a personal bias from the author
>> >(therefore exhibiting a lack of impartiality)
>>
>> Again, how do you divine that? How do you know the author isn't
>> giving you advice based on the extend of his own experiences?
>
>Because that author says so in the first place- "I don't think toonish art
>is that good, and...", "There's nothing I find particularly interesting
>about your work...", et al. I don't trust people who have a problem with my
>style itself telling me how to improve the other facets of my art. Why
>should someone who thinks 'manga sucks' tell John Barrett how to improve
>his art, f'rinstance?

Because certain rules of good art still apply (composition,
design, contrast, etc), having nothing to do specifically with genre.
But I agree with the first part of that paragraph -- statements
such as those are personal preferences, having nothing to do with the
integrity of the art itself, and aren't really of much help.

>> >You did mention the standard of what's "popular" (i.e. acceptable)-
>Terrie
>> >Smith-style work. And define 'quality'. Try to convince me that I'm not
>> >doing 'quality work'.
>>
>> I don't know; to date, I still haven't seen your work. I never
>> said you weren't doing quality work, specifically for that reason.
>
>Well, to be honest, I don't know if I'd trust your opinion. Go ahead-
>http://rat.org/pub/furry/patrnate -

Sorry, but no.

Before all this had started I'd never seen your work, never heard
of you. Now, after all the attitude and everything else here, I've
actually gone out of my way to -avoid- looking at your work. Not out of
spite or because I think I wouldn't like it, but because I prefer to
maintain a neutrality about it specifically. I prefer to argue these
points without being prejudiced by your work, either favorably or negatively.

>
>> That sure sounds like you're searching for a standard of
>> popularity to me.
>
>It's not that simple. When you're doing something and your peers are doing
>something similar with more success, it can be a blow to one's self-esteem.
>I may search for any particular flaws in my work, get advice from these
>artists in question, weigh it, apply it if neccesary, and improve my work-
>yet continue to be ignored. It may not merely be an egotistical drive to be
>popular but maybe some sort of hope that something might pull me out of
>this uneasiness I have. Whatever the case, I'm wondering if I should give
>up any questions regarding self-confidence.

I still think your focus is wrong, more than anything else.
You're still worrying about the why's and the motivations, instead of
simply doing it.

>> >> I would think that a work of art
>> >>that was severely -lacking- in any quality would be less of a joy to
>the
>> >>artist; the two are actually mutually -inclusive-.
>> >
>> >What, so people who don't draw so well are soulless, joyless automatons
>who
>> >just crank out work because they're forced to at gunpoint?
>>
>> No, of course not. Where do you get that from!?
>
>The statement you made not ten lines back: "A work of art that was severely
>lacking in any quality would be less of a joy to the artist". You stated in
>so many words that people who aren't that skilled aren't particularly happy
>with their work.

That's a twisting of what I'd said. What is meant is "Why would
an artist take any joy in a bad drawing?" Any artist who has any feeling
about his work will destroy the bad drawing and redraw it, correcting the
imperfections.

>> >It's not that I'm unhappy about my work. I'm unhappy about peoples'
>> >reactions to it. It's easy to like one's own work when it hasn't been
>> >casually dismissed by people with far more clout than you.
>>
>> Well, there's nothing you can do about -that-. I can sympathize,
>> but that's a risk you're always going to run. If your work has the same
>> ragged edge you have, or along the lines of what you describe, then it
>will
>> probably get more rejections than not from people. Not because of a lack
>> of ability, but because it does not connect with people in the way you
>want
>> it to. That's all.

Welcome to the real world, Nate. Yes, Networking is a Good Thing.
It is the other half of getting anywhere in -any- occupation. (The first
half being, of course, Ability and Skill.) And even that might not be a
guarantee. Both Milton Knight (creator of the HUGO books and animator on
the recent FELIX cartoon show) and J P Morgan (creator of FISSION CHICKEN)
have written and drawn hilarious and distinctly personal strips and books,
but their books sell very poorly. I still don't know why. On the other
hand, P. Craig Russell, who has worked in the professional comic book
industry for years, usually prefers to do illustrated versions of great
operas, like SIEGFRIED and THE MAGIC FLUTE, but works for years as an inker
for Marvel or DC comics in order to earn up the money for those personal
projects. He's learned how to make the compromises that work for him.

>It's not like the stuff I do consists entirely of super-cynical esoteric
>blahdeblah. Some of the pictures I do hit people on a gut level for
>something other than suject matter- maybe a certain expression, a line of
>movement, even dialogue. It's less of more people disliking my work than
>liking it than it is a few scattered people who have power and experience
>disliking it. If Mike Curtis hated my stuff, I wouldn't get into Shanda. If
>Lynx thought I was boring, I wouldn't be accepted into Pawprints. (Neither
>of those individuals, however, have said anything to that effect yet. The
>latter situation is shaping into a realistic one, the former... uh... well,
>I won't hold my breath.) In short, if people who have connections don't
>like you, your chances of success are limited, because your lines of
>communication are cut, so to speak.
>
>> Seriously, that's a wall you may never break. Does that really
>> matter? If the work is proficient, if you're satisfied with it, then
>don't
>> give any consideration to what others think of it.
>
>I may have to (see preceding scenario). I'm past the point of learning to
>like my own work here and getting to the point of trying to find an ideal
>way to exhibit it and promote it. One thing I (and probably all of us) live
>for is to hear someone tell me they were affected positively by something
>I've done. As much as I enjoy drawing, I want to entertain people with it,
>too... without compromising my style. Don't assume that can't be done.

No, I know that it -can- be done. -That's- what I'd like to see
you aiming towards.

>> >What I'm wondering (and what I was wondering in the
>> >first place) is, how much /longer/ will I have to work, since my subject
>> >matter is evidently not what the fandom wants?
>>
>> Seriously? Forever. I'm not being faceitious or denigrating
>> here. But if the fandom isn't interested in the subject matter, then you
>> will never reach that same position of acclaim.
>
>Well, maybe I'll just have to make the fandom interested- by reaching a
>different 'majority' than Terrie reached. You're assuming- rather oddly-
>that an entire fandom or even a majority will not like a certain subject
>matter.

Not at all. I only say that it may not reach the same popularity.

>
>> I do
>> not agree with your position that Terrie has no emotion or feel in her
>> work. It's at a different level than what you prefer or expect, perhaps,
>> but it -is- there.
>
>All I stated was that some artists feel to me (and others) like they have
>/more/ emotion, or at least a wider range of them, than Terrie Smith. Just
>because technicality's her strong suit doesn't mean she suffers in the
>other areas, though... and besides, we're still talking about opnions here.

Firstly, I disagree that technicality's her strong suit. And
secondly, -my- opinion is also a professional assessment.

>> And emotional content and expressivness (which I agree with you is
>> highly important, being a cartoonist), is no more or less important than
>> technical prowess. I place a high emphasis on -both-. And I expect it.
>
>I admit I pretty much underestimated you in that regard.
>
>> >2) You're assuming that to become popular, you have to "produce the same
>> >work as Terrie"? So you want me to copy her? Yeah, right.
>>
>> Don't be assinine. Of course I don't expect you to copy Terrie.
>> If anything, I actively encourage people to -not- imitae other artists
>> (unless it's something done as an homage or a parody); I want people to
>> speak with their own voices.
>
>Well, that's fair enough, but...
>
>> That has never been what I'd meant by producing the same work as
>> Terrie.
>
>Strange. What does it mean, then? Because "the same as" usually has, well,
>a reasonably obvious connotation.

I mean the same as in the same subject matter... not in
approaching that matter in the same fashion, with the same results. I've
seen a number of pin-up artists from Vargas to Olivia, who handle basically
the same subject matter with startlingly different results.

>> >3) I find Terrie Smith's work uninspiring. I'm sorry if that sounds
>> >blasphemous, but it /is/ my opinion and I stick by it. If I want
>> >inspiration for what 'quality' can do there's plenty of other equally
>> >talented- and far more unique- artists.
>>
>> I don't find your opinion blasphemous, but I do find it
>> unfortunate.
>
>Yeah. Sad I don't share your opinion, huh? I'm a lost soul.

You're being assinine again. I only mean that I believe that
you've shut yourself off to a talent that has proven itself as being
flexible and creative, even within the rigid and simple standards of pin-up
art. You continually sell her short.

>> But because you find her individual style or approach to be
>> uninspiring, it has nothing to do with her level of quality. I am
>> seriously beginning to believe that you and I are speaking of two
>entirely
>> different things when we speak of quality, and I have to ask just what
>> -you- are defining the term as meaning?
>
>Quality means... well, hell, good stuff that's been worked on a lot. I just
>don't think she's the last word in what to look for in a furry artist,
>that's all. She's good at what she does, but I just... don't... like it. I
>was less questioning the quality of Smith's work than the fact she seemed
>to be your "perfect example" of a furry artist. It's hard for me to get
>what you're saying because I can't relate to that work.

I mean quality to mean a work that is complete to it's final form.
That is not overlabored, that meets the standards of good composition,
correct anatomy, proper and creative use of colors, etc. That there is no
sloppiness to its execution, no carelessness, and no lack of confidence.
That it evokes an emotion, whether it be wonder, amusement, outrage, or
desolation. That it shows the full competency of skill and range of
ability of the artist.
You have a different standard. Fine. I use Terrie as a standard
because within the genre she -is- successful, popular capable, talented,
and professional. She hits -all- the points. But I can agree that we all
work according to different standards.

>> No reflection on your work, but not only is the
>> syndication game incredibly tough to break in -- you have better odds of
>> winning the Lotto -- but the last thing any of them want is a funny
>animal
>> strip. I know; I've been there.
>
>Define 'funny animal strip'. This ain't gonna be 'Garfield'.

More's the pity; that only means your road will be that much harder.

>> Well, I've heard -of- the Ramones, and I've read Vonnegut.
>>
>> But what you're talking about isn't popularity; it's cultism.
>> They have cult followings, rather than a general popularity.
>
>Just a minute: Moore's "Roger & Me" is probably the single most critically
>acclaimed documentary of all time.

I think that was reserved for Ken Burns' CIVIL WAR.

>Vonnegut has had many books on the NY
>Times Bestseller list.

Recently? I haven't even heard of Vonnegut in years. He may
still be writing, but how recently has he actually had a best seller?

>And while the Ramones never had much exposure on
>Billboard, they wound up influencing the next twenty years of rock music
>from 1976 on.

I'm not aware of it. I've been a pop music fan for decades, and
my recollection of the Ramones was that they were a minor sensation who
eventually faded away. I didn't even remember them until you brought them
up in this conversation. And I have no idea where their influence actually led.
Besides, my own opinion is that rock music has been generally
stagnated since the end of the eighties anyway, with only a few bright
spots here and there; I'm still waiting for it to kick loose again. Right
now, even disco is beginning to sound good...

>For "cult followings", they've had a remarkable effect on
>general pop culture, and I still believe it's the strange, unusual, unique
>and new that has the most potential to catch on while it's still exciting.
>That's what keeps popular culture from stagnating.
>

>> Did you think -that-
>> was going to garner a lot of attention!? Nobody was looking, because you
>> weren't doing what they wanted to see!
>
>You underestimate peoples' willingness to explore new concepts.

You underestimate inertia. If you want them to explore new
concepts, you have to make them -want- to explore it.

>You don't even know what my art looks like. How can you give me accurate
>advice?

Because the questions you were asking (or that I -thought- you
were asking) didn't require my needing to see you work.

>> >Hate to sound pissed off like that, but I can't reply to posts and
>please
>> >everyone at the same time. It's just my personality. Take it or leave
>it.
>>
>> Yeah; I think I'll just leave it.
>
>Does this mean you're not going to respond to this?

Of course not; I'm just delayed...

>Because if it does,
>then I challenge you to collect your thoughts and give up on this thread
>and any other threads regarding my work- the damage has been done by both
>parties and there's nothing constructive left to comment on.

I don't know about that. Looks to me like we've come to agreement
on several points, if not all. I'd say that was constructive.

-Chuck Melville-
<http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html>

[BlackHat]

Alright, the reason why this message was late was becasue I have time
mismangagement.

*snip, snip. OUCH! I think i cut myself with thses damn things!* 8<

> All good things come in time. People are usually their own worst critics
> (proof: myself), and if you do something that you work hard on and have put
> a lot of practice into, some people will eventually notice your work and
> the effort put into it. The problem is, getting the- *ahem*, "right" people
> to notice your work can be inexplicably difficult. You can't approach them
> with a brash attitude and say some crap like "You rule, you're way better
> than me" without making them feel a bit weird and urpy inside (I know the
> feeling). On the other hand, if you devote some time and effort
> corresponding with them in a friendly, non-self-deprecating yet
> non-kissing-up manner and they /still/ blow you off, maybe they're not
> worth talking to in the first place.

Guess yer right on that one, Nate. I'm actually getting some good
repsones back, thought I still think have a bit of a long search to go
on finding the right crowd for what I plan to make in both my subject
matter and theme, and I already -- or at least know i'll be getting --
people who don't like some of the stuff i'm working on. Though I find it
a bit ironic on how I post a spoogey pic and I get more responses on
that than I did with most of my other pics altogether.

As for the Trixi craze you mentioned way, way, way back, that's still
moving at the speed of light.

> > Well I'm not gonna continue on about this, I see that the war is already
> > lost here. The loosers being those that want to add some flavor in the
> > furry art fandom; and the winners being the hot shots who'll bash
> > anyone's brain out for not being another "drone"
>
> Admitting defeat only makes one look desperate and self-loathing. Not that
> I'm losing any real respect for you or anything, but "this ain't right,
> let's find ways to change it/subvert it/provide an alternative" makes a lot
> more sense to me than "this ain't right, I give up". And I'll be damned if
> I let the conformity-pimpin' facet of the fandom win.

Someone once told me I was self-defeating, or was it self-destructive?
Bah!! who cares!! Anyway, I'm not really giving up the struggle, more
like giving up on the flames here on a.f.f from the "i know the fandom
better than you and there's nothing you can do to change it so shut your
f-cking mouth" hot shots. No use talking to a brick wall after all. I
think I'll join a sub-fandom and sit by the sidelines and watch it all
just crumble down (of course they'll still try to point the finger at
someone else when or if that happens) then resurrecting when the dust
settles.

>
> When'd Amara say her art was better than yours? (I never figured her as th'
> kinda fur who'd say shit like that.)

I seemed to have misentrepreted that comment she gave to you. At first
I thougt she was putting down yer work and would do that same to me if I
replyed. My apologies Amy, please don't hate me now (at this rate I'll
be the biggest outcast here).

> > Change is bad, difference is for asymilation. More pinups and spooge
> > for the masses!!
> >
> > I'm jumping off of this ship before it hits that iceberg. Only one
> > lifeboat left, better get on while there's still time...
>
> This is starting to sound like a caricature of itself. Odd thing is, you're
> probably right in many respects.

A caricature in everyway.

*snip*

> Lots of people are. But the fact that a relatively unconventional
> non-porno/pinup artist like Amara wasn't invited to one is reasonable proof
> that the fandom has conventional tastes, tho Groter seems to be a fortunate
> exception. Maybe 'invited' was the wrong term, more like a publisher saying
> 'artist x inquired about maybe possibly submitting, let's get him/her to
> contribute!' on one paw and 'artist y wants to submit some stuff, but it's
> kinda out-there and artist z wants to display his/her 10-page portfolio of
> big-bosomed skunks, so we might not have room'. Fortunately my zine-ish
> experiences have been neither the former nor the latter.

That's one reason I shy away from the mainstream fanzines for now (like
they would ever be interested in my work).

> > BlackHat
> > "Misery loves me"
>
> Does that make you company? (ducks and runs)

But of course, care to join us for lunch? We're having nightmare
sandwiches =)

BlackHat
"Crispy Bacon"

[Roz Gibson]

>>Vonnegut has had many books on the NY
>>Times Bestseller list.
>
> Recently? I haven't even heard of Vonnegut in years. He may
>still be writing, but how recently has he actually had a best seller?

Vonnegut just released a new book, TIMEQUAKE. It's on the Publisher's Weekly
bestseller list, so I assume it's on the NYT's as well, since they tend to be
about the same. Just to set the record straight.

We could all wish to have just the minutest fraction of the success and critial
acclaim Vonnegut's garnered through his career.

I know I would.

[CMelvi6195]

In article <01bcd521$b4421d00$9c3d5ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:

><sarcasm>Well, thank you *so* much for respecting my wishes to let the
>thread *DIE*...</sarcasm>
>
>So much for nettiquite.

First off, I see nothing in any of your posts about wanting to let
the thread die. (Besides, it's not as though it were dying anyway,
considering the traffic still appearing before my post appeared.)

Secondly, it wouldn't matter. This is a public forum. You
introduce the htread, you make the posts, and they will and do get
responded to . It doesn't suddenly die at your whim.

Thirdly, netiquette has nothing to do with whether or not someone
responds to your posts. It has to do primarily with the procedures or
behaviors of posting.

-Chuck Melville-
<http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html>

[Nate Patrin]

CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote ...

>
> In article <01bcd521$b4421d00$9c3d5ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>
> ><sarcasm>Well, thank you *so* much for respecting my wishes to let the
> >thread *DIE*...</sarcasm>
> >
> >So much for nettiquite.
>
> First off, I see nothing in any of your posts about wanting to let
> the thread die.

(groans) AND I QUOTE:

"try finding another thread, then..."

"I don't take things that've been said to me six or seven times that
seriously, especially after I've already reached a decision over whether
that advice's valid or not a while back."

"I think some more inquiry into what I felt and what I do would be in order
if I felt like continuing this vicious cycle of a thread."

"Does this mean you're not going to respond to this? Because if it does,

then I challenge you to collect your thoughts and give up on this thread
and any other threads regarding my work- the damage has been done by both
parties and there's nothing constructive left to comment on."

If you couldn't see the message in *THAT*, you couldn't find a nipple in a
Doug Winger pic.

> (Besides, it's not as though it were dying anyway,
> considering the traffic still appearing before my post appeared.)

Maybe I should have phrased that "let the thread die" thing differently:
You've said everything I would possibly benefit from hearing, and then a
hell of a lot more that I wouldn't. Besides, none of that other "traffic"
was ***800*** lines, alright? You've made your point, you don't have to
impale me with it. *sigh*... and to think that thread was actually starting
to go in the right direction.

> Secondly, it wouldn't matter. This is a public forum. You
> introduce the htread, you make the posts, and they will and do get
> responded to . It doesn't suddenly die at your whim.

I can start something, but I can't finish it? I'm sorry, but if I don't
want to hear from you I don't want to hear from you, and the only thing
you'd accomplish of you DIDN'T let this die would be basically flouting
your opinions to a newsgroup that's probably sick of them if not apathetic.
But if you feel like constantly posting long rants about how asinine I am
you go right ahead. You win, I'm out of touch with the fandom and don't
belong in it, yadda yadda. Is that what you wanted to hear? Good. Now go
away.

> Thirdly, netiquette has nothing to do with whether or not someone
> responds to your posts. It has to do primarily with the procedures or
> behaviors of posting.

And your behavior seems to have been fueled by a particular thought in this
case: "Nate says he doesn't want to hear from me anymore? Screw him, I feel
like beating his head in with my opinion." I used to enjoy that kinda
thing. Then I found out how smegging stupid it was after people like you
started to do it to me.

Now if you don't mind, I'd like to get on with my life and- dare I say it?
enjoy it. Sorry to disappoint you there.

--
-Nate Patrin, wondering who in a.f.f. wants to be Chuck's new rant magnet

[CMelvi6195]

In article <01bcd783$94689220$8ac65ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:

>
>CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote ...
>>
>> In article <01bcd521$b4421d00$9c3d5ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>>
>> ><sarcasm>Well, thank you *so* much for respecting my wishes to let the
>> >thread *DIE*...</sarcasm>
>> >
>> >So much for nettiquite.
>>
>> First off, I see nothing in any of your posts about wanting to let
>> the thread die.
>
>(groans) AND I QUOTE:
>
>"try finding another thread, then..."
>
>"I don't take things that've been said to me six or seven times that
>seriously, especially after I've already reached a decision over whether
>that advice's valid or not a while back."
>
>"I think some more inquiry into what I felt and what I do would be in order
>if I felt like continuing this vicious cycle of a thread."
>
>"Does this mean you're not going to respond to this? Because if it does,
>then I challenge you to collect your thoughts and give up on this thread
>and any other threads regarding my work- the damage has been done by both
>parties and there's nothing constructive left to comment on."
>
>If you couldn't see the message in *THAT*, you couldn't find a nipple in a
>Doug Winger pic.

Sorry... I took those for your usual whines. I didn't take them
seriously. Especially as they don't specifically request the thread come
to a halt... they only express a coy desire that I hadn't responded at all.

>> (Besides, it's not as though it were dying anyway,
>> considering the traffic still appearing before my post appeared.)
>
>Maybe I should have phrased that "let the thread die" thing differently:
>You've said everything I would possibly benefit from hearing, and then a
>hell of a lot more that I wouldn't. Besides, none of that other "traffic"
>was ***800*** lines, alright? You've made your point, you don't have to
>impale me with it. *sigh*... and to think that thread was actually starting
>to go in the right direction.

Seemed to me it already was.

>> Secondly, it wouldn't matter. This is a public forum. You
>> introduce the htread, you make the posts, and they will and do get
>> responded to . It doesn't suddenly die at your whim.
>
>I can start something, but I can't finish it?

In a nutshell, that's correct. Especially with Deja News out
there, there's nothing to keep someone from entering a new post on this
subject somewhere down the line some six months from now.

I'm sorry, but if I don't
>want to hear from you I don't want to hear from you, and the only thing
>you'd accomplish of you DIDN'T let this die would be basically flouting
>your opinions to a newsgroup that's probably sick of them if not apathetic.
>But if you feel like constantly posting long rants about how asinine I am
>you go right ahead. You win, I'm out of touch with the fandom and don't
>belong in it, yadda yadda. Is that what you wanted to hear? Good. Now go
>away.

Of course it's not what I -want- to hear. And neither am I
interested in posting -any- rants (Rants indeed! From such posts as
mild-mannered as mine?) about how assinine you may or my not be. But I do
respond to arguments on a point-to-point basis. If you've a problem with
that... you wouldn't be answering them.

>> Thirdly, netiquette has nothing to do with whether or not someone
>> responds to your posts. It has to do primarily with the procedures or
>> behaviors of posting.
>
>And your behavior seems to have been fueled by a particular thought in this
>case: "Nate says he doesn't want to hear from me anymore? Screw him, I feel
>like beating his head in with my opinion." I used to enjoy that kinda
>thing. Then I found out how smegging stupid it was after people like you
>started to do it to me.

You're making assumptions again. We make point/counterpoint here,
nothing more. There is nothing personal involved here, and never has been.
Not on my end, anyway.

>Now if you don't mind, I'd like to get on with my life and- dare I say it?
>enjoy it. Sorry to disappoint you there.

No disappointment here. If that's what you're up to, fine. I
have no complaint. Just remember that it takes two to have either an
argument -or- a conversation.

-Chuck Melville-
<http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html>

[CMelvi6195]