On the so called scisem.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
taken back when he said the following.
"To succeed in Kendo youu need to live a Keno Lifestyle."
What did he mean by this? Clearly he didn't mean that I
should attack every one I meet with a length of bamboo. What he meant
is that the attude I take to life should be expressed in the way I
play, and the lessions I learn from my playing should be expressed in
the way I live my life.
For political resons the part of furry we call "The
Lifestyle" and the furry that is "The Fandom" have been split. In
some ways this has been a good thing for the lifestyle as it has
allowed it to broden and deepen, someting that it would never have
been able to do if it had not gained its own idenetly.
However the splitting off of the lifestyle aspects has also
had a cost. Like Kendo Art is someting you can only be successfull at
if you express your whole life threw it. Without this commitment you
get mearly pritty pictures drawn by sketchers, you don't get true Art.
Now some of the artlessness of furry can be put at the feet
of thouse who are willing to pay for cheescake and spooge with little
concern about artistic depth. And the style tribes who relentlessly
enforce an orthidoxy share some of the blame as well.
But I think the prime guilt for the shallowness of furry art
is fear of exploring the issues. So we get pritty pictures, a few
very over used plots. But rarely do we get artists willing to take
the risk of exploring below the surfice.
Will we get art that is willing to challengies the views of
the viewer? Or will we get art that only follows the orthidoxy of
the fandom.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> Recently I was talking to a Kendo playing freand and I was
> taken back when he said the following.
>
> "To succeed in Kendo youu need to live a Keno Lifestyle."
>
> What did he mean by this? Clearly he didn't mean that I
> should attack every one I meet with a length of bamboo. What he meant
> is that the attude I take to life should be expressed in the way I
> play, and the lessions I learn from my playing should be expressed in
> the way I live my life.
>
> For political resons the part of furry we call "The
> Lifestyle" and the furry that is "The Fandom" have been split.
Less to do with political reasons, more to do with the fact the two
have little to nothing to do with one another. The reason there's a
'schism' is because the two were never mutually compatible to begin with,
and at first neither were even aware of the other's separate existence
until folks started realizing that they were -not- all on the same page and
each side wondered why the other persisted going off into areas that had
nothing to do with them at all.
> Now some of the artlessness of furry can be put at the feet
> of thouse who are willing to pay for cheescake and spooge with little
> concern about artistic depth. And the style tribes who relentlessly
> enforce an orthidoxy share some of the blame as well.
>
> But I think the prime guilt for the shallowness of furry art
> is fear of exploring the issues. So we get pritty pictures, a few
> very over used plots. But rarely do we get artists willing to take
> the risk of exploring below the surfice.
>
> Will we get art that is willing to challengies the views of
> the viewer? Or will we get art that only follows the orthidoxy of
> the fandom.
Maybe challenging the viewer is not what we're about. We're a fandom
of an entertainment form. It is, for lack of a better term, a junk-food
literature, like westerns, romances, superheroes, and mysteries. The
emphasis is, and always has been, towards the craft, rather than the Art.
Not to say there isn't room for Art... but while you note the shallowness,
the other direction leads to pretentiousness.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
DishRoom1
David Formosa wrote --
>> Recently I was talking to a Kendo playing freand and I was
>> taken back when he said the following.
>>
>> "To succeed in Kendo youu need to live a Keno Lifestyle."
>>
>> What did he mean by this? Clearly he didn't mean that I
>> should attack every one I meet with a length of bamboo. What he meant
>> is that the attude I take to life should be expressed in the way I
>> play, and the lessions I learn from my playing should be expressed in
>> the way I live my life.
>>
>> For political resons the part of furry we call "The
>> Lifestyle" and the furry that is "The Fandom" have been split.
>
> Less to do with political reasons, more to do with the fact the two
>have little to nothing to do with one another. The reason there's a
>'schism' is because the two were never mutually compatible to begin with,
>and at first neither were even aware of the other's separate existence
>until folks started realizing that they were -not- all on the same page and
>each side wondered why the other persisted going off into areas that had
>nothing to do with them at all.
I agree. one has to look at Vanity Fair to see what would happen if certain
lifestylers have their cake and eat it too.
>
>> Now some of the artlessness of furry can be put at the feet
>> of thouse who are willing to pay for cheescake and spooge with little
>> concern about artistic depth. And the style tribes who relentlessly
>> enforce an orthidoxy share some of the blame as well.
>>
>> But I think the prime guilt for the shallowness of furry art
>> is fear of exploring the issues. So we get pritty pictures, a few
>> very over used plots. But rarely do we get artists willing to take
>> the risk of exploring below the surfice.
>>
>> Will we get art that is willing to challengies the views of
>> the viewer? Or will we get art that only follows the orthidoxy of
>> the fandom.
>
> Maybe challenging the viewer is not what we're about. We're a fandom
>of an entertainment form. It is, for lack of a better term, a junk-food
>literature, like westerns, romances, superheroes, and mysteries. The
>emphasis is, and always has been, towards the craft, rather than the Art.
>Not to say there isn't room for Art... but while you note the shallowness,
>the other direction leads to pretentiousness.
>
I have to agree with Chuck on this one to. Reminds of how when Don Bluth was
working with Fox Studios, I came apon a site dedicated to him by a
Bluth-hugging zealot who was in high worship over his film "Anastasia", while
he chiled with the zeal of a Muslim extremist over the 1991 "Beauty and the
Beast" -- one of Disney's greatest animated movies -- of being shallower than
"Anastasia". He also when on into how he is hopping happy over how Bluth's
retroscoped animation is so real beyond real, and dismissed Disney's
"cartooniness" and "slapstick comedy". I disagree with this opinion and similar
ones expressed by Bluth as to why his Fox films had retrocoped-animated humans
and avioded slapstick comedy. There's nothing wrong with exploring further art
and realism in quality animation, but it can't forsake its heratage in cartoon
styles and from the classic, insane, more laughable humor. It would be stiff
and boring if all animation was like puedo-Shakesphere-me-toos. Bluth may be
often good at directing animation and his "The Secret of NIMH" was a great
movie, but he takes the medium too more seriously than even the makers of
"Watership Down". Animation is about entertainment.
Same thing with the furry fandom. Nothing wrong with being groundbreaking but
we'd be too unhappy if we took ourselves too seriously.
John Shughart
John Shughart
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
[...]
>> For political resons the part of furry we call "The
>> Lifestyle" and the furry that is "The Fandom" have been split.
>
> Less to do with political reasons, more to do with the fact the two
> have little to nothing to do with one another.
I still hold to the beleaf that the seperation was due to fandom
politics. In the real world the split is impossable to see. Its only
in usenet do we know about it.
[...]
>> Will we get art that is willing to challengies the views of
>> the viewer? Or will we get art that only follows the orthidoxy of
>> the fandom.
>
> Maybe challenging the viewer is not what we're about.
Then why do people complain about Furry art mostly being surface?
> We're a fandom
> of an entertainment form. It is, for lack of a better term, a junk-food
> literature, like westerns, romances, superheroes, and mysteries.
But superheroes, mysteries and even romances have had stroies that
have steeped above there junkfoodness. Someone was asking where is
furries Sandman? And I too will ask that question, where is fandom's
Zot or Its Kare Kano.
> The
> emphasis is, and always has been, towards the craft, rather than the Art.
> Not to say there isn't room for Art... but while you note the shallowness,
> the other direction leads to pretentiousness.
Pretentiousness is more a thing of attatude, depth done well is not
pretentious.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
the real world the split is impossable to see. Its only in usenet do we know
about it.
If it's not there IRL, does it even really exist? and if it doesn't really
exist, why are you complaigning about it?
If we don't all travel in the exact same circles on the net - so what?
>Then why do people complain about Furry art mostly being surface?
There are always a few gripers in any fandom.. You'll notice however that
those who complaign are expecting -someone else- to make those great works.
>But superheroes, mysteries and even romances have had stroies that
>have steeped above there junkfoodness. Someone was asking where is
>furries Sandman? And I too will ask that question, where is fandom's
>Zot or Its Kare Kano.
All those genres :
a) have been around a LOT longer than furry fandom (and a lot of the really
good stuff is -old- more of the gems generating junkfood spinnoffs, than gems
rising out of the junkfood)
b) the quality work also comes along with a LOT of junkfood
c) the quality work is the results of individual artists working to their own
satisfaction, not because of the hounding of critics within a "fandom" take a
look at what agressive critisim has done to the fine arts world, and tell me if
that's what you want for furry work...
ICAW
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Joshua Barney
> Down". Animation is about entertainment.
>
Animation is, like all artforms, about expression. It doesn't matter if
someone is serious or not. Each to their own, right? Maybe they like
being serious... who knows.
Even when a studio makes a fluff film with no real content, they're
expressing a film that they hope will make them a lot of money. ='D
> Same thing with the furry fandom. Nothing wrong with being groundbreaking
> but we'd be too unhappy if we took ourselves too seriously.
Let anyone do what they please. If someone else frets over something, why
should you let that drag you down, too? Unless you agree with him...
Carry on with your normal lives. Do what pleases you. Express yourselves,
'n stuff.
... and WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
~ Joshua
--
"You can't have bread and loaf."
Remove "rmv-" from my e-mail to send a message to me.
DishRoom1
I (John Shughart) wrote --
(Don Bluth) >> takes the medium too more seriously than even the makers of
"Watership
>> Down". Animation is about entertainment.
>>
>
>Animation is, like all artforms, about expression. It doesn't matter if
>someone is serious or not. Each to their own, right? Maybe they like
>being serious... who knows.
>
>Even when a studio makes a fluff film with no real content, they're
>expressing a film that they hope will make them a lot of money. ='D
>
>> Same thing with the furry fandom. Nothing wrong with being groundbreaking
>> but we'd be too unhappy if we took ourselves too seriously.
>
>Let anyone do what they please. If someone else frets over something, why
>should you let that drag you down, too? Unless you agree with him...
>
>Carry on with your normal lives. Do what pleases you. Express yourselves,
>'n stuff.
>
>... and WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
>
My sentiments exactly! Like animation, furry art/writing and comic books can be
a mix of personal expression and art; of experiementing, along with perhaps
some fun and hard work involoved. ^_^
John Shughart
bevnsag
factionalism as characterized by science-fiction's FIJAGDH/FIAWAOL
debate (Fandom Is Just A Ghod Damn Hobby/Fandom Is A Way Of Life) or any
number of other specialized interests' similar fractures.
Using science-fiction as a further example, the best SF literature and
art has historically come from individuals who were writers and artists
fist and foremost, and who's fannish affiliation was often little better
than luke warm. They may have done cons and fanzines, but where by no
means "lifestylers". They didn't have to work on enabling their "inner
alien" to accomplish more/better works, they worked on developing the
crafts of writing and painting, of establishing themselves as
professionals in the skills of the medium, then applying those skills to
the genre. If going "native" made for better insight and greater
artistic wherewithal, then there'd be legions of Slans, Grokkers, and
Vuclans scoring Nebulas, Hugos, and Oscars everywhere you turn. If
anything, those fans who have become good artists have done so because
they've reprioritized themselves to becoming good artists instead of
dedicated fans.
That there are few real creative standouts in the furry fandom as we
know it is largely due to the simple matter of the work is being done by
enthusiastic amature/fans and not skilled professionals. That and the
false argument that there is some special "furriness" that needs to be
expressed. Gay with animal fetish overtones is not necessarily "furry",
nor is pseudo native American spiritualism or so called "new age" animal
mysticism. And it has to be recognized that art related to those themes
are entirely different from "big foot" funny animals or various classic
or current anthropomorphic products.
bevnsag
material is as much a medium as a genre. A funny animal western
adventure comic could emphasize the western adventure, or the
anthropomorphic animal aspect, or the comedic cartoon aspect. And who is
to say which is more "furry"? Part of the problem is the not clearly
articulated notion that there is a "furriness", somehow different than
"normal real life". Considering that the vast majority of "furry"
material is little more than people in animal headed fur costumes, I
don't see much of anywhere you can go with it. Emulating your favorite
characters of literature or other media is an all too common desire, and
certainly various furry characters are neat looking and sometimes are
interesting as characters. But there is no particular overarching
aspect, other than the anthoropmorphized image, that is particularly
"furry" over all that seems to include the genre. True, some insist that
there is some special virtue in "furry", but that is simply the common
conceit of any fandom versus the "mundane" world. I'll concede that some
minor subsets of mystics and such may have a claim to special lifestyle
status, if in fact they practice what they preach, but that seems to be
crossing over into religious following and awfully far removed from
"furry fandom". Like saying a SF fan must necessarily be a
scientologist, or only scientologists can be trufans.
But back to the initial question. Before you can have "serious furry
art", you're going to have to do two things, professional caliber people
doing the stuff, and some notion as to what your definition of "furry"
is. Personally, I believe that good art is good art, and that it will
stand on its merit as art first, then for any "furry" content. As for
"deeper furriness", I don't see any there there.
Dr. Cat
: Less to do with political reasons, more to do with the fact the two
: have little to nothing to do with one another.
A few people on the fandom side of the split would very much LIKE it to be
the case that they have little to do with one another. And yet I ponder...
Both of them having anthropomorphized animals of various kinds as a central
element... The "lifestylers" apparently having a large majority of members
who also enjoy, participate in, and buy "fandom" things like furry comics,
art prints, go to furry cons, participate in online fandom forums, etc...
The groups argue with each other about how separate or apart they are, or
should be, magazines (and probably the general public) think they're all
just one thing and not two... And this is what I'm expected to belive
constitutes "have little to nothing to do with one another"?
Stamp collectors and furry fans have little to nothing to do with one
another. There's some small overlap I'm sure, but not much, and I doubt I
could claim any of the things above about THESE two groups. Or between
bowlers and lion tamers. Bowling and lion taming have a LOT less to do
with one another than furry fandom and furry lifestylers. Or to put it
another way, furry fandom and furry lifestylers have an awful lot MORE to
do with one another than bowling and lion taming do, or any other two
human interests or fields of endeavor picked at random are likely to.
They're above average in how much they have to do with one another. Way
above average. Am I getting through here?
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Of course some will claim that they *shouldn't* have anything
to do with one another, in an ideal world. But that's a separate issue
from the question of whether they currently DO. And they do.)
Dr. Cat
: That there are few real creative standouts in the furry fandom as we
: know it is largely due to the simple matter of the work is being done by
: enthusiastic amature/fans and not skilled professionals.
A great "Usenet nod" of agreement goes here, and also to most of the other
things Steve said that I snipped in this reply. Not much to disagree with
in his fine post. :X)
: But back to the initial question. Before you can have "serious furry
: art", you're going to have to do two things, professional caliber people
: doing the stuff, and some notion as to what your definition of "furry"
: is.
I think for a lot of people, where they get hung up is on the latter
point. Some people think that to be "furry" something has to be made
by people within the fandom. But of course, as with most fandoms, most
of the finest artworks containing anthropomorphic animals (in whatever
medium) will come from professionals outside the fandom. I think there's
already been a certain amount of fantastic work produced by the human race
that involves anthros - but if you require it to have come from someone
who goes to furry cons, you're not necessarily going to get that. Too
limiting a view, in my opinion - I enjoy anthro works from within and
without the fandom both without bias. I base my enjoyment solely on the
quality of the work and on how well the style and subject matter meshes
with my personal tastes.
: Personally, I believe that good art is good art, and that it will
: stand on its merit as art first, then for any "furry" content. As for
: "deeper furriness", I don't see any there there.
I agree with this also.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Unless deeper furriness has something to do with the
thickness of the fur on an animal, which is certainly a real and
genuine phenomenon & probably of interest to anyone having to shear
said critter.)
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>>I still hold to the beleaf that the seperation was due to fandom politics. In
>> the real world the split is impossable to see. Its only in usenet do we know
>> about it.
>
> If it's not there IRL, does it even really exist?
Do stories exist? Does the inside of a brick exist? Do words even
exist? Just because things don't have a real life existence doesn't
mean that they don't have an existence all of there own at some
leval.
> and if it doesn't really exist, why are you complaigning about it?
Because it has an effect.
> If we don't all travel in the exact same circles on the net - so
> what?
It means that some artists feel that some theams are off limmits.
>>Then why do people complain about Furry art mostly being surface?
>
> There are always a few gripers in any fandom.. You'll notice however that
> those who complaign are expecting -someone else- to make those great
> works.
I don't know, I know at least one of the grippers has been creating
works that are quite deep.
>>But superheroes, mysteries and even romances have had stroies that
>>have steeped above there junkfoodness. Someone was asking where is
>>furries Sandman? And I too will ask that question, where is fandom's
>>Zot or Its Kare Kano.
>
> All those genres :
>
> a) have been around a LOT longer than furry fandom (and a lot of the really
> good stuff is -old- more of the gems generating junkfood spinnoffs, than gems
> rising out of the junkfood)
How long is furries age compared to the Comic book or the Super hero
book. Ok perhaps I'm being a little to narrow here, there are a
number of great works that are furry (Muse, Wartership down and Animal
farm spring to mind) but the fandom has never generated something to
that leval.
> b) the quality work also comes along with a LOT of junkfood
Of cause.
> c) the quality work is the results of individual artists working to their own
> satisfaction, not because of the hounding of critics within a
> "fandom"
True, but on the other hand the hounding of the critics can drive them
away from a path that they wish to traval.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
> what?
>It means that some artists feel that some theams are off limmits.
Prove that it's the "split" in the fandom that's actually causing people to
feel that some themes are off limits. They may just not like those themes in
the first place for personal reasons. I don;t do spooge work, it's because -I-
don't feel comfortable doing it. Not because of the anti-porn crusades in the
fandom.
Besides furry's am enormously diverse fandom that's quite willing to take stuff
to the edge and beyond. I havent seen anything that has been considered off
limits.
People do not form massive all-cohesive groups, with uniform concepts of what
should and shouldn't be. You more often get interlocking smaller groups with
overlapping interests. You're claiming that the results of basic human nature
is somehow an artifical creation.
>True, but on the other hand the hounding of the critics can drive them away
from a path that they wish to traval.
If they arn't willing to deal wlth a few loudmouthed impotent critics then I'd
have to argue that they won't produce a great work regardless. Besides you're
arguing for works of depth and quality - just who is arguing against it?
Critics may drive people away, but they -never- improve the work by their
critisim. (Note: critics, not critiques- there's a diffrence)
>I don't know, I know at least one of the grippers has been creating
>works that are quite deep.
But he's still expecting others to work up to his standard...
> but the fandom has never generated something to
>that leval.
So? By definition fandom's arn't about production of work, they're about
enjoyment of it. You've failed to prove that a "split" in the fandom, (if it
even really exists instead of being an artifact of non-overlaping interests)
has anything to do with the fact that furry hasn't produced a "great work".
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> The "great schism" is simply this genre's version of the same
> factionalism as characterized by science-fiction's FIJAGDH/FIAWAOL
> debate (Fandom Is Just A Ghod Damn Hobby/Fandom Is A Way Of Life) or any
> number of other specialized interests' similar fractures.
I think its slightly diffrent. Any serious thinking with regards to
furry has been banished to the lifestyler camp. Talk about anything
other then purly surfice issues is considered off topic here, and that
influence is in my humble cramping furry's development.
> Using science-fiction as a further example, the best SF literature and
> art has historically come from individuals who were writers and artists
> fist and foremost, and who's fannish affiliation was often little better
> than luke warm.
True, however furry is a little diffrent. The vast majority of what
we regard as furry is done from within the fandom itself. Infact its
almost wrong to call it a fandom as the creator/fan devide isn't as
firm as it is in something like SF.
[...]
> That there are few real creative standouts in the furry fandom as we
> know it is largely due to the simple matter of the work is being done by
> enthusiastic amature/fans and not skilled professionals.
I don't think that is a valid argument. I have seen meany amatures
who's art has reached great highs, while some pros have never
devoloped.
bevnsag
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:26:31 GMT, bevnsag <bev...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > The "great schism" is simply this genre's version of the same
> > factionalism as characterized by science-fiction's FIJAGDH/FIAWAOL
> > debate (Fandom Is Just A Ghod Damn Hobby/Fandom Is A Way Of Life) or any
> > number of other specialized interests' similar fractures.
>
> I think its slightly diffrent. Any serious thinking with regards to
> furry has been banished to the lifestyler camp. Talk about anything
> other then purly surfice issues is considered off topic here, and that
> influence is in my humble cramping furry's development.
"serious thinking with regards to furry" Whatever do you mean? And I
don't mean that fatuously.
What do you actually mean? Per another post, I suggested that
anthropomorphics are as much a medium as a genre, perhaps even more so.
But it has no special intrinsic content beyond that, unless you have
something particular in mind?
Charles Melville
Tim Gadd wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:17:07 -0700, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Less to do with political reasons, more to do with the fact the two
> >have little to nothing to do with one another. The reason there's a
> >'schism' is because the two were never mutually compatible to begin with,
> >and at first neither were even aware of the other's separate existence
> >until folks started realizing that they were -not- all on the same page and
> >each side wondered why the other persisted going off into areas that had
> >nothing to do with them at all.
>
> I believe that's an inaccurate recollection of the events.
> alt.lifestyle.furry didn't split off from alt.fan.furry because it felt it
> had nothing to do with furry fandom - it split off because vocal elements
> of furry fandom kept telling it to go away.
(shrugs) Amounts to the same thing.
And I -do- recall hearing several voices at that time declaring they wanted
nothing to do with furry fandom interests, even if it wasn't -all- of the
lifestylers expressing that POV.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
[...]
> Or between
> bowlers and lion tamers. Bowling and lion taming have a LOT less to do
> with one another than furry fandom and furry lifestylers. Or to put it
> another way, furry fandom and furry lifestylers have an awful lot MORE to
> do with one another than bowling and lion taming do, or any other two
> human interests or fields of endeavor picked at random are likely to.
> They're above average in how much they have to do with one another. Way
> above average. Am I getting through here?
>
> *-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
> Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
> *-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
> Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
> *-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
>
> (Disclaimer: Of course some will claim that they *shouldn't* have anything
> to do with one another, in an ideal world. But that's a separate issue
> from the question of whether they currently DO. And they do.)
I think its dreadfull that they have things to do with other. Its
quite a safty hassard to combine bowling with lion taming.