EDIT! Apparently a better term for "furry" is zoanthrope meaning a human with animal qualities instead of an animal with human qualities..</u>
Furry or Zoanthrope and anthro are NOT The same thing. They arnt. And if you were confused before as to how they are not the same thing, here you go :3
This is to help people understand not to flame either side. Im not a Zoanthrope artist or even really like furries, but i consider this drawing to be for educational purposes not to claim one side to be better than the other. cool? cool.
i didnt put to much thought behind alot of the posing for these i just drew them off the top of my head xD the point was just to show the differences not to make a picture that had poses that make sense....
Feel free to repost, just credit me.
Furry or Zoanthrope and anthro are NOT The same thing. They arnt. And if you were confused before as to how they are not the same thing, here you go :3
This is to help people understand not to flame either side. Im not a Zoanthrope artist or even really like furries, but i consider this drawing to be for educational purposes not to claim one side to be better than the other. cool? cool.
i didnt put to much thought behind alot of the posing for these i just drew them off the top of my head xD the point was just to show the differences not to make a picture that had poses that make sense....
Feel free to repost, just credit me.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Tutorials
Species Unspecified / Any
Gender Any
Size 1002 x 1182px
I love the anthro category. One of my characters in my stories (Named "Chanda", who is a very tall, hulking female feline) is anthro. :3
Im glad you enjoy it x3 anthro is the only type of art i really do x3 im not a furry never have been xDDD
I pretty much agree with you here that there are definitely two distinct categories of characters. The problem child is when you have a character that's extremely both "furry" and "anthro" mixed- as what I find is probably one of the more common types of characters. They're like some sort of hybrid. I KNOW! Let's call them "Anthrofurs" lol which makes no sense because anthro really means human. Furmorphs? That'd be "furry-form" or "furry-shaped" but sounds stupid.
In fact the whole "furry" thing is pretty stupid... Here's why I hate the way shit is labeled in this community (oh god, rant ahead):
Anthropomorphism is giving human characteristics to something, and zoomorphism (zoe-ah-more-fis-em) is giving animal characteristics to something. Done.
Then furry comes along and screws everything up.
The basic definition of "furry" (besides being consisting of or resembling fur) is that the word itself is both what the fans of anthropomorphics call themselves and the label for the anthro stuff said fans like.
So the word furry these days apparently means everything anthro-associated ever... both as a description of a genre encompassing all forms of media (as in the "furry genre") and the label of the people who take interest in it (as in the "furry fandom"). ...So I wanna know: WHY THE FUCK COULDN'T WE JUST CALL IT THE ANTHRO FANDOM!? Why "furry"? Not everything is fuzzy and covered in fur you crazies! Basically it's a horrible word to use for what the fandom likes and doesn't represent hardly half of what we do like so it's not particularly fitting. Just... no.
Actually, apparently the REAL and ORIGINAL definition for the furry fandom is "the organized appreciation and dissemination of art and prose regarding 'Furries', or fictional mammalian anthropomorphic characters". Did you get that? MAMMALIAN. That's why it's "furry" of course, being that mammals have fur by their basic physical classification. So according to the original term, if a character does not have all the physical traits to be classified as a mammal, it is not a furry. I find that amusing. BUT WHY did this not change? Why did it become an umbrella term for all anthro? Ugh. Whatever.
Here's what Wikifur wrote about it: if someone says they are a furry, they are "generally expressing an interest in anthropomorphic animals and/or creatures (and perhaps some affiliation to furry fandom)" meaning you can also be a furry without being part of the fandom/community itself. So Gabby, you and I are totally furries to the heart because we love the hell out of anthropomorphics (if not also being picky about what kind of anthropomorphics we do or do not like). *le sigh*
SO furries are simply people who like anthropomorphics right? Okay, what is anthro again? Human traits given to non-human things. Right. This is extremely generalized and encompass everything from, for example, Pixar's Cars to all talking/human-like thinking/dancing/whatever objects and animals as simple as Homeward Bound to something more like Simba in the Lion King and over to more drastically anthromorphsizing animals in things like Disney's Robin Hood. Ok cool. In general we like at the very least this concept of putting human traits on everything which is the basis for our relationship to everyone in this fandom. PROBLEM ALERT: The definition of the furry fandom should be changed altogether, because I know for a fact that many many many furries also really love zoomorphism too, not just strictly anthro, and while the two concepts are very similar, they are funny enough direct opposites. Someone needs to seriously change this or bring this to people's attention because they are extremely different concepts with different implications. Seriously.
Zoomorph stuff would be like Nekos/cat girls, perhaps stuff you labeled "furry art" up there in your picture about keeping the hair and human bodies and whatnot just with some animal things added here and there... and I can even technically say that therianthropy counts because it's the idea of humans becoming animals and that would include werewolves too. Shapeshifting is honestly both zoomorphism and anthromorphism in many ways, since both human and animal is present. But zoomorphic stuff can be *really* tricky to define properly because we define everything in human terms (read: everything is tainted to become anthromorphsized). Even with the basic definition, I still strongly agree with you that Nekos and werewolves feel completely different to me, even if the concept is the same. And even then werewolves are sometimes (were)wolves that change into humans... which would be anthro.
Now to the art side of things... so the characters we create are just characters, and should be nothing more. But because we, as furries, created them they are known as "furry characters" or sometimes fursonas aka "furry personas" because they are the personas of us, ourselves being furries. Ok fine I could live with that, only I want to punch the person that decided that the subjects of furry interest are also known as furries. Meaning every single thing we like or make that's related to anthro in any way instantly becomes known as a furry too. That's ridiculous and confusing! My character is a furry and I'm a furry too? Meehh.
In fact the only coined word I know of that describes a certain art style or characteristics of anthropomorphic based characters is "funny animals" used to describe the cartoon characters of the early Micky Mouse era and such. In fact, apparently, many people use the term "funny animal" to describe their interest and/or artwork to outsiders just to deter negative stereotypes from them being associated with the furry fandom. Well, there don't seem to be many strict guidelines as to what's a "funny animal" and what's not these days either... but they mostly carry the idea that they are cartoon characters, often animated, and often with very exaggerated proportions and expressions, and of course often appear in comedies or comics like what you'd find in the newspaper/the funnies. But the "funny" part can also just be describing how they look funny/odd because they are not "natural" animals walking upright and talking and whatnot. Plain and simple these are most commonly drawn cartoony- in which it would describe a style of artwork more than anything... as opposed to something like a "realism" style... because you can draw a realistic anthro just as much as you can draw a realistic natural animal. I only bring up "funny animals" because it's specific to the concept of anthro. Stupidly even the lines of what we consider realism is blurred, because you can draw funny animals realistically while still keeping their odd proportions and cartoon-like characteristics. Take Scooby-Doo from the live action movies as an example- he's a realistic funny animal. SO a "funny animal" is not an art style, it is a label describing a character genre based on physical traits. Things like cartoony or realistic would describe art styles. Just want to make that clear.
What really needs to happen, if people feel there is a necessity to create a really good labeling system for different character genres based on their physical traits... good luck. The problem with this is nature of anthropomorphism itself- it is a hybrid mashup of a tons of different traits thrown together. You can have a character that is a wolf that's plantigrade, human hair, wears clothes, and talks and call it something ("furry" by your example)... but if you take that same character and make it digitigrade what does it become then? ("furry" with "anthro" legs by your example?) What if it's naked with no hair and looks exactly like a natural wolf but instead has plantigrade legs? (wtf why does this exsit!? It'd be ugly as hell) What category/labels would all these characters fit under? There's just too many combinations to properly categorize them all with easy labels like "furry and anthro". Man, if only.
Therefore I agree with you that I personally much prefer the "anthro" kind of art more than the "furry" kind of art and would love if there was a proper way to separate the genres. There seriously needs to be sub-genres within the furry fandom. Haha FURRIES RUIN EVERYTHING! This is another reason why I do not call myself a furry straight-up, if someone asks me "are you a furry" I ALWAYS reply "That depends on your definition of a furry". Because, again, the basic description fits me simply because I like anthro. But many people think of furries as being things like sexual, which I am not involved in, or socially inadequate, which I am not, among so many other improper stereotypes. It's a label I don't agree with all-around.
I wonder how many people would agree with me that furry should be scrapped and replaced with anthro at the very least, or invent another word altogether that works better to describe the fandom as a whole and includes zoomorphic themes too, or change the flippin definition, or both.
We shall now call ourselves anthrozos. Zoothros? Anthrooz. ANTHZOOMORPHS. TOTALLY. lol. And then yeah "morphs" for short- because it makes just as much sense as using "anthro" for short... since all we're saying is "human".
Actually this is why I love the label "therianthropy" because it describes things SO PERFECT... with theríon meaning beast/wild animal and anthrōpos meaning human of course. Otherkin is nice too "being of other kin than human". People thought those things out, unlike "furry" which did not evolve properly after it became more than targeting mammal characters.
Oh man.
I just had the worst/best idea ever: change the "furry fandom/anthro" label to therian.
Damn. That's sad. But perfect. but terrible. But the definition of the word would work.
NO WAIT! SO I HAVE FOUND THE PERFECT SOLUTION. We'll use the alternative word to therianthropy instead: zoanthropy. WHY DID I NOT THINK OF THIS WORD WHEN MAKING UP MY OTHER WORDS EARLIER!? fffff. We can easily re-purpose the word zoanthropy to fit our needs, because heck, we already re-purposed the definition of therianthropy too since it's traditionally in a more shapeshifting/metamorphic sense we made it a subculture.... and science re-purposed BOTH zoanthropy and therianthropy to describe clinical lycanthropy already/the delusion that you have assumed the form of an animal. bwahahaha, oh you furries. You all crazy. ;p
So yeah I don't see why I'd need to state why Zoanthro (pronounced zone-throw by the way, NOT zoe-an-throw) would be a perfect word to replace "furry" after all this rant. It's just perfect honestly. I wish I could start using it and that it would catch on :( Nope. It will probably just be sad forever. You can't exactly go around saying you're a zoanthro... people would think you're crazy. Literally. Which again isn't too far from the truth for most people. TEE HEEEEE. Okay this amuses me too greatly now, so I'm totally gonna try to spread the idea of Zoanthro, see what happens. And now you will all know that the concept started HERE, by ME, in this very.. um... wow, essay I guess. Sorry for the length, but I guess I had much to say. Hope you don't mind. ^^;
+2 cents +ALL THE CENTS
In fact the whole "furry" thing is pretty stupid... Here's why I hate the way shit is labeled in this community (oh god, rant ahead):
Anthropomorphism is giving human characteristics to something, and zoomorphism (zoe-ah-more-fis-em) is giving animal characteristics to something. Done.
Then furry comes along and screws everything up.
The basic definition of "furry" (besides being consisting of or resembling fur) is that the word itself is both what the fans of anthropomorphics call themselves and the label for the anthro stuff said fans like.
So the word furry these days apparently means everything anthro-associated ever... both as a description of a genre encompassing all forms of media (as in the "furry genre") and the label of the people who take interest in it (as in the "furry fandom"). ...So I wanna know: WHY THE FUCK COULDN'T WE JUST CALL IT THE ANTHRO FANDOM!? Why "furry"? Not everything is fuzzy and covered in fur you crazies! Basically it's a horrible word to use for what the fandom likes and doesn't represent hardly half of what we do like so it's not particularly fitting. Just... no.
Actually, apparently the REAL and ORIGINAL definition for the furry fandom is "the organized appreciation and dissemination of art and prose regarding 'Furries', or fictional mammalian anthropomorphic characters". Did you get that? MAMMALIAN. That's why it's "furry" of course, being that mammals have fur by their basic physical classification. So according to the original term, if a character does not have all the physical traits to be classified as a mammal, it is not a furry. I find that amusing. BUT WHY did this not change? Why did it become an umbrella term for all anthro? Ugh. Whatever.
Here's what Wikifur wrote about it: if someone says they are a furry, they are "generally expressing an interest in anthropomorphic animals and/or creatures (and perhaps some affiliation to furry fandom)" meaning you can also be a furry without being part of the fandom/community itself. So Gabby, you and I are totally furries to the heart because we love the hell out of anthropomorphics (if not also being picky about what kind of anthropomorphics we do or do not like). *le sigh*
SO furries are simply people who like anthropomorphics right? Okay, what is anthro again? Human traits given to non-human things. Right. This is extremely generalized and encompass everything from, for example, Pixar's Cars to all talking/human-like thinking/dancing/whatever objects and animals as simple as Homeward Bound to something more like Simba in the Lion King and over to more drastically anthromorphsizing animals in things like Disney's Robin Hood. Ok cool. In general we like at the very least this concept of putting human traits on everything which is the basis for our relationship to everyone in this fandom. PROBLEM ALERT: The definition of the furry fandom should be changed altogether, because I know for a fact that many many many furries also really love zoomorphism too, not just strictly anthro, and while the two concepts are very similar, they are funny enough direct opposites. Someone needs to seriously change this or bring this to people's attention because they are extremely different concepts with different implications. Seriously.
Zoomorph stuff would be like Nekos/cat girls, perhaps stuff you labeled "furry art" up there in your picture about keeping the hair and human bodies and whatnot just with some animal things added here and there... and I can even technically say that therianthropy counts because it's the idea of humans becoming animals and that would include werewolves too. Shapeshifting is honestly both zoomorphism and anthromorphism in many ways, since both human and animal is present. But zoomorphic stuff can be *really* tricky to define properly because we define everything in human terms (read: everything is tainted to become anthromorphsized). Even with the basic definition, I still strongly agree with you that Nekos and werewolves feel completely different to me, even if the concept is the same. And even then werewolves are sometimes (were)wolves that change into humans... which would be anthro.
Now to the art side of things... so the characters we create are just characters, and should be nothing more. But because we, as furries, created them they are known as "furry characters" or sometimes fursonas aka "furry personas" because they are the personas of us, ourselves being furries. Ok fine I could live with that, only I want to punch the person that decided that the subjects of furry interest are also known as furries. Meaning every single thing we like or make that's related to anthro in any way instantly becomes known as a furry too. That's ridiculous and confusing! My character is a furry and I'm a furry too? Meehh.
In fact the only coined word I know of that describes a certain art style or characteristics of anthropomorphic based characters is "funny animals" used to describe the cartoon characters of the early Micky Mouse era and such. In fact, apparently, many people use the term "funny animal" to describe their interest and/or artwork to outsiders just to deter negative stereotypes from them being associated with the furry fandom. Well, there don't seem to be many strict guidelines as to what's a "funny animal" and what's not these days either... but they mostly carry the idea that they are cartoon characters, often animated, and often with very exaggerated proportions and expressions, and of course often appear in comedies or comics like what you'd find in the newspaper/the funnies. But the "funny" part can also just be describing how they look funny/odd because they are not "natural" animals walking upright and talking and whatnot. Plain and simple these are most commonly drawn cartoony- in which it would describe a style of artwork more than anything... as opposed to something like a "realism" style... because you can draw a realistic anthro just as much as you can draw a realistic natural animal. I only bring up "funny animals" because it's specific to the concept of anthro. Stupidly even the lines of what we consider realism is blurred, because you can draw funny animals realistically while still keeping their odd proportions and cartoon-like characteristics. Take Scooby-Doo from the live action movies as an example- he's a realistic funny animal. SO a "funny animal" is not an art style, it is a label describing a character genre based on physical traits. Things like cartoony or realistic would describe art styles. Just want to make that clear.
What really needs to happen, if people feel there is a necessity to create a really good labeling system for different character genres based on their physical traits... good luck. The problem with this is nature of anthropomorphism itself- it is a hybrid mashup of a tons of different traits thrown together. You can have a character that is a wolf that's plantigrade, human hair, wears clothes, and talks and call it something ("furry" by your example)... but if you take that same character and make it digitigrade what does it become then? ("furry" with "anthro" legs by your example?) What if it's naked with no hair and looks exactly like a natural wolf but instead has plantigrade legs? (wtf why does this exsit!? It'd be ugly as hell) What category/labels would all these characters fit under? There's just too many combinations to properly categorize them all with easy labels like "furry and anthro". Man, if only.
Therefore I agree with you that I personally much prefer the "anthro" kind of art more than the "furry" kind of art and would love if there was a proper way to separate the genres. There seriously needs to be sub-genres within the furry fandom. Haha FURRIES RUIN EVERYTHING! This is another reason why I do not call myself a furry straight-up, if someone asks me "are you a furry" I ALWAYS reply "That depends on your definition of a furry". Because, again, the basic description fits me simply because I like anthro. But many people think of furries as being things like sexual, which I am not involved in, or socially inadequate, which I am not, among so many other improper stereotypes. It's a label I don't agree with all-around.
I wonder how many people would agree with me that furry should be scrapped and replaced with anthro at the very least, or invent another word altogether that works better to describe the fandom as a whole and includes zoomorphic themes too, or change the flippin definition, or both.
We shall now call ourselves anthrozos. Zoothros? Anthrooz. ANTHZOOMORPHS. TOTALLY. lol. And then yeah "morphs" for short- because it makes just as much sense as using "anthro" for short... since all we're saying is "human".
Actually this is why I love the label "therianthropy" because it describes things SO PERFECT... with theríon meaning beast/wild animal and anthrōpos meaning human of course. Otherkin is nice too "being of other kin than human". People thought those things out, unlike "furry" which did not evolve properly after it became more than targeting mammal characters.
Oh man.
I just had the worst/best idea ever: change the "furry fandom/anthro" label to therian.
Damn. That's sad. But perfect. but terrible. But the definition of the word would work.
NO WAIT! SO I HAVE FOUND THE PERFECT SOLUTION. We'll use the alternative word to therianthropy instead: zoanthropy. WHY DID I NOT THINK OF THIS WORD WHEN MAKING UP MY OTHER WORDS EARLIER!? fffff. We can easily re-purpose the word zoanthropy to fit our needs, because heck, we already re-purposed the definition of therianthropy too since it's traditionally in a more shapeshifting/metamorphic sense we made it a subculture.... and science re-purposed BOTH zoanthropy and therianthropy to describe clinical lycanthropy already/the delusion that you have assumed the form of an animal. bwahahaha, oh you furries. You all crazy. ;p
So yeah I don't see why I'd need to state why Zoanthro (pronounced zone-throw by the way, NOT zoe-an-throw) would be a perfect word to replace "furry" after all this rant. It's just perfect honestly. I wish I could start using it and that it would catch on :( Nope. It will probably just be sad forever. You can't exactly go around saying you're a zoanthro... people would think you're crazy. Literally. Which again isn't too far from the truth for most people. TEE HEEEEE. Okay this amuses me too greatly now, so I'm totally gonna try to spread the idea of Zoanthro, see what happens. And now you will all know that the concept started HERE, by ME, in this very.. um... wow, essay I guess. Sorry for the length, but I guess I had much to say. Hope you don't mind. ^^;
Well pffth I forgot to state the obvious.
Basically I would agree much more strongly with your examples in the image if you changed the "furry" on the left hand side to be "zoomorphic" and leave the anthropormprohic example on the right. You can also say on your picture that many furries depict their characters in a more zoomorphic genre and thus many people typically just call them "furries" instead... just to make it clear :3
Basically I would agree much more strongly with your examples in the image if you changed the "furry" on the left hand side to be "zoomorphic" and leave the anthropormprohic example on the right. You can also say on your picture that many furries depict their characters in a more zoomorphic genre and thus many people typically just call them "furries" instead... just to make it clear :3
Also I ran into more points about the topic I wanted to share:
squeedgemonster on DA says: "All furry is anthro, but not all anthro is furry" it's just defining what furry is within the anthropomorphic genre that's tricky. At this point, I think the easiest way to differentiate the two is the audience and application they were created for, kind of like the difference between fine art and commercial art. Furry art was created for the furry fandom specifically.
KibaWolf06 on DA says: So when I think of "Anthro" I think of a perfectly normal animal with human-like thoughts and emotions, etc. When I think of "Furry" I think of a humanoid-animal hybrid, or a person with more than a few animal features (ears, tails, etc). I also think of the physical art of making "Furry" costumes -- I probably think of that before anything else. Yeah, I think that's the big difference. "Furry" is something that's mutated to physically look humanoid, whereas "Anthro" is a perfectly normal animal with human emotions/motivations/etc. For example, Disney: The Lion King... that's "Anthro," not "Furry."
Goldenwolf takes a very similar approach to your definitions: http://goldenwolf.deviantart.com/ar.....ions-192114717
This made me lol- talliesynn on DA says: Furry is a term for anthro porn isn't it? Anthro is just humanised animals.
KatieStateAlchemist on DA says: "Furry" is more of a mind set, if that makes since. Like I'm a anthro artiest and I draw normal and clean sexy anthro art, that's as far as I go, I don't do fursuits or anything other then my art. Also I like my anthro fursona, but I don't want to actually be furry like that lol Like i'll get turned on by a hot guy, but not my a hot anthro guy, yeah i'll find it sexy, but I don't want to have sex with him. But I think furrys have more of the mind set of really wanting to be that anthro fursona they have and would be turned on by a anthro and so on. They would prefer fur to skin, (that doesn't mean that they have sex with animals!!! I get so sick of hearing that >.>) but yeah, I mean that's what I think, could be wrong lol
SpikedKanine on DA says: A furry is someone is someone who considers themselves part of the fandom. :T Its basically the difference of reading all of the starwars books, as apposed to attending star wars cons and having figurines.
Lyricanna on DA says: I have to say that I am not involved in the anthro community at all (disclaimer felt required). But from what I have seen furry is used as a slang and sometimes derogative term for the anthro community (a slang label to some, a derrogative one to others, much in the way that otaku can be used as an insult or a slang label for the anime community). I'm not sure that this is a reflection of the art itself, but more just how certain members of the community act. But I am basing all of this on observation, forum discussion and very little personal involvement, so I could be very very wrong
Fergalamalu on DA says: Furry is a noun most normally misused because of it's original denotative definition, and anthro is an adjective.
Ross-Sanger on DA says: Interesting, but I wonder why you draw a line between "antho" and "furry" in that way. I understand your separation of the two types of anthro animal but I'm under the impression that it's more common to use the term "classic anthro" for the more animal-like ones and "modern anthro" to refer to more human-like animal characters (since having an entirely humanoid animal character is a more modern tendency).
I personally use "anthro" (as short for "anthropomorphic" i.e. human shaped) to refer to all humanoid animal characters that I would not class as "toon" (cartoon animals like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck or Mickey Mouse) because otherwise you get hung up with the technicalities because not all anthros have fur. Lots of people who draw reptilian anthros call them scalies and say that a furry should technically only refer to an anthro that has fur (i.e. a mammalian anthro) so by extension you would have featheries (birds), slimies (amphibians) and finnies (fish) and even leafies if you included plant-like anthros, so it's much easier to use the term anthro as short for anthropomorphic to refer to all the different types in order to avoid arguments about whether a furry has to have fur or not.
One thing though: Why the distinction with the primitive clothes and weapons? You could have more human-looking animal characters in a stoneage setting or a native aboriginal setting and they'd be using stone and wooden tools instead of modern technology just as a human character of that time would. I suppose them using simpler tools is fitting in a way because of their more animal instinct based intelligence, but you could equally have a character in a modern setting that has more of an animal-like mentality but dressed like a human to blend in with the humans he or she lives among.
What did you do to me Gabby!? I'm all hyped up about this now! |DDD
squeedgemonster on DA says: "All furry is anthro, but not all anthro is furry" it's just defining what furry is within the anthropomorphic genre that's tricky. At this point, I think the easiest way to differentiate the two is the audience and application they were created for, kind of like the difference between fine art and commercial art. Furry art was created for the furry fandom specifically.
KibaWolf06 on DA says: So when I think of "Anthro" I think of a perfectly normal animal with human-like thoughts and emotions, etc. When I think of "Furry" I think of a humanoid-animal hybrid, or a person with more than a few animal features (ears, tails, etc). I also think of the physical art of making "Furry" costumes -- I probably think of that before anything else. Yeah, I think that's the big difference. "Furry" is something that's mutated to physically look humanoid, whereas "Anthro" is a perfectly normal animal with human emotions/motivations/etc. For example, Disney: The Lion King... that's "Anthro," not "Furry."
Goldenwolf takes a very similar approach to your definitions: http://goldenwolf.deviantart.com/ar.....ions-192114717
This made me lol- talliesynn on DA says: Furry is a term for anthro porn isn't it? Anthro is just humanised animals.
KatieStateAlchemist on DA says: "Furry" is more of a mind set, if that makes since. Like I'm a anthro artiest and I draw normal and clean sexy anthro art, that's as far as I go, I don't do fursuits or anything other then my art. Also I like my anthro fursona, but I don't want to actually be furry like that lol Like i'll get turned on by a hot guy, but not my a hot anthro guy, yeah i'll find it sexy, but I don't want to have sex with him. But I think furrys have more of the mind set of really wanting to be that anthro fursona they have and would be turned on by a anthro and so on. They would prefer fur to skin, (that doesn't mean that they have sex with animals!!! I get so sick of hearing that >.>) but yeah, I mean that's what I think, could be wrong lol
SpikedKanine on DA says: A furry is someone is someone who considers themselves part of the fandom. :T Its basically the difference of reading all of the starwars books, as apposed to attending star wars cons and having figurines.
Lyricanna on DA says: I have to say that I am not involved in the anthro community at all (disclaimer felt required). But from what I have seen furry is used as a slang and sometimes derogative term for the anthro community (a slang label to some, a derrogative one to others, much in the way that otaku can be used as an insult or a slang label for the anime community). I'm not sure that this is a reflection of the art itself, but more just how certain members of the community act. But I am basing all of this on observation, forum discussion and very little personal involvement, so I could be very very wrong
Fergalamalu on DA says: Furry is a noun most normally misused because of it's original denotative definition, and anthro is an adjective.
Ross-Sanger on DA says: Interesting, but I wonder why you draw a line between "antho" and "furry" in that way. I understand your separation of the two types of anthro animal but I'm under the impression that it's more common to use the term "classic anthro" for the more animal-like ones and "modern anthro" to refer to more human-like animal characters (since having an entirely humanoid animal character is a more modern tendency).
I personally use "anthro" (as short for "anthropomorphic" i.e. human shaped) to refer to all humanoid animal characters that I would not class as "toon" (cartoon animals like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck or Mickey Mouse) because otherwise you get hung up with the technicalities because not all anthros have fur. Lots of people who draw reptilian anthros call them scalies and say that a furry should technically only refer to an anthro that has fur (i.e. a mammalian anthro) so by extension you would have featheries (birds), slimies (amphibians) and finnies (fish) and even leafies if you included plant-like anthros, so it's much easier to use the term anthro as short for anthropomorphic to refer to all the different types in order to avoid arguments about whether a furry has to have fur or not.
One thing though: Why the distinction with the primitive clothes and weapons? You could have more human-looking animal characters in a stoneage setting or a native aboriginal setting and they'd be using stone and wooden tools instead of modern technology just as a human character of that time would. I suppose them using simpler tools is fitting in a way because of their more animal instinct based intelligence, but you could equally have a character in a modern setting that has more of an animal-like mentality but dressed like a human to blend in with the humans he or she lives among.
What did you do to me Gabby!? I'm all hyped up about this now! |DDD
"KibaWolf06 on DA says: So when I think of "Anthro" I think of a perfectly normal animal with human-like thoughts and emotions, etc. When I think of "Furry" I think of a humanoid-animal hybrid, or a person with more than a few animal features (ears, tails, etc)."
Giving human physical attributes to something is called by official definition anthropomorphizing (anthro = human, morph = form)
Giving an animal human inteligence, ability to speak, as done in fables, is called sapientation. We've disscused this in high school during literature classes, and it got mentioned again in history classes, when we talked about sapientation of the apes during evolution.
That being said, I haven't read all of it, but you have good points. Let's rename the fandom, just for the sake of anthro lizard, insect, amphibian, fish, bird, etc. characters. We can't be anthropomorphics fandom, since objects, plants etc. would fall under that too; and limiting ourselves to liking anthropomorphic animals with fur is boring and unfair.
Giving human physical attributes to something is called by official definition anthropomorphizing (anthro = human, morph = form)
Giving an animal human inteligence, ability to speak, as done in fables, is called sapientation. We've disscused this in high school during literature classes, and it got mentioned again in history classes, when we talked about sapientation of the apes during evolution.
That being said, I haven't read all of it, but you have good points. Let's rename the fandom, just for the sake of anthro lizard, insect, amphibian, fish, bird, etc. characters. We can't be anthropomorphics fandom, since objects, plants etc. would fall under that too; and limiting ourselves to liking anthropomorphic animals with fur is boring and unfair.
Read both your posts CanineHybrid and saved them for later. You brought up great points.
i want to share this with people.
the comments also, i think i will link people to this.
the comments also, i think i will link people to this.
I think i agree with mister types-a-lot up there in that while there are characters with DIGIGRADE and DIGITIGRADE feet (that's the humanshape and feral shape legs) Both of those are considered anthropomorphic (or "anthro" as the lazier-tongued part of the fandom would say it) by definition. ...even those stupid nekomimi things are.
But yes, furry and anthro are the same thing. Because anthro is anthropomorphic which is be definition any animal that is given human traits, or vice versa.
no anthro is just an animal with human traits.
But theres a line you cross when its no longer anthro.
its like an evolution chart of man. you start with an animal, and you keep adding human to it, but eventually you get to a point where its no longer concidered anthro because theres way to much man. a monkey is not a man, and a man is not a monkey. Just like furries are not animals anymore even if they choose to keep one or two traits similar to what they started out at, youve pumped so much person into it that it cant be concidered an anthro
But theres a line you cross when its no longer anthro.
its like an evolution chart of man. you start with an animal, and you keep adding human to it, but eventually you get to a point where its no longer concidered anthro because theres way to much man. a monkey is not a man, and a man is not a monkey. Just like furries are not animals anymore even if they choose to keep one or two traits similar to what they started out at, youve pumped so much person into it that it cant be concidered an anthro
The egyptian gods are more human in shape than what you've drawn(some of them only have the heads of an animal), and they are widely considered my anthropologists to be anthropomorphic.
Taken directly from Wikipedia.
Anthromorphic is any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities. The term was coined in the mid 1700s.[1][2] Examples include animals and plants and forces of nature such as winds, rain or the sun depicted as creatures with human motivations, and/or the abilities to reason and converse. The term derives from the combination of the Greek ἄνθρωπος (ánthrōpos), "human" and μορφή (morphē), "shape" or "form".
Ftr even humans are anthropomorphic. Since we have human shape and do human things. Therefore, no matter how much or how little human-looking or acting a vaguely human-shaped thing is, it is still anthropomorphic.
Taken directly from Wikipedia.
Anthromorphic is any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities. The term was coined in the mid 1700s.[1][2] Examples include animals and plants and forces of nature such as winds, rain or the sun depicted as creatures with human motivations, and/or the abilities to reason and converse. The term derives from the combination of the Greek ἄνθρωπος (ánthrōpos), "human" and μορφή (morphē), "shape" or "form".
Ftr even humans are anthropomorphic. Since we have human shape and do human things. Therefore, no matter how much or how little human-looking or acting a vaguely human-shaped thing is, it is still anthropomorphic.
humans arnt anthro xD anthro is something non human with human characteristics!
-sigh- Anthropomorphic MEANS. HUMAN. FORM. Humans HAVE human form. Therefore humans are anthro. Since anthro literally means HUMAN. ...actually, that means calling fursonas "anthros" is wrong. I guess all the dumbass furs on here need to start learning how to use their tongues and just say anthropomorphic. It's a mouthful, but it could be worse.
Regardless on what your OPINION of the word/abbreviation anthropomorphic/anthro is, the FACT of the matter is, that any THING, animal or plant with a SINGLE human characteristic is anthropomorphic. Even a plain old normal dolphin is considered anthropomorphic because it thinks on a higher level and is self-aware like us. It doesn't have to LOOK human. If it's higher-thinking, if it reasons, it is anthropomorphic by very definition.
Regardless on what your OPINION of the word/abbreviation anthropomorphic/anthro is, the FACT of the matter is, that any THING, animal or plant with a SINGLE human characteristic is anthropomorphic. Even a plain old normal dolphin is considered anthropomorphic because it thinks on a higher level and is self-aware like us. It doesn't have to LOOK human. If it's higher-thinking, if it reasons, it is anthropomorphic by very definition.
Anthromorphic is any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities.
You cant add human qualities to humans. its what they are.
You cant add human qualities to humans. its what they are.
Whether i am correct on that point or not, the point stands that "humans" with other animals' heads and tails are NOT human, and are instead anthropomorphic due to their human attributes that remain. From an anthropological standpoint, the egyptian gods were all anthropomorphic, and some of them only had EYES from another animal. "Furry" is just the name of the fandom, btw, not really meant to describe the difference between more or less feral characters.
and the fandom has a distinct style of art.
I agree with riley that there needs to be a different word for them. because they arnt anthro really. they are to much human, they need their own category. The eygyptian gods included. though most of those paintings were depicted from people wearing the masks of the gods and painting them, instead of being able to see how an anthro creature would look.
I agree with riley that there needs to be a different word for them. because they arnt anthro really. they are to much human, they need their own category. The eygyptian gods included. though most of those paintings were depicted from people wearing the masks of the gods and painting them, instead of being able to see how an anthro creature would look.
Well you should take that up with all the archaeologists and anthropologists to see if they'll make a new word since you don't like the ones they've made. Its not like they know what they're talking about or anything.
On a relatively unrelated note, you did an excellent job on the digigrade legs. Congratulations.
Why thank you. I pulled it out of my ass xD didnt even use a ref.
In that case, even more props. xD
Though, honest to god, i forget which is which. I cant' remember if digigrade...ah, it's sposed to be digitigrade and PLANTIgrade, there we go. So much simpler. Digitigrade is anything that walks on its toes (most animals other than humans) and plantigrade is humanlike feets where the ankle is on the ground as well. It's really wierd to be the exception on that. EVERYONE ELSE WALKS ON THEIR TOES. we walk on our ankles. So lame.
Though, honest to god, i forget which is which. I cant' remember if digigrade...ah, it's sposed to be digitigrade and PLANTIgrade, there we go. So much simpler. Digitigrade is anything that walks on its toes (most animals other than humans) and plantigrade is humanlike feets where the ankle is on the ground as well. It's really wierd to be the exception on that. EVERYONE ELSE WALKS ON THEIR TOES. we walk on our ankles. So lame.
yea, if people were digigrade wed run faster and jump higher. plus wed look cooler ;3
I have a tendency to walk on my toes anyways. It's actually a great workout, and way better for your spine. You should try it.
Also to clarify more its mostly about the style of art. furry art and anthro art are not teh same thing. any anthro will tell you that. xD
SO where is the ANTHRO fandom then. Do tell. Furry art is the broad category of anyone who identifies with another species of animal and makes a character to reflect it. This includes anthro(which is the subgroup of all characters with human traits, which is TECHNICALLY all of them because even the ferals are gifted with higher intelligence and the like by their creators), and feral(i'm sure there's a few people who just have their fursonas be average animals with normal lower intelligence, not that all other animals are unintelligent). Plus i guess all those horrible goop things and tentacle things. Not sure how theyre furry, but they get grouped in there somehow.
By the way, i guess i'm an anthro. Because i walk upright but i'm a dragon thing and i have digitigrade legs. I guess that means i'd automatically know, so i guess i'm right!
By the way, i guess i'm an anthro. Because i walk upright but i'm a dragon thing and i have digitigrade legs. I guess that means i'd automatically know, so i guess i'm right!
I do walk on my toes all teh time xD
and there really isnt a need for an anthro fandom. Furries have a fandom based on alot of things i wont go into becasue itll start an all new argument. but the furry fandom is not a place where anthros tend to be. anthros dont concider themselves furry for a reason. but anthros will go to furry conventions because anthro art is sold there. Anthro isnt excluded from the furry fandom it self. it does show up, but anthros are not furries. Anthros dabble in the furry fandom becasue there IS no athro fandom, there fore the only place they find things related to their interests is by finding the anthro in the furry fandom.
and there really isnt a need for an anthro fandom. Furries have a fandom based on alot of things i wont go into becasue itll start an all new argument. but the furry fandom is not a place where anthros tend to be. anthros dont concider themselves furry for a reason. but anthros will go to furry conventions because anthro art is sold there. Anthro isnt excluded from the furry fandom it self. it does show up, but anthros are not furries. Anthros dabble in the furry fandom becasue there IS no athro fandom, there fore the only place they find things related to their interests is by finding the anthro in the furry fandom.
Are you talking about otherkin or something? Because there used to be a bunch of otherkin websites but then most of the otherkin got old and stopped coming online :/
DEFINE anthro for me. Do you mean people who feel like they were originally something else?
Or do you just mean furries that aren't all MURR PURR YIFF YIFF?
DEFINE anthro for me. Do you mean people who feel like they were originally something else?
Or do you just mean furries that aren't all MURR PURR YIFF YIFF?
no therians are the first definition up there.
and anthros out side of an art style are people who identify with a specific animal, often times on a deeper level than most furries do. An anthro out side of the art style is a person that represents a deeper aspect of their spiritual and animalistic form through an animal character in the anthro style.
and anthros out side of an art style are people who identify with a specific animal, often times on a deeper level than most furries do. An anthro out side of the art style is a person that represents a deeper aspect of their spiritual and animalistic form through an animal character in the anthro style.
Otherkin are different from Therians in that therians are solely animals that have been confirmed to exist. Otherkin are called OTHERkin for a reason. Dragons, unicorns, gryphons and the like. Do more research. I'm an otherkin.
You're basically saying that anthros are therians. Dabbling therians, at least.
You're basically saying that anthros are therians. Dabbling therians, at least.
no im not, i know what other kin are thank you, i AM a therian.
there are two types of therian, true therian and then spiritual therian. if you want to get technical then yes, anthros are spiritual therian, out side of the art style.
there are two types of therian, true therian and then spiritual therian. if you want to get technical then yes, anthros are spiritual therian, out side of the art style.
Woo, i almost forgot what the original debate was. Anyways, as of now, the fact is that both of those images you've made ARE anthropomorphic by definition, if you dislike that, well that's just your opinion and if you hate it so much you can always take it up with the people who are all ABOUT the science of it and they might coin a new term for you to use. In the meanwhile, furries are still anthro creatures from a technical standpoint, which is all most people will see. So anthro is still furry, and furry is still anthro. Unless the anthro is scaly, in which case it's not furry because well...it has no fur.
Anyways, if you're therian, what are you?
Anyways, if you're therian, what are you?
Im a wolf therian. and ive dropped the subject with you. just so you know. so i wont be responding since you arnt really listening. and you obviously didnt read what "sir talks alot" said up there or youd know she agreed with me for the most part.
You know, i really am trying to understand. You just haven't explained it in a way i understand yet. My brain works a bit differently and when things are phrased some ways i can't get it. But okay whatever, i'll drop it.
I dont really know how else to expalin it to you. ive done the best i can :\ im not trying to be mean or anything. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree
From a SCIENTIFIC, impartial perspective, furry and anthro art are the EXACT same thing. You probably just feel this way because you don't want what you call your art to be associated with all the ridiculous crappy porn others draw. Amirite?
No, thats not why. and no they arnt! theres a fine line yes but its there.
They are the same thing. If there's a fine line, do explain it to me. I fail to see it.
Ive been explaining it to you, but you arnt listening. So i guess youre just gonna have to disagree and drop it.
All i know is that from a technical standpoint, they are the same. I haven't seen you bother to explain from a more personal view what makes furry and "anthro" art so different. What makes the two so different for YOU?
and also i dont get personal when it comes to furries because it just ends up in alot of arguing and defence positions from furries trying to defend their nasty fandom.
I know, but if you could explain it to me with how you personally feel, even if you'd prefer it in like, a note, i might get it better. I'm not trying to defend anyone, and i certainly won't get mad, the fandom IS nasty a lot of places. I might should have asked what makes it so for you in the first place. My brain's pretty unyielding from a scientific standpoint but the introduction of emotion into the picture makes it easier to get. And i'm not a furry :P I enjoy hanging out with the less lecherous of them because i don't judge them and they, unlike most normal people, have no right to judge me, with all their freaky fetishes xD
uhm.. the picture is just the difference between plantigrade and digigrade legs and paws for hands, not the difference between anthro/furry.
There is really no current widespread distinctive word between the type of furry with plantigrade legs and human looking hands and fingers, mostly because it has to do with style more than anything, with furry art there has always been these two types of varieties, from egyptian paintings/carvings to the modern day pen and paper and digital artwork, it's no different now then it was back then.
I'd say there is a difference between anthro and furry, not because they are two seperate things, but because they're a couple of categories apart:
>anthropomorphic = more general therm, it is relating to anything biological or inanimate objects that might have human characteristics, like communication skills and awareness, feelings and understanding.
>humanoid = any bipedal creature that might resemble human in shape, like walking on legs, having hands and a head.
>humanoid animal (furry) = a more specific category that this site revolves around, art of furry(or scaly) humanoid animals/creatures, this ranges usually between your illustrations, but also include mixed creatures (a minotaur, centaur or chimera for example) the consensis of this theme is usually but not limited to: Any animal with human characteristics.
Therefore, both your illustrated versions are anthropomorphic, and both are furry, it's simple really.
There is really no current widespread distinctive word between the type of furry with plantigrade legs and human looking hands and fingers, mostly because it has to do with style more than anything, with furry art there has always been these two types of varieties, from egyptian paintings/carvings to the modern day pen and paper and digital artwork, it's no different now then it was back then.
I'd say there is a difference between anthro and furry, not because they are two seperate things, but because they're a couple of categories apart:
>anthropomorphic = more general therm, it is relating to anything biological or inanimate objects that might have human characteristics, like communication skills and awareness, feelings and understanding.
>humanoid = any bipedal creature that might resemble human in shape, like walking on legs, having hands and a head.
>humanoid animal (furry) = a more specific category that this site revolves around, art of furry(or scaly) humanoid animals/creatures, this ranges usually between your illustrations, but also include mixed creatures (a minotaur, centaur or chimera for example) the consensis of this theme is usually but not limited to: Any animal with human characteristics.
Therefore, both your illustrated versions are anthropomorphic, and both are furry, it's simple really.
I see your point but there is a fine line that separates the two. id tell you but i dont feel like again repeating myself for the billionth time.
not in my opinion, I think it's pretty straightforward, but I'm not gonna sit and argue, just wanted to share my understanding of it and leave it at that.
To me a furry would be a person who has been genetically modified to have animal traits. There is already scientific speculation that this might be possible someday. People with the eyes of eagles, the strength of lions... others with hollow bones and wings so that they can fly. Most people would likely prefer to retain some human characteristics however, such as full heads of hair, a "normal" mouth instead of a muzzle, etc. However, it might be possible that someday science will allow people to become more fully anthros if they wished. Right down to digigrade hands and feet, the ability to run on all fours just as easily as they walk upright, etc.
As for the fandom and the differences in artistic approaches, my way of thinking has it that artists are simply drawing what they see in whichever alternate reality they are viewing when they imagine the subject of their work. I am sure there are realities where furries are common: where are science has already evolved to the point that most everyone has some genetic modifications to improve themselves. There are other realities where it was animals that evolved into upright stances and humans never appeared. There are likely yet more realities in which both exist. And if furries are humans that have been modified with some animal characteristics... well, we've all learned from reading about history about what happens when humans meet another civilization. The Aztecs, the Mayans and many others are no more thanks to our xenophobia and distrust of anything different. So I imagine a world where furries and anthros both existed would likely be bad for the anthros if they retained tribal habits and customs and they were found by furries with their modern technology and such.
Anyway, I am going off on a tangent here xD
I have several characters I RP on various mucks and they are all digigrade and have either just normal fur atop their heads or thicker tufts of "headfur". Some have been modernized, use cellphones, watch TV, etc. I prefer to play most of my characters living in a more natural setting however, only making forays into civilization now and then. To me, having long flowing blonde hair on say, a gray wolf anthro or even a furry just looks weird. It looks even stranger on an anthro though. Its like if you were studying an anthro from the feet up: Big digigrade feet, the wolf walking on their toes.. a thick pelt of gray fur for the coming winter.. hands that may have only three fingers and are more paw like... a long muzzle, triangular wolven ears... and platinum blonde hair?! >.< Makes it look like the anthro threw on a wig to purposely try to look silly xD
As for the fandom and the differences in artistic approaches, my way of thinking has it that artists are simply drawing what they see in whichever alternate reality they are viewing when they imagine the subject of their work. I am sure there are realities where furries are common: where are science has already evolved to the point that most everyone has some genetic modifications to improve themselves. There are other realities where it was animals that evolved into upright stances and humans never appeared. There are likely yet more realities in which both exist. And if furries are humans that have been modified with some animal characteristics... well, we've all learned from reading about history about what happens when humans meet another civilization. The Aztecs, the Mayans and many others are no more thanks to our xenophobia and distrust of anything different. So I imagine a world where furries and anthros both existed would likely be bad for the anthros if they retained tribal habits and customs and they were found by furries with their modern technology and such.
Anyway, I am going off on a tangent here xD
I have several characters I RP on various mucks and they are all digigrade and have either just normal fur atop their heads or thicker tufts of "headfur". Some have been modernized, use cellphones, watch TV, etc. I prefer to play most of my characters living in a more natural setting however, only making forays into civilization now and then. To me, having long flowing blonde hair on say, a gray wolf anthro or even a furry just looks weird. It looks even stranger on an anthro though. Its like if you were studying an anthro from the feet up: Big digigrade feet, the wolf walking on their toes.. a thick pelt of gray fur for the coming winter.. hands that may have only three fingers and are more paw like... a long muzzle, triangular wolven ears... and platinum blonde hair?! >.< Makes it look like the anthro threw on a wig to purposely try to look silly xD
Comments