Log in

No account? Create an account
Can someone explain to me how this mediocre, anatomy-mistake ridden,… - DEVIANTARTSNARK © DOCTORSCIENCE 2010-2011 — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | START HERE ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Mar. 24th, 2013|09:21 pm]
[mood |confusedconfused]

Can someone explain to me how this mediocre, anatomy-mistake ridden, unoriginal piece of garbage has over three thousand views and three hundred favorites? I saw it in the 'popular 8 hours' section of the front page and I just...

I'm genuinely curious here.

[User Picture]From: aguara_guazu
2013-03-25 04:11 am (UTC)
see, it has the words "kitsune" and "warrior" in the title, it's a canid, has wings, multiple tails and fur texture. not to mention, upon close inspection I guess the artist intended to give it a "contemplative" attitude and the sun between the wings may be meant to have symbolism... I guess.

furries don't care about anatomy, body language or a readable shilouette, they just go for a few favourite characteristics. not to mention, it's a "free character". because design equals character, right? AND IT'S FREE OMG.

and yeah, I agree. besides the terrible anatomy, it's stiff and bland as hell.

I'm grumpy and you gave me a good reason to rant C: thanks, good sir!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kharmii
2013-03-25 07:02 pm (UTC)
You beat me to it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ducttapeninja
2013-03-25 11:16 am (UTC)
Because furries.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: babybeluga2003
2013-03-25 12:34 pm (UTC)
It's not my cup of tea so I don't actively seek it out, but this post made me realize that I've never actually seen a really good piece of furry art.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: butt_fluff
2013-03-27 10:41 pm (UTC)
I've always kind of liked anthro art (not just animals, but anthropromorphic objects and other things), but the furry community mostly just cranks out unoriginal works that are mediocre at best. I have found one artist that seems to draw some decent stuff, in my opinion, that I'm pretty sure falls under the "furry" category.
Of course now a days I'm kind of confused about what qualifies as furry art or not, I see so much arguing about it that I've lost track.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: teufelsengel
2013-03-29 02:20 am (UTC)
I enjoy anthro art as well and most of my characters qualify as that, though they are hardly standard 'furry'. I suppose all furries are anthro but all anthro is not 'furry'.

Of course, the anthro has to have some originality and personality for me to like it. The crap I linked up there is just a generic fox with wings. And boy do furries love foxes, for some godawful reason. Probably because they're canine and canines are the only choice if you want a likable character obviously.

Personally I prefer birds and cats, if not reptiles. Other obscure species are always neat to see as well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: myrren
2013-03-25 03:23 pm (UTC)
At first glance I didn't think it was that bad, just something I'd see a bazillion times before, but then when I looked closer...

The pose looks like it would fall over backwards in real life, the wings are at the wrong angle to be attached to the torso in the direction its facing and the tails just don't 'go' if you get my meaning. Over all it looks very stiff, and though I like all the detail the artist put in, it could have been done so much better.</p>

But yeah, it's furry so it's popular.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kitty5150
2013-03-25 05:06 pm (UTC)
Maybe that staff is actually anchored onto the ground and that's what is keeping him upright? lol. But yeah, furries.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: crazeetyger
2013-03-25 05:31 pm (UTC)
Because it's listed as Street Art. While it's nothing special, it's most likely the only thing with that tag witht hat many views, hence why it made the front page. Yay exploits!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dodger_greywing
2013-03-25 09:07 pm (UTC)
Hontoriel's sculptures are so gorgeous, but there's always something not quite right about their drawings.

Poor fox must have one hell of a crick in his neck.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bkatt500
2013-03-29 06:09 pm (UTC)
It's not really that terrible. It's generic as fuck and not great by any measure, but it's one of those that looks fine at a glance, even though it has obvious problems if you actually look at it. Popular 8 Hours kinda lets all sorts of really awful shit through, like those reader inserts I posted a while ago. Any artist who is moderately popular can get there pretty easily since it is a pretty small time-frame.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gizzybiscuits
2013-03-30 04:41 pm (UTC)
I kind of clicked the link expecting some super disfigured mess and...Still don't see it. Maybe I'm just thinking of MS paint monstrosities right now.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bkatt500
2013-03-30 09:46 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, it's not really good art, but nothing shockingly bad, especially for Popular 8 Hours. There are some easy mistakes in the torso and the pose isn't great or possible to hold for long, but nothing that would be noticeable by people who don't and have never really looked closely at art.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: teufelsengel
2013-03-30 11:23 pm (UTC)
... Yeah you must be.

The thing's feet are bigger than it's head I just noticed.

Shitty perspective can be added to the list as well it seems...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: triplem
2013-04-04 01:13 am (UTC)
Man, I thought the native anthro thing died out years ago. Shows how much I know.
(Reply) (Thread)