i feel that there are some artists whose relationship with humans is much the same as a furry artist’s relationship with animals. that is to say, the artist admires these creatures, finds within them enormous aesthetic and tactile potential, and seeks to express themselves through that potential: but you could hardly argue that the end result of this process is a literal depiction of the creature in question. it’s, you know, a beautiful chimera, possessive of whatever aesthetic qualities of the source material the artist finds emotionally resonant.
when the source material is a non-human animal we call this “furry art”; when it’s a human we don’t really have a particular word for it. maybe you could argue that this is simply cartooning, though i’m not totally convinced.
most of my favorite cartoon art of animals that are ostensibly humans is by furries. furries fucking own: they just Get the concept of Embodiment. furries latch on to all the things that would rule about having a particular kind of body. furries know exactly what’s to like about having fur, or a huge tail, or a snoot and perky ears, or whatever. Embodiment! when that same lens is applied to the human animal, the resulting art often carries that same feeling. that feeling of, like, “this artist knows why this shape would be cool to be.” maybe what results isn’t a literal depiction of a human any more than any given anthro can be called a literal depiction of a fox: it’s a beautiful chimera inviting you to play in the space of Embodiment.
anyway that’s how i’ve been thinking about drawing lately. thanks furries. i love you
this is exactly the sense in which I use ΘΔ.
