fchan

discussion

Why all the Furronika Hate?

Pages:1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321 361
1Report
at 14 Aug 2008: 20:36

I've noticed for at least a good year or two how, whenever anyone posts any of Furronika's art on here, everyone seems to come on JUST to bash it as shit, and the reason is always the same: "it's just humans with animal heads".

I've never understood this opinion, honestly; most furry porn, by definition, is humans with animal heads and tails, yet you've NEVER heard anyone complain about THAT. Hell, there's a Minotaur/Centaur/Satyr thread on /m/ that is getting good reviews, even though everything on there is NOTHING BUT humans with animal bits slapped on them. So what singles Furronika out? Really, what about Furronika's art singles it out for ridicule and hatred? It's ironic, since Furronika's primary source of yiffy art is Satyrs, Centaurs, and Minotaurs (and I bet, if any of THEM were posted up on the aforementioned thread, people will STILL complain that it's shit).

First, as a fan of Furronika, I WILL admit that I have some gripes about the artist's style (like how pathetically thin and pencil-like his/her cock designs are), but the overall body design isn't one of them; the heads don't look slapped on by any stretch of the imagination, and in fact look like s/he tried to integrate them as best s/he could into the overal body design to look more natural. Another (recent) complaint I was given was that Furronika's stuff was too "muscular"; it IS true that s/he doesn't draw many "boi-ish" or petite men and women, but they are NOWHERE NEAR as muscular as they could've been; I've seen hyper-muscle pics where the fur looks like he's wearing a muscle suit inflated to its max with helium. Furronika's guys, though, looks to be about on par with your averagely-built model or your stereotypical action movie "working man" hero; buff, to be sure, but more toned than Bane-like.

Seriously, I don't understand why there's so much hate on here for Furronika; to me, the more people bitch about it, the more it seems like they're just doing it because it's the "cool" thing to do on here. So help me out here; what's with all of the negativity? Is there ANYONE on here that actually LIKES Furronika's stuff? And if you don't like her stuff, why don't you put her on the DNP list, so that you won't HAVE to look at it anymore?

2Report (sage)
Deatzh at 14 Aug 2008: 21:42

We just need something to whine about.

I'm cool with Furronika's work.  It's nifty.  I personally have gripes with how...
eh, I'll not go there.  Every time I do, I get bitched at by people who have no idea what the actual anatomy of that part looks like.


I'll admit that I'm entirely too surprised why I haven't seen anyone complain about how ChrisSawyer's creatures that AREN'T equines look 'wrong,' actually.

But I digress.

3Report
at 14 Aug 2008: 22:08

>>1 "...most furry porn, by definition, is humans with animal heads and tails, yet you've NEVER heard anyone complain about THAT."

First of all, you hear people complaining about it a lot (myself included). Check any of the nekos threads; there seems to be a growing backlash against it. Secondly, a human with ears and a tail is NOT furry. Anthropomorphic yes (barely though), furry no. Furries are basically animals with a human frame and mostly human personality where applicable.

4Report
at 14 Aug 2008: 22:49

>>3

So why hasn't there been any backlash with the Centaur/Satyr/Minotaur thread, eh? They are literally half man, half animal, with the human parts VERY clearly shown. They aren't furry, by your definition, yet they're still tolerated on here AND people are wanting to see MORE of them on the thread. So what makes them different from Furronika's stuff?

From what I'm hearing, it's little more than arguing art style semantics; they don't like Furronika's art style, but instead of just ignoring it and moving on to something they DO like, they have to complain that it's NOT something that they prefer, until the art's either removed or the artist changes their art style to suit their needs. Like I said, there's aspects of her art that I don't particularly care for, but that's her choice to draw them like that, so I have to be respectful of that; you won't see a Picasso fan bitch at Van Gogh for not making his art like Picasso's, will you? There's no real reason for the hate, from what I'm seeing, so while I can respect their right to their opinion, they really need to shut up and stop bashing on Furronika and let the fans enjoy; there's plenty of other things on here that would appeal to the haters' interests, I'm sure.

5Report
TLKFan at 15 Aug 2008: 06:22

I couldn't put it any way better than this: (copied from someone who made a very smart comment abou this, earlier)
------------------
"The bodies are completely one world into themselves and the heads are in a totally different realm. That is it. And here is the sicence of it:

In the world of visual fine art (or any art of any talent) there is the concept of abstraction. Al visuall art is an abstraction, save for art with no given subject matter. Abstractions are used to speak sybolically and to convey a meaning, whether it is something pastoral or just to encourage sensations of eroticism. Applying that, go and look at pictures of Simba in the movie. Does he look like a real lion? No. He as been abstracted and simplified quite a deal from what is realistic. He moves with a smooth quality to compliment the smoothness or his simplified lines and colors. He is free of many angualr or geometric forms. He is absent of detail, and finally is colored warmly and given a pseudo-human facial expression. All of this abstraction is used to turn a lion into something that is warm, good, and emotionally humanistic. It cuts out the 'animalness' of real lions and replaces it with something that is lion, yet decidedly human.

Now in the case of Furronika, I need not explain again of her attempt to draw very tone human figures. Suffice to say, with their bold and sharp angled abstraction, they are to convey an essence of athleticism, physical aggression, and stress. What happens when she creates her LK art is that she not only chops up the LK art and its expression, but she also eviscerates her own art and it's espression of primal physicallity. Is is an artistic decapitation of sorts. You could say she may be trying to make a starement of sorts, but I doubt it. This is porn after all. She is probably just appealing to her need to input physical sexuality into something that only provides a 'soft kitty' kind of physicallity. In my taste, I do this by drawing the chars doing intense sexual acts not by manipualting the style and eliminating its expression. My taste will have both the sex and the soul. Furronika has only just sex and a deep feeling if misplacement to further the tension in the work. No enjoyment there.

If you like it, then you probably share in her needs. I care not. I did not start this argument. But I certainly will not accept soemone insulting all traditional fans as a whole such as you did."
----------------------------

Okay, now I'll add my two cents.



The problem is not with Furronika art in general. Furronikas Art is fine when you look at the non-Lion King related pictures!

There is, however, a big problem with Furronikas Lion King art.

Lion King is feral. Non-anthro. Beasts. Four leggers. Not exclusively so, but first and foremost. There are countless of anthro-images of the Lion King characters, from many different artists, but those made by Furronika stand out for several reasons.

Most people do simply do prefer non-anthro tlk art.  That's one thing. If it is supposed to be The Lion King, there is a gap between anthro and non-anthro.

Some grotesque but valid analogies I've seen in this discussion include heads-on-a-stick. How would you like it if I took your favourite animated character only to give them completely alien body parts; put another head on that, or add two more legs, or just copy and paste the head on somebody elses body? It simply looks and feels out of place. If I do it all the time, you might just get slightly annoyed.

Nala is one sexy thing! She might still be beautiful and sexy with a human body that - when people look at it - they can find that it's somewhat befitting of her. Furronikas typical bodies do not resemble or make a fitting extension to these heads, quite obviously. Someone once tried to argue that the muscles do make sense given the environment and harsh conditions, but it would only make sense if the heads themselves would be changed to fit those types of bodies. However, Furronika never changed them, too.

I have seen anthro Nalas that look sexy, however Furronika seems to crave for muscles and over the top proportions. To a point where it`s outright silly if applied to The Lion King style, and not sexy in any way, except if you are one of the few Lion King fans who also enjoy this particular same fetish.

Let's face it, this is a niche in a niche, and people aren't bitching about that kind of art, it's simply putting them off.

Furronikas artwork often simply strays from really being anything remotely Lion King related in the sense that it feels like we take random bodies and glue TLK heads on them without adapting to / or respecting that one half looks realistic and one half looks more toonlike, and that they just plain don't fit together. It is a decapitation of art, and in the end, get two half pictures, both equally useless. The body is useless without the head, and just looking at Scars head doesn't exactly give anyone any kind of satisfaction what-so-ever.

You could post a photograph of yourself with a Scar-head on your shoulders. Or draw a tentacle monster with the head of Shenzi. It is understandable that Lion King fans cannot bear to watch.

6Report
TLKFan at 15 Aug 2008: 06:23

Okay, now I'll add my two cents.

The problem is not with Furronika art in general. Furronikas Art is fine when you look at the non-Lion King related pictures!

There is, however, a big problem with Furronikas Lion King art.

Lion King is feral. Non-anthro. Beasts. Four leggers. Not exclusively so, but first and foremost. There are countless of anthro-images of the Lion King characters, from many different artists, but those made by Furronika stand out for several reasons.

Most people do simply do prefer non-anthro tlk art.  That's one thing. If it is supposed to be The Lion King, there is a gap between anthro and non-anthro.

Some grotesque but valid analogies I've seen in this discussion include heads-on-a-stick. How would you like it if I took your favourite animated character only to give them completely alien body parts; put another head on that, or add two more legs, or just copy and paste the head on somebody elses body? It simply looks and feels out of place. If I do it all the time, you might just get slightly annoyed.

Nala is one sexy thing! She might still be beautiful and sexy with a human body that - when people look at it - they can find that it's somewhat befitting of her. Furronikas typical bodies do not resemble or make a fitting extension to these heads, quite obviously. Someone once tried to argue that the muscles do make sense given the environment and harsh conditions, but it would only make sense if the heads themselves would be changed to fit those types of bodies. However, Furronika never changed them, too.

I have seen anthro Nalas that look sexy, however Furronika seems to crave for muscles and over the top proportions. To a point where it`s outright silly if applied to The Lion King style, and not sexy in any way, except if you are one of the few Lion King fans who also enjoy this particular same fetish.

Let's face it, this is a niche in a niche, and people aren't bitching about that kind of art, it's simply putting them off.

Furronikas artwork often simply strays from really being anything remotely Lion King related in the sense that it feels like we take random bodies and glue TLK heads on them without adapting to / or respecting that one half looks realistic and one half looks more toonlike, and that they just plain don't fit together. It is a decapitation of art, and in the end, get two half pictures, both equally useless. The body is useless without the head, and just looking at Scars head doesn't exactly give anyone any kind of satisfaction what-so-ever.

You could post a photograph of yourself with a Scar-head on your shoulders. Or draw a tentacle monster with the head of Shenzi. It is understandable that Lion King fans cannot bear to watch.

7Report
TLKFan at 15 Aug 2008: 06:52

Sorry for the double post, I mistakenly thought the other half went poof.

8Report
Sen at 15 Aug 2008: 08:10

>>6
"Most people simply prefer non-anthro TLK art."

...really? I'd like to see some numbers before you start giving statistics. Don't just throw them in just because -you- prefer it and thus want to bolster your argument.

Look, I myself understand what you're saying and where you're coming from. But you're stating everything above as fact, when it's actually your opinion. (admittedly a lesson I've had to learn myself when arguing online.)

Just do me a favor. Say "I don't like it" instead of "the art is shitty."

9Report
TLKFan at 15 Aug 2008: 10:20

Watch the movie. Count the two legged lions. Think. There you have your numbers.

Check out http://fanart.lionking.org a nd let your eyes wander. Count the anthro art versus the non-anthro art if you must.

There are your numbers. It is not about -me-. None of this is. The vast majority of Lion King fans wants non-anthro, period.

I don't know where you've been reading when you quote people who wrote something off as shitty, but the last time I checked (and that was today), no-one said some art was shitty.

People have made calm arguments about Furronikas art style in conjuction with Lion King stuff, and I've been watching for the most part. But I tend to agree that a whole lot of it makes sense.

10Report
TLKFan at 15 Aug 2008: 10:22

Except my spelling and grammar, that doesn't make sense today. Sorry.

11Report
TLKFan at 15 Aug 2008: 10:51

Just to be sure this is not misunderstood again, I'm really just trying to explain a personal opinion. It's my "I don't like it" ;). Sorry if that was a bit unclear earlier on.

12Report
at 15 Aug 2008: 13:12

I like just about all of Furronika's stuff, and I really liked the monster killers comic. Perfect mix of sexy and humorous, IMHO.

13Report
at 15 Aug 2008: 19:17

She's a really good artist, but i don't think she could draw an attractive body or face if you put a gun to her head.  If it is in fact a girl, i have no idea.  Probably the best anatomy in furry, but just ugly as sin

14Report
at 15 Aug 2008: 19:39

>>13
I disagree. A really good artist knows when and when not to go overboard on details. Part of what makes her art so hideous is the overdetailing of unimportant areas. The hands in all her art are HIDEOUS because she details them signafigantly more than anything else in the picture including the overly detailed muscle tone.

I repeat, a good artist knows how to balance detail with aesthetic composition.

15Report
at 15 Aug 2008: 20:15

>>13

Sexy is in the eyes of the beholder.

16Report
at 15 Aug 2008: 23:48

Furronika is a man

17Report
Sen at 16 Aug 2008: 08:45

>>9
The problem with your "count the two-legged lions in the movie" argument is that Furronika draws -erotic- images primarily. So in order for the argument to be applied correctly, we'd have to ask the demographic of Lion King fans who find the Lion King characters as sexually arousing figures, and that's where it breaks down. They weren't meant to be that way in the movie, and the site you referred me to requires the artwork to be a PG-rating or below, according to their guidelines.

It's too nebulous. We have no idea how many people prefer anthro to non-anthro erotic TLK images, and thus the statistic is invalid.

Also the "art is shitty" argument I was making was more of a statement in general about all art, although I have seen it before on this particular subject.

18Report
at 16 Aug 2008: 19:20

Will you drop this - excuse me - dumb *and* off-topic argument about "not knowing" how many Lion King fans want their yiffy TLK art primarily on all fours or not? Geeze, just open your eyes, will ya?? I count 4 legs on most of the stuff! You don't? Your your eyes checked.

If somebody wants numbers, proof, fingerprints and sattelite imagery, go ahead and do the maths *on your own*, there is no need to prove this point when everybody can see it themselfes, much of it is exactly *two clicks away* for crying out loud.

19Report
Sen at 16 Aug 2008: 22:43

>>18
It's not off topic at all. I'm picking apart a piece of an argument and showing why it isn't really valid to use.

And the reason I haven't exactly dropped it is because I've seen a great deal of erotic TLK imagery that -is- anthro. In fact, I do believe I've seen -more- than non-anthro, but to be fair I haven't really been looking for TLK-specific images, they just show up when browsing for erotic images in general.

20Report
TLKFan at 17 Aug 2008: 08:36

Hello. Well we are in a way off topic in that we aren't talking about Furronika him/herself anymore. Now is is F a male or a female? Or both? Really, someone claims he's male, another claims she's female. What is the truth now?

About the anthro, sorry, but you aren't picking anything arguments apart simply by doubting them. As you have just said yourself, you just don't know. I however, do know. I've been collecting Lion King "yiff" images since 1994 now. There are some anthro images and even a few anthro artists, but their are the minority, by far. So, I hope you will accept the opinion of someone who's been there and done that.

21Report
- at 26 Aug 2008: 07:33

Funny, I've not really heard much of that criticism, "it's just humans with animal heads". Most of the furronika thread comments are positive, there's one dumbass who keeps coming on and making the same complaint about none of the comics being finished, repeating it over and over like a goddamn down syndrome victim, but mostly people either like it or go look at something else. No drama. If people hated the stuff so much they wouldn't post it.

22Report
TLKFan at 30 Aug 2008: 19:08

The heads-versus-bodies stuff is a side-issue at best, and probably only in the Lion King stuff. The thread itself is about everything Furronika, and he or she has done a whole lot more. I basically like almost all the art that isn't TLK related, from him or her.

23Report (sage)
Melikehaegs at 11 Oct 2008: 15:51

You are shitty. You are all. Selfish twats. Should atleast make an NON-ANTHRO section.

24Report
Meh at 21 Oct 2008: 20:28

He's gone under right?
Anybody know of any good archives anywhere?

25Report
at 21 Oct 2008: 21:06

test

27Report(capped) (sage)
Hellfire at 24 Oct 2008: 09:31

>>23 Yes, yes we are. :)

28Report
at 25 Oct 2008: 11:16

>>23
A non-anthro section...in a furry board? There's a bunch of sites for that! Who's acting selfish here?

29Report
at 25 Oct 2008: 11:45

I vote clearly and simply for a non anthro section - it would not be hard to do - it would at least in theory condence all of such into one nice easy to patroll section (practice may not work so well) the people who dont like it can simply ignore, the ones who do know exactly where to go.
it has long been relativly sucsusfully argued that non anthro plus anthro is inherantly furry / a part of furry.
that way fu4ranica and many others art could in theory have a less bitch creating segment to reside in.
unless it trully is the ops simply saying it will be this way because we say it is.

30Report
klokwrkblu at 29 Oct 2008: 05:11

>>29

you mean a non furry section?

that would be cool


but i think someone already suggested that, but one of the mods said No and then threadstoped it

or was it a random section?

probably was

but then again the mods don't tolerate troll drama so whats the harm in having one?

31Report
at 9 Nov 2008: 16:22

link to comic please

32Report
at 25 Nov 2008: 21:48

I like her/his art. Something about his/her horses I just love. But yeah, her/his Lion king stuff is hideous. Like your mom.

33Report
some faggot at 28 Nov 2008: 03:36

A non-anthro section would be kinda neat, and not inappropriate, but I doubt it would draw enough activity to be justifiable.

Moving on, the furronika-hate thing is silly. They're furry. Perhaps borderline, but they're inarguably (very) anthropomorphic animals. Yeah, they're relatively humanoid, but furry art tends to cover the full spectrum, and various styles appeal to all sorts of people. Although my personal preference is for relatively animalistic (even fully nonanthro) forms, I and all those who share my preferences should recognize that furronika's take on things is perfectly valid and not at all out of place; if you don't like it, don't view it.

34Report
klokwrkblu at 28 Nov 2008: 04:39

>>33

Ahhh :D

But drawing furry is sill a pretty narrow spectrum for what people can come up with.

In my opinion, it would be ideal for those who are enthusiastic to the fandom but would also prefer to prove to others that drawing furries is not the only thing there good at. It would leave the door open for other works.

If not its own image board, At least have it be tolerable in any of the other designated boards as long as they where in there own separate threads.

I would use it, since most of the stuff i work on in my spare time in non anthro.

but alas, its probably a pipedream.

35Report
okami at 30 Nov 2008: 13:33

What I love that art.. there's noting I don't like about it

36Report
at 30 Nov 2008: 22:52

>>35

i dont know what do you mean

37Report
at 5 Dec 2008: 01:52

Furronika is a shitty artist anyway. The breasts are almost always too big.

38Report
at 6 Dec 2008: 00:18

>>37
I'm glad most porn artists don't exaggerate the size of breasts.

39Report (sage)
Deatzh at 6 Dec 2008: 11:32

>>37
Exaggerating the size isn't a big deal.
The fact that he doesn't know how to draw them, that's a little more important.  Sometimes they look like random, misshapen sacks of oranges, and most of the time they come off from the chest in a very bizarre way. Or they do weird antigravity or antisquish things.

Sometimes they're pretty awesomely done, however.


Honestly, breasts just aren't the easiest thing to draw correctly or exaggerate right.  You'll likely end up with 'misshapen sacks of oranges,' or balloons.  Also, God forbid the nipple NOT be shooting spaceships.

40Report
RK at 16 Jan 2009: 06:00

i think you people just bitch because of the sake of it(The ones who are whining). Who fucking cares if it suppose to be anthro or non, furry or non furry. If you fucking dont like it then dont bother. The ones who have a problem, just drop it and look at something else or nothing at all. You guys make furry a disgrace and a slap in the face. You want porn? get it. You want traditional then go find it. You dont like it, click back and go to another page. Just because an artist(anyone) has nothing or little to please doesnt make them a bad artist.

How would you feel if you are an artist drawing what you like  and sharing to the public and get bashed for something this small and pointless? Your gonna be pretty angry, depressed and ruin it for others but im sure you could give a fuck right?

All Furronika is doing is drawing sexy stuff and enjoying it. This is why good artists leave and stop drawing because of you cry babies. Maybe everyone should just stop drawing and kill furry? Lets see you complain now? That would be a real excuse to complain.

If the normal straight world (people not furs) were to see your porn stash of gay furry sex (even hetero), they would look at you like your some kind of nut case pervert and keep you away from their kids (you baby furs). And you would be the one complaining about how boobs are too big or lion king suppose to be feral?

WHO FUCKING CARES!?!?!!! WHO SON OF A BITCH FUCKING CARES!! WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

Hypocrites...

Those who enjoy art even if its porn, don't have a problem with anything at all, nothing bothers you, then I'm sure your a great fur and I'm sure furs would see you as a good friend.

Im tired of seeing this crap it needs to stop.

386Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage