I heard through some of my friends that the administrators of a major Furry art site are banning further Poser-based images, unless the uploader creates significant portions of the artwork from scratch (i.e. custom morphs, own textures, etc.).

If Furries, of all internet subcultures that are demonized and reviled, are kicking Poser artists out of their midst, what does that really say about us?

Look at it from the pencil artist's point of view, if you can.

Oh, I do.  I think there's two things at play:

1. Seeing the same 3, 4 pre-packaged character sets, unmodified, posted over and over again with bad lighting, awkward poses and vacant stares.  The same thing seen so much here.

2) Jealousy - not of the artwork but of the attention received.  Why should something seen as cheating or a shortcut receive the attention it does?

Would I ever say that what I do here is as impressive, as difficult, or as admirable as real artists that create works from scratch - 2D, 3D, digital or otherwise?  Hell no.  But I wouldn't declare everything done within the application of Poser as unworthy of being called art and ban it from a gallery (who's theme is not strictly focused on showcasing artist skill).  But that's not the focus of their gallery - it's furry art.

Quote - I heard through some of my friends that the administrators of a major Furry art site are banning further Poser-based images, unless the uploader creates significant portions of the artwork from scratch (i.e. custom morphs, own textures, etc.).

If Furries, of all internet subcultures that are demonized and reviled, are kicking Poser artists out of their midst, what does that really say about us?

LOL
That's pretty bad.  When one of the most reviled subcultures of internetdom say's "You're not welcome."... I just don't have the words to describe how humorous that is.

Here's my take being a relative unknown on the board.

In my opinion,

"Art" is a purposeful effort to create something that attempts to communicate a message that is greater than just the sum of its parts.  That's my definition for it.

That applies to every artistic endeavor.  Music, painting, photography, sculpture, writing.. whatever.  If it is purposefully created to communicate something that is greater than just whatever it is made of, it is "Art."

That also means that pictures that are designed to titilate someone's eccentric sexual tastes are not, necessarily, Art.  Yet, some can be "Art" depending upon the purpose of the creator and the message being conveyed.  Some of the famous Marilyn Monroe Playboy pics could be considered "Art" for instance.  They're not all simply designed to titilate the senses.  In some, there is something extra there greater than the sum of its parts.  The key there is whether or not that was the photographer's intent.  If it was, it is "Art."  If it wasn't, then it is simply a person's individual opinion.  We certainly can't go around having words defined willy-nilly based on everyone's individual opinions, can we?  (Except mine, which is exempt from this since I'm the one typing and setting the conditions. :) )

To me, that is the principle problem and disconnect here.  In the subject of the "Furries" I have no idea what the heck they like to see pictures of.  I don't want to know either.  But, I think it is safe to assume that they are not desiring to see artistic renderings that have an intent to communicate anything other than what they represent.  In their case, it's pornography.  Pornography doesn't attempt to confer anything more than a titilating depiction.  There's no message there trying to be communicated besides "Hey, check out the body on this girl!"  In their case, it probable has something to do with erotically posed teddy bears or something.

So, being disqualified by the Furry Community isn't such a big deal.  It doesn't speak to the artistic merits of the creators at all.  But, it may speak of the quality.

In order to see an example of what is "Art" and what is "Not Art" all one has to do is look at some renderings here on Renderosity.  One can look for a render that is intended only to show off the details of a figure, texture or model.  That is illustrative representation.  It isn't Art.  But, take that same model, texture or figure and use it in such a way that you are trying to convey something more than just an illustrative depiction and, walla!, you have "Art."

To be frank, most Poser "art" is just bad.  By that, I mean that the flaws in it so detract from the message trying to be conveyed, if any, that it completely loses the ability to communicate anything other than just the sum of its parts.  So, a badly rendered/composed picture that was attempting to convey a sense of emotion, spirit, strength, whatever is so badly done that the only thing which can be interpreted is how bad it is and the simple parts it's made of.  That is "bad art."

"Good Art" successfully conveys the intent of the creator.  "Bad Art" does not.  In the case of much Poser Art, it's not the basic composition that is "Bad" it's the execution and the results.  (Sometimes, it's the composition as well.  But, that also takes experience to master so I can't be too harshly critical of it in its entirety.)

So, even though the Furry Community isn't a bunch of good Art critics, they may simply have a point that whoever is submitting "art" to them isn't doing a good enough job and they have decided to get rid of them.  Maybe they're overflooded with Poser Furry Fans and are sick of the same old models?  Who knows?  Maybe whoever is submitting such stuff simply doesn't have any skill?

By furries, do we mean an otherwise human characters with cat/dog/bunny ears like are seen in some animes or something more animalistic?  And do twilek girls count as furries because they have tenticles on their heads?

No, Winterclaw, what you describe is known as Kemonomimi.  For "furry" think more fully anthropomorphic animals like Bugs Bunny, or Sonic the Hedgehog.  It doesn't have to be mammals either.  It could be reptiles, fish, whales - anything that's an animal.

Personally, I don't think Twi'leks count because they're not animal-like.  Now, Togorians, or Trandoshans, maybe even Wookiees would count.

mm...it's a subculture who...well,...let's say they take anthropomorphication to it's illogical conclusion...;)

I think it grew out of a Monty Python sketch of people who liked to dress up as mice at  'illicit cheese parties'...;)

not me cup 'o tea...;)

I don't think not meeting their expectations is going to ruin my day...;)

Nice post Morkonan :)

Your talking about story telling and speech. But I submit that there is also 'eye candy' art.

A pinup or portrait or space scene ect... can be 'eye candy' thats just nice to look at without telling a story or makeing a statement.

The message isn't as important as the emotional response it evokes. :)

Ken

Thanks Giolon.  I thought there was a difference, but I've heard kemonomimi characters be referred to as furries on occasion.

Thier were couple sites i asked couple years ago if i render in poser furry and use art pogram or 1 off net to convert to near a drawing ect that would be ok they said yes.
As long as you can make the render look toony but can achieve with pwketch and toon pluging for daz studio.

my approach would be to learn how to draw and do something original based on
poser renders as reference imgs, if one is desperate to be involved with said site.
it's well-known that pen/pencil artists have scorned poser users for the last decade.
the reason is that poser democratised the creation of images containing people
and animals, which became an immediate threat to those who had slogged thru
art school and fought tooth-and-nail to get comic book jobs.

I know that those things were held in low regard by the general porno community
when I was still doing porno, but I dunno if the fbi or interpol monitors those things. 
probly not.

Quote - I know that those things were held in low regard by the general porno community ....

Which things?  People and animals, art schools, or comic book jobs?

Hey Little_Dragon :-D
LTNS

Quote - LTNS

You're not hanging out in enough places, then.

• waves hello *

looks like a new avatar, LD...;) Thanks for your recent offerings...

Quote - Nice post Morkonan :)

Your talking about story telling and speech. But I submit that there is also 'eye candy' art.

A pinup or portrait or space scene ect... can be 'eye candy' thats just nice to look at without telling a story or makeing a statement.

The message isn't as important as the emotional response it evokes. :) Ken

(Emphasis mine)

AHA!  Gotcha!

".. The message isn't as important as the emotional response it evokes."

Isn't that a message?  If you are intending to provoke an emotional response, how is that somehow contained in the sum of the parts used to create the work?  You didn't hit a magic button and add a splash of "awe" along with "majesty" and "wonder" to the piece, did you?  Yet, your composition may have intended to illicit these feelings.  THAT is communication.  THAT is Art.  You have broken the barrier between a simple depiction and produced Art.  Of course, if that wasn't your intent, then it's Not Art.  Intent is completely necessary otherwise the definition is entirely left up to the individual and, well, that would seriously upset Webster's.

:)

However, if you are an engineer and charged with helping a studio artist render a scientifically and factually accurate portrayal of a plane crash, shuttle explosion or some natural disaster for the purposes of communicating the facts to an Investigative body.  That is NOT art.  You are not creating anything with the intention of communicating something more than the sum of its parts.  In fact, doing so would be antithetical to your purposes!

Last semester i was in a drawing class and for the final  assignment  we had a choice between doing an extremely detailed drawing of a leaf or a piece using digital in some manner.

This is the render i did for that class...

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1793811

I was kind of pissed because the original render I was working on crashed and I lost a lot of work while working on it so I threw this one together in 2 hours before class that day lol  I named it Fuck Technology.

As you can imagine one of the first things that came into play during the critique of my piece was how did i make it  and when i explained poser the fur flew lol they were talking about how it was not my work and I didn't have any rights to the image and crap like that and I asked why they were being like that( I already knew)  they brought up the chealing card along with the  its too easy arguement.

My professor  just calmly asked what the difference was between my  render and the piece done by another student which was a collage. The arguements died down awful fast at that point because they realized there was really no difference.

As for furries? bah no big loss.

again people defining art.  get 2 people in a room and get 3 definitions.
so here's another one.
come on guys, anything that is skilled or unskilled in its application should be considered art.  even crayon taken to paper by a 2 year old says something of the creator of the image and the person looking at it.  always will it be taken in 10,000 different ways.  a recreation of an auto accident in 3d is still art.  painting the wall of a building just a single color is an art.  art is all around us, from the clothes people are wearing day to day to the food they consume from even fast food chains. 
and who knows what emotion your art will provoke?  it will be different.  i hear the snorts of contempt from those in the community who see me saying fast food is art.  i also hear (though fewer i am sure) the agreement from those who know how fast food is designed by committees, entrepreneurs, and commercial artists, and how the making of the food, in seeking an ideal look and taste, and is in fact even in the tradition of the more respected food arts, is pursuit and creation of art.
art is expression of a person, and perception of a person.  it can even be expression in the choice of "plain and simple and uncomplicated" as well as "sophisticated, complex, and multifaceted." 
even the writing we are doing here is art.
when people poo poo some kind of art, i suspect a sense of prejudice on their part, whether from education or lack thereof, or political or religious or social leanings. 
you should check out yoko ono or stuff like that some times.  i feel she makes everything seem like art.

ps.  it's like kung fu.  kung fu actually means work over time.  a pursuit of an idea.  the pursuit itself is art, as much as the successful attainment of the art, and the individuals take on it.

And it doesn't help the cause any when Poser artists continually think that because they use Poser that they aren't "real artists"....and continually put themselves down and inadvertently the rest of us also in front of traditional artists.

If you use Poser and your art is good, be proud of that.  The only difference is the medium, not the talent, not the know how.  The same rules of good art apply no matter what medium you use..lighting composition, the divine three ruling, all of it.  Bad art is bad art, period......

I've fought long and hard to get my artwork into galleries, onto bookcovers and into conventions.  I sell my art on a regular basis, right next to traditional artists.  I will argue with anyone that happens to be ignorant enough to think that digtial art, whether it's from Photoshop or Poser or any other 3d program is not real art. 

It's the Furry site loss as far as I'm concerned.  But then I'm sure there is plenty of bad traditional art there also, they just don't see it that way.

Ah, don'cha just love prejudice and it's many forms?