/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3254196]

Pls dont ban me for this i just have some questions. if 4chan doesn't allow furries . Can i post anthro stuff like character design,monster, fantasy creatures here? Where is the line. what can i post? What counts as furry. What if the topic is to draw fantasy creatures .is it limited to human only (like elves)or are beasts okay (werewolfes)

[Anonymous No.3254198]

This is a major factor that limits creativity thats why im asking this on ic

[Anonymous No.3254200]

>>3254198
Also i have sonething i want to post here but im not sure if i can.

[Anonymous No.3254403]

>>3254196
I made a thread already asking the same, check the catalogue for "Furry" or "furries" or "anthro" idk. Basically related pic sums up what's ok and not. And speaking of it limiting creativity, they should just remove the "no anthro" rule all together or update it as antro ART is still art. Just fuck off with bad fetish sexualized furry art and then it all should be good.

[Anonymous No.3254625]

Posting gay chubby furries

[Anonymous No.3254626]

[Anonymous No.3254627]

[Anonymous No.3254628]

[Anonymous No.3254629]

[Anonymous No.3254631]

[Anonymous No.3254634]

lucky for you no wieners today

[Anonymous No.3254636]

but you do get bulges

[Anonymous No.3254637]

1 bulge = 1 prayer

[Anonymous No.3254640]

fun fact: all these images are pulled from 4chan itself

[Anonymous No.3254641]

so much to do so much to see

[Anonymous No.3254644]

>mfw seeing how idiotic people can be on this board

[Anonymous No.3254646]

[Anonymous No.3254648]

i mightve forgotten to sage a while back

[Anonymous No.3254650]

my personal favorite

[Anonymous No.3254653]

>tfw no bf

[Anonymous No.3254654]

Disclaimer
im op of this thread and i did not request gay furry art.
.pls don't ban me oh mod

[Anonymous No.3254656]

>tfw no chubby furry bf who needs a backscratchin

[Anonymous No.3254658]

who doesnt like a good tickle?

[Anonymous No.3254662]

its not gay if the tums dont touch

and thats all i got for now. hope you enjoy your stay over here at /ic/!

[Anonymous No.3254691]

>>3254196

You can only post here if you're a highly paid professional in traditional art. Doesn't matter if it's oils, pencil or charcoal. As long as you paint decent pictures with humans you're good.

Pic related. It's just a simple self portrait I did this morning with some cat feces and my gay boyfriends blood... I'm also gay so we're fine.

[Anonymous No.3255035]

>>3254196
anthro art is fine so long as it isn't badly done or fetish or sexual related and doesn't look like disney

[Anonymous No.3255040]

>>3255035
Wrong, we only allow fat gay furries here.

[Anonymous No.3255456]

>>3255035
What of i want specialise in calarts? Can i post that?

[Anonymous No.3255459]

>>3255456
Okay dude, mods aren't gonna care about what you post as long as it's not obscene. All I got was a warning from posting all those chubby furries because I was trolling, but if I were to submit a drawing of mine of the same subject matter, then there's really no rule being broken. I mean, even if you get banned why would you care so much?

[Anonymous No.3255493]

I already posted badly kemono art here and got decent critique for it.
Post whatever, spergs will be sperging

[Anonymous No.3255511]

anthro rule is in a desperate need for an overhaul
if its ok to post a drawing of a loliesque girl being penetrated in the anus by 20 tentacles, there is no sane reason why furry art can't be posted for critique

[Anonymous No.3256163]

>>3254403
>putting an x on the tiger girl
>putting an x on the caravan palace doberman
>putting an x on the lion+bull sketches in row 1
>putting an x on the nazi lizard in row 3

>not putting an x on that gay ass possum/hyena couple
>not putting an x on cuphead meme
>not putting an x on zootopia trash
Objectionable list, honestly.

[Anonymous No.3256199]

>>3254403
>fox in suit good
>dog in suit bad
T-thanks for the help

[Anonymous No.3256514]

>>3255459
>>3255493
This sums it up, I myself wasn't too sure about how safe it would be to post my anthro art, but it seems to not be as dangerous as expected. I once made a thread with related pic and people sperged at me over it, stopped posting anthro art for months, but now it somehow seems to have calmed down on this board.

>>3255456
Yes.

>>3255511
Exacty same thoughts. Besides, the "no anthro" rule was made way back when furry art was very different, unbearable, uncreative, and when furries used the smuge and dodge tools to shade. But times change, honestly.

>>3256163
As an fyi, I didn't make the pic, it was made by an /ic/ user responding to someone asking "what forms of anthro art is ok".
I didn't agree with the tiger as she doesn't seem over sexualized, it looks natural. You see normal people irl wear sports bras like that all the time. The doberman looks too dinsey-styled but I could just be biased on this. The lion+bull sketches honesty look cringey and sexual.

The "gay couple" aren't a couple, they aren't badly made furry OCS where they just put an animal head on a human body. Their bodies are similar to the animal species it's based off of. also, zootopia wasn't made by furries and aren't poorly anthropomorphized. Their bodies look mixed with both human and animal traits.

[Anonymous No.3256904]

There's like a few core styles of furry art that have this extremely cunty-looking vibe. Like when the characters are just humans with disney-like animal heads inharmoniously stuck on top, or complete rip-offs of tiny toons etc with those cheek line things

Basically, you get the feeling the artist is trying to live in a certain fantasy and make things look "just like x cartoon" instead of creating/designing artistically. The end result is a wasteland of samey-looking glassy-eyed hollow "avatars" for the creators to inhabit. Note how all fursuits look extremely alike.
The characters are designed to look like a style that already exists first (even "generic furry style") and the artist attempts to make them "unique" only after that. Thus the typical garbage-tier furry character is covered with random markings and colors and has like different forms and "optional wings" to make it "unique" while still conforming to a derivative ideal. They're also often porny to the point that it makes normies uncomfortable.

Anthro characters aren't automatically bad, though. Animals and anthropomorphized animals have been appealing to humans for literally all of history. They also have huge design potential. Animal features quickly and easily add visual interest/personality all over the character, so it's a legitimate design choice.
What sets acceptable anthro characters from the original disney films and so on apart from the poorly-done knockoff "furshit" is that the characters weren't designed as avatars for the creator, they were designed as CHARACTERS and have their own individual personalities and designs which reflect that.

So, basically just avoid these:
-Designs that are "avatars" and not characters that could stand on their own
-Completely ripping off Disney/tiny toons/other established styles
-Anything too obnoxious/autistic/offputting. If you could show it to your mom/a normie and the response would be "very nice, anon," its probably fine.