deviant art

Deviant Login
Buy ArtBuy T-Shirts & Gear Buy adCast Buy Premium Membership
Shop		  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
[x]
Browse More Like This
Shop Similar Prints
This Print Not AvailableDownload Image
JPG, 3000×4733 more ▶

More from ^Katmomma

Featured in Groups:

Not currently featured in any groups.

Details

June 16, 2009
3.2 MB
3000×4733
Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 121
Favourites: 35 [who?]


Views: 2,133 (1 today)
Downloads: 47 (0 today)
[x]
:iconkatmomma:
BE SURE TO CHECK OUT WHAT YOUR FELLOW COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE DISCUSSING BELOW :D

:star: EDIT: Animalistic Changed to "Naturalistic" Thanks =Avalik for the suggestion!


My proposal to help aid the debate about how Anthro should be categorized here on deviantART, and how to include the "Talking Animals".

Remember that I am not trying to ignore or leave out terms, but include them. The Talking animals are a SUBCATEGORY of anthro, as well as the "Bi-pedal " anthro design.

Well that's my philosophy. :B

Let me know if this is agreeable. And if not, please discuss :)
Add a Comment:
 
Preview   Add Comment
love 0 0 joy 1 1 wow 0 0 mad 0 0 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 0 0
:iconwolfyfaic95:
~WolfyFaic95 Oct 30, 2012
YES PLEASE. getting sick of looking for naturalistic anthros and ending up with humans with animal heads and tails. >.<
Reply
:icontetchist:
~Tetchist Jan 5, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
these terms are kind of misapplied here, because "humanism" is a philosophical and artistic movement based on the rejection of faith-based systems and an embracement of human-centered "free thought", and "naturalism" is an art movement based on a rejection of romanticism, which was a depiction of fanciful, idealized subjects and situations (naturalism sought to bring more 'realism' to their depictions).

you should've just said "animal-like" and "human-like". your initial terminology is needlessly confusing, as it is already tied to existing concepts which have very little to do with what you're using them for in this instance.
Reply
:iconkatmomma:
^Katmomma Jan 5, 2010  Professional Artist
None of the terms above are set in stone and I am well aware of the current existing unrelated terminology being used here. They are just ideas.

And perhaps simpler terms would be more practical to save from the confusion. So thank you for bringing that up :thumbsup: If this project ever goes through, we will have that in consideration for sure.
Reply
:icononeintheinfinite:
~ONEintheinfinite Aug 14, 2010
Does webster count?
Reply
:icontetchist:
~Tetchist Jan 5, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
:nod:
Reply
:iconweswolf27:
!Weswolf27 Aug 16, 2009   Writer
This would be a very good idea, I hope this could come to pass. :)
Reply
:iconstormyhotwolf88:
!StormyHotWolf88 Aug 4, 2009  Professional Filmographer
Got my support too. If Anthro wasn't so popular of a subject then it wouldn't be a big deal. However, because there are LARGE differences from "talking animals" to "furries" to "Wereanimals" and every creature in between, an umbrella term isn't the best. If this happens, I'll recategorize my entire gallery.
Reply
:iconnekoori:
~Nekoori Jun 29, 2009
I do like this idea, however, I have a question. Included in the "naturalistic" section would you be able to submit just feral animals? I've been hoping for a category like that for some time! :eager:
Reply
:iconkatmomma:
^Katmomma Jul 9, 2009  Professional Artist
Yes in Natural you would be able to submit Feral animals-- grantid they have human face expressions / emotions. They can't be realistic animals that are only animals. They have to have that sort of Disney feel-- have to be able to talk human in context at least.
Reply
:iconnekoori:
~Nekoori Jul 15, 2009
Oh well I do hope that category is created then! :eager:
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
Preview   Add Comment
©2013 deviantART. All rights reserved
About Us | Contact Us | Developers | Careers | Site Tour | Help & FAQ Advertise | Premium Membership Etiquette | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Copyright Policy