Does my work count as "furry"?

[RadicalLaRuby]

Hello, I've been asking this in a few places lately. I've gotten either mostly "nos" or "it's what you make of it" and only like 1 or 2 "yes". I'm curious to ask other communities, thought it's be appropriate to ask part of the fanbase of the series that inspired me to draw.  

 I've been drawing for almost my whole life. Started with Sonic and used to pause the game to draw what I see as well as magazines I collected. About a decade ago I decided to make my own characters for a comic series using animals, because I find them more fun and colorful to draw. I won't lie, it's a bit easier because they are cartoony and anatomy is more lenient but I can try to improve to make them more practical for certain movements. I do occasionally make humans, aliens, and Gods as part of backstory or just to test myself along with fanart.

 

 

 

Now, after several years of getting my animal characters to not look as skinny with slightly more correct anatomy compared to Sonic characters, I got to thinking: Is this even furry at all? The reason I ask is because I'm not quite a fan of anthro creatures with tufts of hair sticking any which way all over their body, it looks kinda unattractive, especially if you're drawing cute girls, nothing against those who do. But at the same time I do keep in mind their animal attributes and try to make somewhat a perfect cross between both "human and animal" sides.

 

 

 

Funny thing is, I never really acknowledged Sonic characters as furry either, their hide honestly looks like a glossy part of their skin but it's generally referred to as such by like...everybody. Now correct me if I'm wrong, am I just going too much by the literal definition of "furry" as in "hairy looking"? Or do my characters still count as such just because they are anthropomorphic animals?

 

 

 

 

I am for the most part extremely happy with the style I aimed to finally create since highschool. A bit of inspiration from Archie comics here, a little Megaman there and various others. But one more question, any constructive feedback/anything wrong with my work aside the occasional lopsided or uneven eyes and crooked hands (which even some of my fanart suffers from too)?

 

 

 

Thank you in advance and here's some of my more recent work to get an idea of the artstyle:

 

 

 

P.S. No I have not forgotten about the Sonic Advance 3 comic, for those who remember from a few months ago.

[Nepenthe]

Furry art is technically any art that features animals with human qualities. Personal art style, amount of humanization, and even species doesn't matter to the definition (scaled, feathered, and shelled creatures count as Furry characters; the label isn't literal). Sonic art qualifies as Furry art, as would the original pieces you've shown.

However, because Furrydom is primarily about self-expression and opting into the fanbase, you can produce humanized animal art that isn't necessarily Furry in that you don't intend for it to be as such or are not trying to purposefully cater to the audience. I don't consider sports or cereal mascots truly "Furry," simply because they're not intended for Furry consumption.

So to me, there's actually two working definitions of Furry: the technical one and the identity one, wherein a work can be both Furry and not Furry at the same time.

[shdowhunt60]

It should be said too that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it being "furry" either. The stigma that anthropomorphic animals have, and the furry fandom itself, is complete bullshit. 

[RadicalLaRuby]

14 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

Furry art is technically any art that features animals with human qualities. Personal art style, amount of humanization, and even species doesn't matter to the definition (scaled, feathered, and shelled creatures count as Furry characters; the label isn't literal). Sonic art qualifies as Furry art, as would the original pieces you've shown.

However, because Furrydom is primarily about self-expression and opting into the fanbase, you can produce humanized animal art that isn't necessarily Furry in that you don't intend for it to be as such or are not trying to purposefully cater to the audience. I don't consider sports or cereal mascots truly "Furry," simply because they're not intended for Furry consumption.

So to me, there's actually two working definitions of Furry: the technical one and the identity one, wherein a work can be both Furry and not Furry at the same time.

Interesting answer, it's similar to the ones I've seen the most as far as who or what the art is intended to be for. So apparently it does go beyond the literal meaning of the word.

 

13 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

It should be said too that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it being "furry" either. The stigma that anthropomorphic animals have, and the furry fandom itself, is complete bullshit. 

Oh no, as I stated earlier, I have nothing against it, it's just not the style I was exactly going for (when I thought of the term furry).

 

I do want to note something interesting that I forgot to mention though, there are people who do NOT accept my work as "furry" or even "anthro", because they think the characters are literally just humans with ears and tails, now THAT I disagree with. It appears some people straight up can't tell at all or dismiss it because it probably breaks some sort of design tradition in their eyes.

 

But thanks, I appreciate the input guys. I certainly hope to see more comments because at this point the topic seems to fall in some sort of grey area.

[RadicalLaRuby]

Here are a few "human like designs I've made.

2009, 2010 and 2015 for the latter pic.