However, I've gone through the complaints forum and there have been a few complaints about furry art. It's not 'creative' enough. It's 'bad.' No, I usually don't leave a nasty comment on someone else's deviant page, because, hell, there's private notes. Alas, people who are ignorant enough to consider furry art an uncreative sort of art are probably not as open-minded as they tell the artists themselves to be.
Since when was furry art not creative? Then again, who defines what 'creative' is? Granted, I used to get tired of seeing people emulating Zombi and Roux's styles, and perhaps some artists get a mildly bad name for that. But to diss the ENTIRE fadom? Egyptian art reflects such 'furriness' through gods such as Anubis and Horus. Why should the genre of art I happen to like suddenly become looked down upon? How does it rank 'less creative' than other genres?
If they mean that most furry artists draw EXCLUSIVELY furries that all look the same, for the love of god, don't start putting down the ENTIRE fandom. I try to make my pieces pieces of quality or something of a mildly different flavor. Also, I try to toss in a background, human, or anatomy study here and there just to keep my artist's vocabulary to the point where I'm not drawing chibi-foxes for a biology project.--:







