Bay 12 Games Forum

Dwarf Fortress => DF Suggestions => Topic started by: AceSV on June 22, 2015, 09:34:15 pm

Title: Painting Industry
Post by: AceSV on June 22, 2015, 09:34:15 pm
Art History class has got me thinking.  Ancient Egyptians used paint, heck, cavemen used paint.  Dwarves could make paint.  Dwarves could totally paint things. 

The Egyptians used tempera (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera) paints, which if I've got it correct, are pigments mixed with egg yolk, though other biological materials like milk casein or honey can be used instead.  Oil Painting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_painting), pigments mixed with oils like linseed or poppyseed oil, started between the 5th and 9th centuries in Afghanistan, but didn't reach Europe until 1500, after the tech cut-off.  I'm assuming that the creation of paint is a simple matter of mixing pigment (i.e dimple dye) with binder (i.e. eggs) and that more complicated colors can be achieved by mixing more than one paint together.  The metal tubes for storing paint were not invented until the industrial age, so I think paint would have to be mixed on the spot.  You would not have paint stockpiles, but rather use the pigment and binder for the painting reaction.

So now that you've got your paints, what are you going to put them on?  Those dwarvey Egyptians painted a lot on stone, for example The Sphinx was once painted in brilliant colors and tomb walls were often painted in addition to engraved.  But that would be complicated.  It would be easier for painters to bring in finished goods or furniture to be painted after production, the same way jewel encrusters do.  Cloth (and maybe leather) finished goods should be excluded, since they should be dyed instead, although a Painters' workshop might replace the Dyer's Workshop.  (A Pigmentarium?)

But what about just making a painting?  Canvas was probably possible before 1400 as it was used in sails, but it was not popular in painting until after 1400.  Instead, wood panels were the medium of choice for most of the middle ages.  Cue up some panels at your Carpenter, or maybe just use Wood Blocks as they are and then order those dwarves to paint.  Out east, paper was also used to make scroll paintings, but we'd have to invent paper first (1 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=148613.0))(2 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=150327.msg6189983#msg6189983)). 

I'm not sure if you can paint ceramics using tempera paints, since glazes seem to be the way of things, except that Greek pottery had art that looks like paintings.  If you can, you could make decorative vases or ceramic panels as well. 

Back in medieval days, art was often commissioned, so perhaps there could be some mechanic where you could order your dwarves to paint a particular deity or historical figure or a portrait of a fortress subject, or a specific subject like animals, national symbols or geometric shapes.  Filling your halls with propaganda posters or abstract art deco or a series of portraits of dead nobles with moving eyes could be amusing. 

Another fun little trick could be the ability to paint blocks, so you could build a big blue gate decorated with wild animals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ishtar_Gate_at_Berlin_Museum.jpg) (the real one is actually not pained). 
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: StagnantSoul on June 22, 2015, 09:37:53 pm
I like this idea. +1 support.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: NW_Kohaku on June 22, 2015, 11:27:13 pm
Painting as a suggestion has been around many times before, and there are many mods that accomplish similar effects.

The problem more lies in the fact that it has no real practical use as of yet. 
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: StagnantSoul on June 22, 2015, 11:39:24 pm
Neither does any of the crafting industries.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: BoredVirulence on June 23, 2015, 09:00:42 am
I just want to say, there is no reason why we can't store paint in barrels or pots. If its egg based, it might spoil, thats a possibility. Other than that though I see no limitation in storage.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Shazbot on June 23, 2015, 10:38:21 am
Oil and dye or just linseed oil furniture polish painted on all my wooden furniture would tremendously improve dwarven bedroom quality. Painted furniture assuming various colors would make for rather festive housing complexes. Cheery hide-root red doors and linseed oil polished beds with maybe a emerald green cabinet...
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Calidovi on June 23, 2015, 11:44:00 am
So basically using engraving mechanics with various metals and a bunch of eggs?
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Shazbot on June 24, 2015, 08:42:42 am
You know how sometimes you're building a really top-end tomb in glorious marble for your gallantly-fallen expedition leader when suddenly you hit some ugly stone like malachite? Now you can just paint that tile white.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: AceSV on June 29, 2015, 10:41:45 pm
Quote from: BoredVirulence on June 23, 2015, 09:00:42 am
I just want to say, there is no reason why we can't store paint in barrels or pots. If its egg based, it might spoil, thats a possibility. Other than that though I see no limitation in storage.

I think what would actually happen is that the eggs set and harden after a couple of days, so instead of a barrel of paint, you would have a solid block of crud. 
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Sirbug on June 30, 2015, 12:10:40 pm
Painting can be an object that can only be placed attached to wall.

I don't think painting is very dwarfy, my personal idea is to have different races have different art. Dwarves engrave, humans should make paintings and tapestry and sell you, elves should probably make bonsai trees and also bring them to sell. Trees that are grown into shapes like statues.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Alfrodo on June 30, 2015, 12:48:04 pm
Quote from: Sirbug on June 30, 2015, 12:10:40 pm
Painting can be an object that can only be placed attached to wall.

I don't think painting is very dwarfy, my personal idea is to have different races have different art. Dwarves engrave, humans should make paintings and tapestry and sell you, elves should probably make bonsai trees and also bring them to sell. Trees that are grown into shapes like statues.

This is a grown mango wood figurine of a dwarf. The dwarf is striking a menacing pose.

Now we just need paintings and tapestry for humans, even though we have something like tapestry.

This is a hemp fiber figurine of a dwarf. The dwarf is striking a menacing pose.

One could interpret this as a plushie toy or a tapestry, and cloth decorations with depictions of objects could count.

This is a troll fir sock.  On the item is a well crafted depiction of a dwarf in hemp fiber.


Although, the player should have an option to allow paintings, even if it's "undwarvenly."  Player freedom is important.

Another option is letting human immigrants with "painter" skill do it.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: StagnantSoul on June 30, 2015, 12:51:57 pm
Yeah, we can make wood crafts and use bronze, even though those are elven and human things respectively. But I love the idea of the elves growing statues and such, and humans making tapestries and paintings.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Sirbug on June 30, 2015, 01:27:19 pm
Quote from: Alfrodo on June 30, 2015, 12:48:04 pm
Although, the player should have an option to allow paintings, even if it's "undwarvenly."  Player freedom is important.
Another option is letting human immigrants with "painter" skill do it.
Personally, I am keen on having more objects that you need to purchase. But that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: AceSV on June 30, 2015, 11:24:13 pm
Quote from: Sirbug on June 30, 2015, 01:27:19 pm
Quote from: Alfrodo on June 30, 2015, 12:48:04 pm
Although, the player should have an option to allow paintings, even if it's "undwarvenly."  Player freedom is important.
Another option is letting human immigrants with "painter" skill do it.
Personally, I am keen on having more objects that you need to purchase. But that's just my opinion.

Actually, I agree with you there, I would like to see more materials that you have to trade for and can't produce yourself.  However, improving trade is a different topic.  I think it's fair to suggest that Dwarf Fortress could have Painter's Workshop that dwarves don't have access to it, without modding. 

You're right, (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Mona_Lisa%2C_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci%2C_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg/800px-Mona_Lisa%2C_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci%2C_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg) is not very dwarfy, but (http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/egyptian-relief-sculpture-and-painting/ti-tomb-relief.jpg) is, IMO, and (http://paintingbyjag.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/birds_chest.jpg) is debatable.  And if you've got paint and paintable surfaces, you're going to have players asking, why can't we paint paintings? 

There are a lot of art styles in the history of the world that would make more sense for dwarves than the Renaissance and Impressionist era paintings that usually leap to mind:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Naryar on July 01, 2015, 02:51:17 am
Dwarves already have dye, and make images out of materials on crafts. It would be just a matter of expanding the system, also i'm pretty sure dwarves should be able to make "paint" out of various minerals, for many different colors. Malachite is green paint, microcline/cobaltite is light blue paint, hematite is red paint, galena/any of the fluxes/gypsum plaster is white paint, etc, etc.

As for the binder... eh... cement ?
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Alfrodo on July 01, 2015, 07:32:48 am
Looking at those different art styles.. I just thought.

What if different people and groups had different styles of art?  Like what toady did with music?

Also, with the cement binder I can't help but think of dwarves getting cemented into/onto their art.


Also, Sonic does not come across as dwarfy.
nor mango manga.

Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: AceSV on July 03, 2015, 09:29:22 pm
Quote from: Alfrodo on July 01, 2015, 07:32:48 am
Looking at those different art styles.. I just thought.

What if different people and groups had different styles of art?  Like what toady did with music?

Also, with the cement binder I can't help but think of dwarves getting cemented into/onto their art.

How would DF describe artwork style to players though?  The artistic "-isms" are all waaaaay after 1400, and most of the styles before that are described based on culture.  Egyptian Art, Medieval Art, Islamic Art, Buddhist Art, etc.  You might be able to break down the styles a bit more and use descriptive words like "stylized" vs "realistic" or "vibrant" vs "somber".  The content of art might change with the style as well, for example Medieval European and Buddhist artwork usually depicted religious scenes, while Egyptians often painted scenes of everyday life and Islamic Art focused on nonrepresentational geometry.  So maybe DF could describe a painting like "This is a painting of dwarves, highly stylized with somber colors, emphasizing shadows, typical of the artwork of the Verdant Canes, but with elements of the Noisy Crowns." 

Quote
Also, Sonic does not come across as dwarfy.
nor mango manga.

I know the Sonic characters look very digital, but I find them to be similar to the style of the Ancient Egyptians, whom I find very dwarfy.  I wouldn't be surprised to find dwarven artwork that was somewhere between the two.  The manga character was meant to point out that a "painting" can be as simple as a line drawing. 
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Alfrodo on July 03, 2015, 09:38:35 pm
Quote from: AceSV on July 03, 2015, 09:29:22 pm
Quote from: Alfrodo on July 01, 2015, 07:32:48 am
Looking at those different art styles.. I just thought.

What if different people and groups had different styles of art?  Like what toady did with music?

Also, with the cement binder I can't help but think of dwarves getting cemented into/onto their art.

How would DF describe artwork style to players though?  The artistic "-isms" are all waaaaay after 1400, and most of the styles before that are described based on culture.  Egyptian Art, Medieval Art, Islamic Art, Buddhist Art, etc.  You might be able to break down the styles a bit more and use descriptive words like "stylized" vs "realistic" or "vibrant" vs "somber".  The content of art might change with the style as well, for example Medieval European and Buddhist artwork usually depicted religious scenes, while Egyptians often painted scenes of everyday life and Islamic Art focused on nonrepresentational geometry.  So maybe DF could describe a painting like "This is a painting of dwarves, highly stylized with somber colors, emphasizing shadows, typical of the artwork of the Verdant Canes, but with elements of the Noisy Crowns." 

Quote
Also, Sonic does not come across as dwarfy.
nor mango manga.

I know the Sonic characters look very digital, but I find them to be similar to the style of the Ancient Egyptians, whom I find very dwarfy.  I wouldn't be surprised to find dwarven artwork that was somewhere between the two.  The manga character was meant to point out that a "painting" can be as simple as a line drawing. 

That's a good way of looking at it, should we take some art and deconstruct it?

Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Alfrodo on July 03, 2015, 09:51:10 pm
I'll start with my own shitty art.

(http://i.imgur.com/LNN1Dh4.png)
(Why do I love this so much)

This is a well crafted (painted? drawn? designed?) depiction of an elf, tree, and dwarf.  The elf is smoking valley herb, This relates to the accused custom of smoking valley herbs by The planttree of trees, an elven civilization.  The elf is leaning on the tree. The elf is holding a copy of Splatoon.  This relates to the author's friend spamming the splatoon commercial in the Spring of 2015, during a Skype call.  The dwarf is running,  this relates to the exile of the Dwarf "Cog, the Blind drunk" from the Planttree of trees.  Guilty of accidental sexual harassment.

The drawing is greyscale, simple, and moderately detailed.  It is high contrast, and slightly silly.  It utilizes cross hatching and hatching for shading.  Its style is unique to the author. [Citation_Needed]
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Bumber on July 04, 2015, 04:44:47 am
Quote from: Alfrodo on July 03, 2015, 09:51:10 pm
I'll start with my own shitty art.
You forgot to describe the hat. The mangoes will be represented!
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: AceSV on July 04, 2015, 08:12:46 pm
Might as well put my head on the chopping block too.  Sorry if this melts your brain.

(http://pre04.deviantart.net/eb1c/th/pre/i/2015/144/d/b/dazzling_thrills_vol_3_by_acethesupervillain-d8ujk88.png)

This is a mediocre painting of a fox-woman, snake-woman and humans in an urban park.  The fox-woman and snake-woman are discussing inevitability.  The humans are on leashes.  The humans are frolicking.  A caption reads "You're the dog now, man".  The scene is surreal.  The subject matter is typical of the Anthro Movement, but contains elements of Surrealism and Pulp Art.  The colors are vibrant, but natural.  Linework is dominant. 
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Alfrodo on July 04, 2015, 08:20:36 pm
it is terrifying.

You did that? (Ace the SuperVillain... yep.) Good job man. (Even though I'm horrified.)

I don't think I should do another of mine because it would essentially be the same.





Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: AceSV on July 05, 2015, 12:13:07 pm
Okay, this was in my feed today and I love it.  Sorry for melting your brains again.

http://zinzoa.deviantart.com/art/Cool-Sarah-544102907

(http://pre12.deviantart.net/9abf/th/pre/i/2015/185/d/d/cool_sarah_by_zinzoa-d8zy0hn.png)

I want to make it a little closer to DF style description this time. 

This is a portrait of Sarah the goldfish-woman and a leather jacket by zinzoa.  Sarah is striking a confident pose.  Sarah is wearing the leather jacket.  The artwork relates to the possession of a leather jacket by Sarah the goldfish-woman.  The style is typical of the Anthro Movement.  The colors are vibrant.  The subject is highly stylized.  The artwork is characterized by smooth lines and soft shading. 



So by now we can start analyzing how the game would make these descriptions.  Subject (sarah), author (zinzoa) and relationship (relates to) fields, as it has now.  Color field (vibrant-somber).  Style field (realistic-stylized).  Maybe a mood field for some paintings that could pick whatever mood the painter had while painting (or experienced recently).  Characterizing the linework and shading through text is a bit boring to read, I would skip that.  "The style is typical of ..." might be irrelevant, but if the game generates artistic movements or trades art between civilizations it could add to the flair. 
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Alfrodo on July 05, 2015, 03:52:55 pm
How about... Linework when it applies.  So if it's particularily prominent or absent, it will show.  But will otherwise be left blank.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Calidovi on July 05, 2015, 04:25:12 pm
Quote from: AceSV on July 05, 2015, 12:13:07 pm
Okay, this was in my feed today and I love it.  Sorry for melting your brains again.

http://zinzoa.deviantart.com/art/Cool-Sarah-544102907

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I want to make it a little closer to DF style description this time. 

This is a portrait of Sarah the goldfish-woman and a leather jacket by zinzoa.  Sarah is striking a confident pose.  Sarah is wearing the leather jacket.  The artwork relates to the possession of a leather jacket by Sarah the goldfish-woman.  The style is typical of the Anthro Movement.  The colors are vibrant.  The subject is highly stylized.  The artwork is characterized by smooth lines and soft shading. 



So by now we can start analyzing how the game would make these descriptions.  Subject (sarah), author (zinzoa) and relationship (relates to) fields, as it has now.  Color field (vibrant-somber).  Style field (realistic-stylized).  Maybe a mood field for some paintings that could pick whatever mood the painter had while painting (or experienced recently).  Characterizing the linework and shading through text is a bit boring to read, I would skip that.  "The style is typical of ..." might be irrelevant, but if the game generates artistic movements or trades art between civilizations it could add to the flair.

Them furries  :o :o.

Anyway, I think that correlating a style to a geographic site and including why the artwork fits the style would allow for more of an 'art analysis'. The decorative "The artwork is characterized by..." could be omitted. If someone wants some individuality in the description, the style could go as follows:

"The style is reminiscent of the Deviant Artists due to the shading and warm colors, but has linework typical of Zinzoa."

With a bit more dwarf, though.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Naryar on July 06, 2015, 03:09:33 am
why the hell does a goldfish woman has boobs ? and why the furry pictures ? ugh
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: AceSV on July 06, 2015, 04:48:21 am
Quote from: Naryar on July 06, 2015, 03:09:33 am
why the hell does a goldfish woman has boobs ? and why the furry pictures ? ugh

They happened to be on my mind and in my feed, blame the polygamy thread.  But if a DF animal-person has been given thumbs, vocal cords and upright posture, why stop there?  And it's about paintings anyways.  Why wouldn't a dwarf painter paint boobs on things that shouldn't have boobs? 
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Naryar on July 06, 2015, 08:16:46 am
Quote from: AceSV on July 06, 2015, 04:48:21 am
Quote from: Naryar on July 06, 2015, 03:09:33 am
why the hell does a goldfish woman has boobs ? and why the furry pictures ? ugh

They happened to be on my mind and in my feed, blame the polygamy thread.  But if a DF animal-person has been given thumbs, vocal cords and upright posture, why stop there?  And it's about paintings anyways.  Why wouldn't a dwarf painter paint boobs on things that shouldn't have boobs?

Opposable thumbs or a good grasping part (elephant trunks) are pretty much necessary for any kind of advanced civilization. Tool use and all that. If they don't have grasping parts, then they should just be sentient animals- culture, philosophy, education, yes, but technology ? Nope.

Hell, without grasping parts you don't even get to Paleolithic tech level.

Vocal cords are also a great component of a civilization, sure you can have mute civilizations but language makes it more familiar and easier to interact with.

Upright posture is the next logical step after opposable thumbs. I mean you can be a chimpanzee and have partial bipedy but having a pair of specialized feet and developing a pair of hands frees the hands from movement.

Boobs on a fish, however... what ? I'm fine with them on centaurs and mermaids and stuff that are essentially one part human and another part animal, but ?

(Yeah, I know, fanservice and artistic licence and so on. Still... wat)
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Calidovi on July 06, 2015, 11:19:26 am
Quote from: Naryar on July 06, 2015, 08:16:46 am
Quote from: AceSV on July 06, 2015, 04:48:21 am
Quote from: Naryar on July 06, 2015, 03:09:33 am
why the hell does a goldfish woman has boobs ? and why the furry pictures ? ugh

They happened to be on my mind and in my feed, blame the polygamy thread.  But if a DF animal-person has been given thumbs, vocal cords and upright posture, why stop there?  And it's about paintings anyways.  Why wouldn't a dwarf painter paint boobs on things that shouldn't have boobs?

Opposable thumbs or a good grasping part (elephant trunks) are pretty much necessary for any kind of advanced civilization. Tool use and all that. If they don't have grasping parts, then they should just be sentient animals- culture, philosophy, education, yes, but technology ? Nope.

Hell, without grasping parts you don't even get to Paleolithic tech level.

Vocal cords are also a great component of a civilization, sure you can have mute civilizations but language makes it more familiar and easier to interact with.

Upright posture is the next logical step after opposable thumbs. I mean you can be a chimpanzee and have partial bipedy but having a pair of specialized feet and developing a pair of hands frees the hands from movement.

Boobs on a fish, however... what ? I'm fine with them on centaurs and mermaids and stuff that are essentially one part human and another part animal, but ?

(Yeah, I know, fanservice and artistic licence and so on. Still... wat)

Far too many times have I seen, er, mammaries on lizards. I think it makes more sense that Lizards can work in the fast food industry, bear opposable thumbs, and gossip like drunkards than have mammaries. It's biological madness.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Ribs on July 06, 2015, 12:22:06 pm
In the thread where people finally "convinced" Toady to open up a pantreon, I remember this project popping up:

http://breedingseasongame.blogspot.com.br/p/play-breeding-season-alpha.html (http://breedingseasongame.blogspot.com.br/p/play-breeding-season-alpha.html)

It seems that the market for furry porn is vastly underestimated by most people. I remember being mesmerized by the ammount of money the developers of this thing are making , especially when comparing to what DF is getting from donations (which is kind of sad, if you think about it).

Also, cutebolds are a "thing".

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=107108.0 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=107108.0)

(https://i.4cdn.org/vg/1435172725721.jpg)

For some reason, a lot of people seem to find something strikingly sexy about kleptomaniacal humanoid dog-lizards. Can you blame them?
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: AceSV on July 06, 2015, 03:17:50 pm
Whether or not you're cool with anthros depends on whether you look at an anthro and see an animal with person features or a person with animal features.  If it's a fish, why would it have boobs?  But if it's a person, why wouldn't it have boobs? 

If you're actually familiar with the way animals look and behave, it's easy to see a lot more human features than animal features in an anthro character:
(http://images.halloweencostumes.com/products/11493/1-1/plus-size-white-rabbit-costume.jpg)(http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130209211559/looneytunes/images/0/0b/Bugs-Bunny-Whats-Up-Doc-Cover.png)(http://www.breakfastblogger.com/wp-content/photos/rabbit_pancake.gif)

It doesn't help that we're often conditioned to identify clearly non-human characters as people:
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/805389/images/o-YODA-facebook.jpg)(http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/articles/2_universal-translator.jpg)(http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/677/677739/top-25-sci-fi-movies-of-all-time-20100827033412454.jpg)

Even the human characters in cartoons don't always look human:
(https://40.media.tumblr.com/1cb94570dbe1e97f9964b47105697693/tumblr_nqazyhcHqF1up9geno1_400.png)(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120626205237/disney/images/f/ff/87094130oc2.jpg)(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/4/46646/3449323-7554748492-incre.jpg)(http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/27400000/Cute-Characters-anime-27485224-1920-1080.png)

But even then, a lot of anthro characters are fun because they are unnatural.  I don't like the goldfish woman because she's particularly well drawn or thought through but because she is weird and ridiculous and innovative.  The 21st century has opened up a lot of people to xenophilia, love of the new or love of the strange.  We're always looking for the latest updates and new experiences and fresh ideas, and anthro characters gives us a way to look at things in a new way and combine things that we don't usually combine.  And having something with one foot in comfortable territory and the other in uncomfortable territory tends to stay fresh longer as you continue to grapple with your own comfort level. 
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Calidovi on July 06, 2015, 06:06:49 pm
Quote from: AceSV on July 06, 2015, 03:17:50 pm
-snip-

1. It is true that most "furry" depictions of anthros have human proportions and form. But are they humans playing genetic dress up, or are they a result of time and evolution (if that were ever to happen)? It depends on the viewer perspective, of course. Stating that since Bugs Bunny looks like a person and acts like one doesn't mean he is a person, or biologically similar to one.

2. Tusken Raiders. I don't identify them as people, as humanoid as they seem. Why? Because they have no personalities. All the characters you list have human-like personalities and ethics. They might be good or bad or somewhere in the middle, but their personalities drive the point home and carry their appearances with it. Unless that's the point you're making.

3. Artistic stylization has always existed. Arguing that cavemen stylized their characters with such long necks and thin limbs because they identified with giraffes is silly. These animators had drawing techniques and a budget they had to meet, so they drew differently. They animators featured here drew different, non-hyperrealistic people because it was more reasonable to do so.

I guess I can't argue about the appeal of furries, though. That's each to their own.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: AceSV on July 06, 2015, 07:28:57 pm
The problem is that your brain has different levels of "person" recognition.  Your brain tries to simplify stimulus down for quick reaction times, so while you may be able to logically deduce that Bugs Bunny is a cartoon rabbit and therefore not a person, his features still check enough of your brains "person" boxes that at a quick glance, he appears human enough. 

Think for example, why do you see this as a face?
:) (;

There's nothing face-like about it, it's just a pair of dots and a curvy slit.  But you can put a pair of dots and a curvy slit on almost anything, and suddenly, it's a face. 
(http://www.pyramid-tech.net/images/genmay/sink_face.jpg)

Likewise, adding a head/neck/shoulder and hips/butt to an object will humanize it further, which is often the difference between 21st century anthros and earlier cartoons. 

The Tusken Raiders are a good example of this actually because even though they are actual people, they don't check the brain's boxes for humanness.  Loose clothing and a mask hides them from us.  Bird anthros are also difficult because bird beaks don't look enough like human mouths without some extra work, except for duck bills, which is why there are so many cartoon ducks. 
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Alfrodo on July 06, 2015, 09:11:50 pm
Of course... add just too much person and you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley)  get... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UncannyValley)
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Calidovi on July 06, 2015, 10:09:26 pm
Quote from: AceSV on July 06, 2015, 07:28:57 pm
The problem is that your brain has different levels of "person" recognition.  Your brain tries to simplify stimulus down for quick reaction times, so while you may be able to logically deduce that Bugs Bunny is a cartoon rabbit and therefore not a person, his features still check enough of your brains "person" boxes that at a quick glance, he appears human enough. 

Think for example, why do you see this as a face?
(: (;

There's nothing face-like about it, it's just a pair of dots and a curvy slit.  But you can put a pair of dots and a curvy slit on almost anything, and suddenly, it's a face. 
(http://www.pyramid-tech.net/images/genmay/sink_face.jpg)

Likewise, adding a head/neck/shoulder and hips/butt to an object will humanize it further, which is often the difference between 21st century anthros and earlier cartoons. 

The Tusken Raiders are a good example of this actually because even though they are actual people, they don't check the brain's boxes for humanness.  Loose clothing and a mask hides them from us.  Bird anthros are also difficult because bird beaks don't look enough like human mouths without some extra work, except for duck bills, which is why there are so many cartoon ducks.

What you're talking about, pareidoila, is an instinctual thing which I can assume passed down through humanity so that early man could recognize other early men, and therefore threats and friends at a glance without much more visual input.

But you're still talking about appearance, which diverts from the question of whether they are truly biologically or just aesthetically similar to humans. What I think you're saying is that, using the example Bugs Bunny, since he has a mostly human bone structure he must be biologically similar to humans. That is complete plausible, if not moreso than what I'm trying to say.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: SixOfSpades on July 07, 2015, 01:33:52 am
Relevant history: The Makapagansat pebble (http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/results.asp?image=013061).

Basically, it's a small stone that, through natural happenstance, has depressions that suggest a humanoid face. One of our ancestors noticed this, and thought the pebble important enough to carry around--the pebble was found miles away from the nearest outcrop of that type of stone. Even more interesting, the ancestor(s) that did this weren't even members of the genus Homo--they were friggin' australopithecines. Art, or at least abstract pattern recognition, LONG predates humanity.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: AceSV on July 07, 2015, 07:49:23 am
Quote from: Laptisen on July 06, 2015, 10:09:26 pm
But you're still talking about appearance, which diverts from the question of whether they are truly biologically or just aesthetically similar to humans. What I think you're saying is that, using the example Bugs Bunny, since he has a mostly human bone structure he must be biologically similar to humans. That is complete plausible, if not moreso than what I'm trying to say.

Ah, okay yes, you're right, I'm still in art mode.  I'm just trying to explain why people like anthros.  The kind of person who becomes an anthro-fan doesn't stop to think about the bone structure or evolutionary history.  They see a face, they sense emotions and they say, okay, that's the character.  The people who need to be analytical and try to place anthro characters into a scientific reality are going to be less comfortable with the Anthro Movement.  And for some, anthro characters are a way to play around with the laws of reality and say to ourselves "why do things have to be this way?" "what if things were that way?" typically focusing on the emotional impact rather than a logical one. 

We were also discussing DF specific animal people on the polygamy thread.  NW_Kohaku shared with me the Threetoe story "Root" (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/story/tt_root.html) which explains that animal people are created by wizardry or primordial Savage nature spirits out of normal animals.  So the question remains, if an animal is suddenly imparted with obvious human features like speech, thumbs and rational thought, why should the wizard or spirit stop there?  Would it also give them human features like RGB vision? sweat glands? molars? puberty?  and at that point, why not boobs? 
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Shazbot on July 07, 2015, 10:40:34 am
So yeah, paint.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: Calidovi on July 07, 2015, 10:52:48 am
Quote from: AceSV on July 07, 2015, 07:49:23 am
Quote from: Laptisen on July 06, 2015, 10:09:26 pm
But you're still talking about appearance, which diverts from the question of whether they are truly biologically or just aesthetically similar to humans. What I think you're saying is that, using the example Bugs Bunny, since he has a mostly human bone structure he must be biologically similar to humans. That is complete plausible, if not moreso than what I'm trying to say.

Ah, okay yes, you're right, I'm still in art mode.  I'm just trying to explain why people like anthros.  The kind of person who becomes an anthro-fan doesn't stop to think about the bone structure or evolutionary history.  They see a face, they sense emotions and they say, okay, that's the character.  The people who need to be analytical and try to place anthro characters into a scientific reality are going to be less comfortable with the Anthro Movement.  And for some, anthro characters are a way to play around with the laws of reality and say to ourselves "why do things have to be this way?" "what if things were that way?" typically focusing on the emotional impact rather than a logical one. 

We were also discussing DF specific animal people on the polygamy thread.  NW_Kohaku shared with me the Threetoe story "Root" (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/story/tt_root.html) which explains that animal people are created by wizardry or primordial Savage nature spirits out of normal animals.  So the question remains, if an animal is suddenly imparted with obvious human features like speech, thumbs and rational thought, why should the wizard or spirit stop there?  Would it also give them human features like RGB vision? sweat glands? molars? puberty?  and at that point, why not boobs?

You're right. I suppose I'm one of those furries that prefer anatomical correctness, be that a minority or a majority, and since we're discussing DF animal people, I can't see why that "magical humanization" explanation isn't plausible.
Title: Re: Painting Industry
Post by: AceSV on July 12, 2015, 08:40:58 pm
Quote from: Shazbot on July 07, 2015, 10:40:34 am
So yeah, paint.

It is terrifying.