The bulk update request #1709 is active.

change category e621_post_recursion (647) -> meta
change category grandfathered_content (3700) -> meta
change category 2nd_century (1) -> meta
create implication 2nd_century (1) -> ancient_furry_art (0)
change category formal_art (274) -> meta
change category inspired_by_formal_art (609) -> meta
create alias proper_art (0) -> formal_art (274)
create alias inspired_by_proper_art (0) -> inspired_by_formal_art (609)

Reason: As stated in the title, the above tags refer to meta information and therefore ought to be placed in the Meta category.

Their definitions are stated in their respective wiki pages. Help in populating them is appreciated.

If you (yes, YOU!) would like to suggest a more appropriate name for one or both of them, please do so.

Edit: Just noticed that 2nd_century isn't meta yet, so I'm fixing that too.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1709 (forum #322623) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #1709 (forum #322623) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

What is "formal art"? "Inspired by formal art"?

watsit said:
What is "formal art"? "Inspired by formal art"?

Basically, art made by the big guys — professional artists who are or whose works are well known to some degree outside the furry fandom.

clawstripe said:
Basically, art made by the big guys — professional artists who are or whose works are well known to some degree outside the furry fandom.

Wouldn't that cover art made by the likes of Ken Sugimori and Arvalis (aka RJ Palmer)? They're both "professional" artists that are well known outside of the furry fandom. Caraid works on Magic: The Gathering art professionally, and I don't think we can argue Vivzmind does art professionally and is known outside of the furry fandom given the success of Helluva Boss. Osamu Tezuka (which for some reason is a Copyright?) is a well known manga and anime artist, responsible for the likes of Bagi The Monster of Mighty Nature, Kimba the White Lion, and other things. Itagaki Paru is the writer and illustrator behind Beastars, don't think any further explanation is necessary there.

Seems like a rather stretchy definition. But the things with the tag seem to mostly be a grab bag mix of realistic, detailed, and ancient furry art. The word "formal" doesn't seem to really describe what it's intended for (many artists have formal training, and/or follow formal principles in making art, regardless of the resulting quality), and the lack of a wiki doesn't help.

watsit said:
Wouldn't that cover art made by the likes of Ken Sugimori and Arvalis (aka RJ Palmer)? They're both "professional" artists that are well known outside of the furry fandom. Caraid works on Magic: The Gathering art professionally, and I don't think we can argue Vivzmind does art professionally and is known outside of the furry fandom given the success of Helluva Boss. Osamu Tezuka (which for some reason is a Copyright?) is a well known manga and anime artist, responsible for the likes of Bagi The Monster of Mighty Nature, Kimba the White Lion, and other things. Itagaki Paru is the writer and illustrator behind Beastars, don't think any further explanation is necessary there.

Seems like a rather stretchy definition. But the things with the tag seem to mostly be a grab bag mix of realistic, detailed, and ancient furry art. The word "formal" doesn't seem to really describe what it's intended for (many artists have formal training, and/or follow formal principles in making art, regardless of the resulting quality), and the lack of a wiki doesn't help.

A fair point. Perhaps we should add in that they're also artists whose works we could expect to find in a formal setting such as a museum or art gallery be it physical bricks and mortar or art book?

clawstripe said:
A fair point. Perhaps we should add in that they're also artists whose works we could expect to find in a formal setting such as a museum or art gallery be it physical bricks and mortar or art book?

I know scale_(artist) has had their work in (non-furry) galleries, like this and this. Furry artists have contributed to otherwise non-furry art books and the like. That seems to lean more on the side of trivia, something that only a few people would know to properly tag by happening to remember someone's had their work on display somewhere non-furry, than anything actually relevant to the image.

I think a better definition would be to consider “formal art” to be strictly traditional media worthy of a museum that can’t be identified as part of the furry fandom in any sense.

scaliespe said:
worthy of a museum

At the risk of starting an argument about modern art, what's "worthy" can vary wildly between people, and a lot of stuff's made its way into museums.

scaliespe said:
I think a better definition would be to consider “formal art” to be strictly traditional media worthy of a museum that can’t be identified as part of the furry fandom in any sense.

In addition to what Strikerman said, what "can’t be identified as part of the furry fandom in any sense" is quite vague. What does it mean for a piece of art to be "identified as part of the furry fandom"? The furry fandom adopts quite a few things because of how relevant they are to our interests, and sometimes the source adopts us back (recognizing our interest in what they made, and doing more specifically for us). There are also artists that have a habit of appealing to our interests, but don't seem to know or acknowledge "furry", for one reason or another. The aforementioned Osamu Tezuka had a knack for making pretty relevant characters back in the day, and even had a private stash of what could only be called furry pinups he made for himself (which is unknown if they were for personal enjoyment, for work, or both; it's also unknown to what extent they weren't for all ages), but this was decades ago before "furry fandom" was more than a fledgling concept. Although there were people with an interest in anthropomorphics in communication with each other before the internet, in a sort-of proto-fandom. So if some piece of art is "worthy of a museum", how is art then to be "identified as part of the furry fandom" or not?

People seem to be reading a bit too much into the name. "Formal Art" is just a replacement for "Proper Art" since the latter was deemed (by admins, not by myself) rather dismissive of whatever did not fit the definition. The "Proper Art" tags have had wiki pages since 2008, and those are still applicable to the "Formal Art" tags.

The tags are clearly meant to collect artwork by the likes of Michelangelo_di_Lodovico_Buonarroti_Simoni, Bruno_Liljefors, Pablo_Picasso and Barbora_Balkova, among others. The "inspired by" one covers parodies of The_Creation_of_Adam, Saturn_Devouring_his_Son, The_Treachery_of_Images and more.

If their current use seems too vague, please feel free to provide a consistent definition that covers the intuitive examples I mentioned and similar. I personally find that current use completely fine and relevant. I'm certain that if no one complained about them in the last 13 years, they can't be that broken, innit?

gattonero2001 said:
The tags are clearly meant to collect artwork by the likes of Michelangelo_di_Lodovico_Buonarroti_Simoni, Bruno_Liljefors, Pablo_Picasso and Barbora_Balkova, among others. The "inspired by" one covers parodies of The_Creation_of_Adam, Saturn_Devouring_his_Son, The_Treachery_of_Images and more.

Not so clearly. Given it has images from contemporary furry artists:
post #1690001 post #2967006
and a random dog portrait by Adolf Hitler:
post #1463994
(but not another dog pic he made, post #1461301). And let's throw in unknown sculptors like post #186281 for good measure. And even of the others, I couldn't tell you who Jon_Reischl, John_Howe, or Marc_Sasso are, and if they're on the same level as Pablo Picasso.

gattonero2001 said:
I'm certain that if no one complained about them in the last 13 years, they can't be that broken, innit?

"Broken" in the sense of destroying the site? No. "Broken" in the sense of being randomly applied to whatever people want to apply it to? More probably. Like I said, it feels like a grab bag mix of realistic, detailed, and ancient furry art, along with a few sculpture (artwork)s sprinkled in. And the lovely face of post #58098.

watsit said:
Not so clearly. Given it has images from contemporary furry artists: (...)

I believe you misunderstood what I meant by "the likes of (...) and others". One of my examples, Barbora_Balkova, is very much a contemporary artist. The images you linked have no apparent connection to the fandom, regardless of how the artists identify, but the lack of a connection to the fandom was never a factor either.

and a random dog portrait by Adolf Hitler: (...)
(but not another dog pic he made, post #1461301).

Then would you kindly add the tag to post #1461301? It applies equally to both of them.

Every image in this site is lacking at least one applicable tag. Is inner_ear_fluff suddenly "vague" because post #2967006 does not feature it?

And even of the others, I couldn't tell you who Jon_Reischl, John_Howe, or Marc_Sasso are, and if they're on the same level as Pablo Picasso.

I do not recall ever saying (nor being told) that being famous is a requisite for producing formal artwork. I guess post #2718069 shouldn't be considered art because nobody knows who the artist is, then?

"Broken" in the sense of destroying the site? No. "Broken" in the sense of being randomly applied to whatever people want to apply it to? More probably. Like I said, it feels like a grab bag mix of realistic, detailed, and ancient furry art, along with a few sculpture (artwork)s sprinkled in. And the lovely face of post #58098.

The common factor is that most posts tagged formal_art are "formal art". Not all realistic and/or detailed and/or ancient art is formal, and not all formal art is realistic and/or detailed and/or ancient. However, it is indeed relatively common for formal art (at least the kind that is likely to be uploaded to e621) to be at least one of those things, purely by coincidence. post #2844983 is undeniably formal art, yet it lacks all the features you accuse formal_art of being a "grab bag mix" of.

In the sense of "being randomly applied to whatever people want to apply it to", we will simply have to disagree. The current use still seems quite consistent to me.

gattonero2001 said:
I believe you misunderstood what I meant by "the likes of (...) and others".

Can you clarify then? That's been my whole issue, no clear meaning for the tag.

gattonero2001 said:
The images you linked have no apparent connection to the fandom, regardless of how the artists identify, but the lack of a connection to the fandom was never a factor either.

Having an account on FA where the image is from is "no apparent connection to the fandom"? Or from DA with a gallery full of anthro characters and who used to go by the name RelaxableFur is "no apparent connection to the fandom"?

A lack of a connection to the fandom was brought up earlier as one interpretation of the tag, and is even in the wiki. If people trying to describe the tag can't even agree on what it is, what hope to taggers have to properly use it?

gattonero2001 said:
Every image in this site is lacking at least one applicable tag. Is inner_ear_fluff suddenly "vague" because post #2967006 does not feature it?

No, because it has a fairly clear definition. We can tell that a character has inner ear fluff and a post is just missing the tag. Compared to formal art where no one can seem to give a clear definition of what it means, so we can't know which posts may be missing it or have it erroneously applied.

gattonero2001 said:
I do not recall ever saying (nor being told) that being famous is a requisite for producing formal artwork. I guess post #2718069 shouldn't be considered art because nobody knows who the artist is, then?

In the first part you said "formal art", and in the second you said "art". Unless you're trying to say the two terms are interchangeable, I'm not sure how you expect me to respond. Of course post #2718069 is art, because it's an artistic representation of a scene from a story, but what makes it "formal art"?

gattonero2001 said:
The common factor is that most posts tagged formal_art are "formal art".

And can you clarify what you mean by "formal art"? As I said earlier, many artists have formal training, and/or use formal techniques for producing their art. What differentiates "formal art" from "art made through formal means"?

gattonero2001 said:
Not all realistic and/or detailed and/or ancient art is formal, and not all formal art is realistic and/or detailed and/or ancient. However, it is indeed relatively common for formal art (at least the kind that is likely to be uploaded to e621) to be at least one of those things, purely by coincidence. post #2844983 is undeniably formal art, yet it lacks all the features you accuse formal_art of being a "grab bag mix" of.

It is a form of life drawing, as "sloppy" as it is. It does seem to be derived from one or more photos and/or real-life models, giving it a sense of realism you don't normally see in fantasy art. We don't seem to have a specific tag for that kind of art that I could find, though.

gattonero2001 said:
In the sense of "being randomly applied to whatever people want to apply it to", we will simply have to disagree. The current use still seems quite consistent to me.

I'm still trying to find what that consistency is. The wiki says

formal_art says:
Artworks outside the realm of the furry fandom; stuff that goes in a proper gallery.

(Statement may contain traces of tongue in cheek.)

Should be used sparingly.

I have no idea how I'm supposed to take this. It's for art "outside the furry fandom" and "goes in a proper gallery", but this is a tongue-in-cheek (i.e. joking to some degree) description, and also don't use it too much. So I'm left scratching my head what it's intended for. Between contemporary sculptures, contemporary furry art, meme art, 80s metal album cover art, and ancient furry art, I don't know what what the underlying idea is supposed to be here.

watsit said:
Can you clarify then? That's been my whole issue, no clear meaning for the tag.

Having an account on FA where the image is from is "no apparent connection to the fandom"? Or from DA with a gallery full of anthro characters and who used to go by the name RelaxableFur is "no apparent connection to the fandom"?

A lack of a connection to the fandom was brought up earlier as one interpretation of the tag, and is even in the wiki. If people trying to describe the tag can't even agree on what it is, what hope to taggers have to properly use it?

No, because it has a fairly clear definition. We can tell that a character has inner ear fluff and a post is just missing the tag. Compared to formal art where no one can seem to give a clear definition of what it means, so we can't know which posts may be missing it or have it erroneously applied.

In the first part you said "formal art", and in the second you said "art". Unless you're trying to say the two terms are interchangeable, I'm not sure how you expect me to respond. Of course post #2718069 is art, because it's an artistic representation of a scene from a story, but what makes it "formal art"?

And can you clarify what you mean by "formal art"? As I said earlier, many artists have formal training, and/or use formal techniques for producing their art. What differentiates "formal art" from "art made through formal means"?

It is a form of life drawing, as "sloppy" as it is. It does seem to be derived from one or more photos and/or real-life models, giving it a sense of realism you don't normally see in fantasy art. We don't seem to have a specific tag for that kind of art that I could find, though.

I'm still trying to find what that consistency is. The wiki says
I have no idea how I'm supposed to take this. It's for art "outside the furry fandom" and "goes in a proper gallery", but this is a tongue-in-cheek (i.e. joking to some degree) description, and also don't use it too much. So I'm left scratching my head what it's intended for. Between contemporary sculptures, contemporary furry art, meme art, 80s metal album cover art, and ancient furry art, I don't know what what the underlying idea is supposed to be here.

maybe it's a personal thing but i find it really hard to follow a conversation when things are discussed point-by-point like this

strikerman said:
At the risk of starting an argument about modern art, what's "worthy" can vary wildly between people, and a lot of stuff's made its way into museums.

Let’s rephrase that as “classical art museum.” Modern art is chaos.

watsit said:
In addition to what Strikerman said, what "can’t be identified as part of the furry fandom in any sense" is quite vague. What does it mean for a piece of art to be "identified as part of the furry fandom"? The furry fandom adopts quite a few things because of how relevant they are to our interests, and sometimes the source adopts us back (recognizing our interest in what they made, and doing more specifically for us). There are also artists that have a habit of appealing to our interests, but don't seem to know or acknowledge "furry", for one reason or another. The aforementioned Osamu Tezuka had a knack for making pretty relevant characters back in the day, and even had a private stash of what could only be called furry pinups he made for himself (which is unknown if they were for personal enjoyment, for work, or both; it's also unknown to what extent they weren't for all ages), but this was decades ago before "furry fandom" was more than a fledgling concept. Although there were people with an interest in anthropomorphics in communication with each other before the internet, in a sort-of proto-fandom. So if some piece of art is "worthy of a museum", how is art then to be "identified as part of the furry fandom" or not?

Those certainly look “relevant” to the furry random to me, and additionally I don’t think anyone would consider that to be art in the classical tradition.

If you want a really specific definition, I might go so far as to say that anything with this tag ought to be both traditional_media and ancient_furry_art, as well as being part of a recognizable classical art movement like Impressionism or surrealism, a la Monet or Dali. That would exclude any kind of cartoon art or manga or the like. Modern art is probably too subjective to include here since it can be all over the place.