Pygmy wrote:I don't really have much of a viewpoint but I'm gonna throw some things out there for the sake of discussion! 8D
If simply adding a face and human voice does not count as anthropomorphism- then quad anthros wouldn't count either, correct? (Like the dogs in 101 Dalmatians or the chars in The Lion King)
And what would you guys say is the difference between personification and anthropomorphic things? I think it's that, personification is describing/comparing something that would normally happen to the object, in a way a person would do it. For example, a branch being hit against a window by the wind, could be described as clawing at it. But it's really not doing anything human-like.
However, if the branch was anthropomorphic, it would purposefully claw at the window, and would perhaps have flexible, arm-like branches.
/ramblerambleidon'treallyhaveacluewhati'msaying
I think it's a very fine line there, do agree with that. For me (just to make things simple for myself mind you....) I put things into groups, even things that some could argue.
For me anthro is just what most furries are. Anthropomorphic animals with human like bodies...
Quad is a natural looking anatomy for that animal with Humanistic facial expressions...
And then OTHER. Which is like the inanimate objects with humanistic traits.
Now this is just how I see things makes it easier for myself. But as I said some may not agree as the VERY fine line is there.
Adding in humanistic traits to say...like your description of the tree "clawing" at the window is one thing, as that tree is JUST a tree and nothing more but it's description gives it that eery "life". But putting a face on that tree and giving it an actually personality and facial expressions and humanized movement...now that's getting more anthropomorphic. So as you can see it is kinda tricky there...
