THE PACK Message Boards

Shadow Wulf wrote:well thats your realist style,while others have cartoony style, and please dont ever talk anything about rules of drawing, its peoples imagination, its thier way of thing, its fantasy, its not suppose to make sense. ok

Well even those professionals with a 'cartoony' style follow basic rules of proportion and whatnot. Stuff like that is a foundation that you build on.

*twitch* *sighs*

There is a fine line there. There are 'rules' to art. Even abstract art. Its not just all about imagination, though that is the powerhouse behind -alll- art.

A hand is a hand because its a hand. A paw is a paw because its a paw. A Paw is not a needle unles its some form of monsterous cridder out of a horror flick. ;) But even there there is an association there that we can understand.

Of course there are exceptions to all rules in art, but then that's when art starts to vary in genre, style, look, and function. That's where creativity comes in and starts us on a path to new discoveries.




If you happen to take a look see at any of my galleries online, you see that I range between cartoon ( which does have its own rules, believe it or not ), realism, life-drawing, and abstract weirdness ( like fetus dolphins floating in liquid spheres controling via their minds a claw to interact with the world outside their bubble ). Yes I'm strange. ;)

A Werewolf is not going to walk around on stilts like legs ( ala girraffe ) because the weight of it would break them ( not to mention the jokes and derogatroy comments associated with such. ). ;)

We can disscuss this on another thread topic if you would, but I'd rather not stray too far from the original topic here.

That the idea of plausibility in movies in important.., but how far do we go?

Lupin wrote:

Shadow Wulf wrote:well thats your realist style,while others have cartoony style, and please dont ever talk anything about rules of drawing, its peoples imagination, its thier way of thing, its fantasy, its not suppose to make sense. ok

Well even those professionals with a 'cartoony' style follow basic rules of proportion and whatnot. Stuff like that is a foundation that you build on.

true, true, but i thought trinity was talking about setting a rule for what should a werewolf look like as an example.

*chuckles* No just trying to illustrate my points previous with examples. ;)

*wags*

Apokryltaros wrote:True, some of the best fantastic creatures are at their best when they're at they're most plausible.
However, I find that the path to ultimate plausibility is torturous, and I rarely go down this path when working with fantasy creatures like dragons or lycanthropes, and is wholely impossible with things like the undead.
Do remember that science works best when constrained by rules, while art often works best when unconstrained by rules...
I find that werewolves lean towards the latter.

*nods* I'm inclined to agree. Arguably, if there's anything the history of biology has taught us, it's that nature has few clear-cut rules (if any at all). It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out there is a potential scientific explanation for lycanthropy, but so long as we don't have the answers, I'd rather my werewolves didn't either.

Apokryltaros wrote:

Morkulv wrote:How important is it, to have a scientific explanation for werewolves in general?
Personally, I like to make my own conclusions, based on what I think is the
most realistic, and possible way.

Like everyone else has said, given as how werewolves are fantastical fantasy creatures, and as such, I'm of a bent that infers that magic is somehow involed with what make werewolves werewolves.

I can live with that.

Morkulv wrote:I don't believe what any white-coat says what so ever. They might
have good information, but a fact is, that they were not there when humans
evolved, and they didn't see a werewolf in real life either (or they are holding
something out on us ).

What I'm saying is, that we might believe scientists far too easily. After all, they are humans as wel, just like us.

Apokryltaros wrote:So, what you're saying is that fossils are totally useless, save as doorstops and paperweights, and that all science is completely worthless because it comes from the observations of fellow humans instead of infallible, impartial, omniscient immortals who have been in existence since before Time began?

Where did I say that? I'm just saying, that we easily believe anything that has been researched. Just ask anyone on the street where humans evolved from, and 75% will tell you that we are related to monkeys. Because thats how its been told for years. The odd thing is, that this hasn't been researched over and over agan, but scientists just compared stuff like DNA, limbs, etc. And we all know that humans also have a lot in common with other mammals, then just monkeys.

Morkulv wrote:The odd thing is, that this hasn't been researched over and over agan, but scientists just compared stuff like DNA, limbs, etc.

Uh...

Comapring DNA is research.

shew! this is getting rather heated!!!

Lupin wrote:

Morkulv wrote:The odd thing is, that this hasn't been researched over and over agan, but scientists just compared stuff like DNA, limbs, etc.

Uh...

Comapring DNA is research.

I am aware of that.

Morkulv wrote:

Lupin wrote:Comapring DNA is research.

I am aware of that.

Okay. It's just that the way your sentence is worded implied the opposite.

trinity where can I see your drawings.

Shadow Wulf wrote:trinity where can I see your drawings.

Check this thread http://calypso-blue.com/werewolf/viewtopic.php?t=1023

Trinity wrote:Ah! See.., this is where you and I differ slighty ( but only slightly ) ;)

I preferr that art have rules, especially when it comes to things like werewolves. I have seen some horredous werewolf creations, and some that are just totally unbeliebale. I look to anatomy as I understand it and scoff at some pieces because the stick-like legs woul dnot hold the muscle and sinuew bulk that is a Gestalt form of werewolf. EVEN if the bulk isn't increased, having stick-like legs does not lead to healthy kness to feet. ;) *chuckles*

For me digging and rendering "realistic" works drives me to create more and more and more. Life Drawing and anatomy research to me is -key- to understanding my own drawings.

Example. I have begun, withint th elast year or so, to place wings near the center-mid line of th eback rather then at the shoulders. Its a lift, weight, and balance issue for me. Yes to some its not estetically pleasing because its not what everyone else does.

To me it looks like gold. *chuckles*

I didn't say that I disliked any rules for art, I just feel that art in general should have a bare minimum of rules.
I mean, yes, there should be guidlines so that various art fit into specific genres, and photo-realistic pictures of fantastic creatures are always a treat, but, I don't always like photo-realistic art all of the time. Yes, I like anime, but, I also like ancient art, like the paintings on Moche bottles.

Also, do realize that in the placement of wings of non-faerie creatures, you do need to realize where the muscle attachment sites are. After all, lift and center of balance means squat if the wings are attached as though they were strips of paper. Generally, in winged bipedal creatures, the wings emanate from the shoulder blades because it's presumed that the muscles of the back and shoulders aid in flapping.

Apokryltaros wrote: I didn't say that I disliked any rules for art, I just feel that art in general should have a bare minimum of rules.
I mean, yes, there should be guidlines so that various art fit into specific genres, and photo-realistic pictures of fantastic creatures are always a treat, but, I don't always like photo-realistic art all of the time. Yes, I like anime, but, I also like ancient art, like the paintings on Moche bottles.

Also, do realize that in the placement of wings of non-faerie creatures, you do need to realize where the muscle attachment sites are. After all, lift and center of balance means squat if the wings are attached as though they were strips of paper. Generally, in winged bipedal creatures, the wings emanate from the shoulder blades because it's presumed that the muscles of the back and shoulders aid in flapping.

*nods* Agreed. *chuckles*


As for centering the wings mid-line, the idea for that is that the torso would be far out of whack, and the upper arms nigh usless -because- the wing muscles would dominate the use of the back and chest muscles.

Draconomicon has some fine examples of this, where the upper torso is UBER huge and bulky. Now it works, to my eyes, but for a more bipedal cridder it wouldn't be half as pleasing or useful. The character would be falling over ( much like the uber Boobs on some female characters would make their waists snap in two ;) ) *chuckles*

So yes I do keep in mind my anatomy as much as I can, but not being a bio major, and not having had many bio majors of an open enough mind to help me.., its become difficult at best in some sintances. I just don't know where a lot of things -should- attach -if- they were "real".

So I kinda futz with it until it flows to the eyes, and 'hide' things that aren't working properly. ;) *chuckles* Bu tthne that where the frustration with myself and current skill set comes in, but that another issue entirely. ;)

I do unserstand both side of the arguement, and I agree with many of your points. ^.^ Just so you know.

My oh my oh my oh my!!!!

Cassandra wrote:My oh my oh my oh my!!!!

me oh my oh me me oh

So which one is it: 'my', 'me', or 'oh'?

Vilkacis wrote:

Morkulv wrote:How important is it, to have a scientific explanation for werewolves in general?

Not important at all. You can't scientifically explain something that cannot exist (not correctly explain, anyway). Werewolves have a base of fantasy and we are trying to make the rest as logical as possible, but ultimately, it is just fantasy; we can only go so far.

Morkulv wrote:Personally, I like to make my own conclusions, based on what I think is the most realistic, and possible way.

That is what most of us do here, I think.

Morkulv wrote:I don't believe what any white-coat says what so ever. They might have good information, but a fact is, that they were not there when humans evolved, and they didn't see a werewolf in real life either (or they are holding something out on us ).

What I'm saying is, that we might believe scientists far too easily. After all, they are humans as wel, just like us.

I am reminded of a quote:

Isaac Asimov wrote:The young specialist in English Lit, ...lectured me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the Universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong.

... My answer to him was, "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

It is, unfortunately, much too large for my sig...


-- Vilkacis

Now I will jump in here..
This is "your" opinion and point of view, and I would suggest wording your submit more erm.. as such to take into consideration that not everyone will think the same way as your self about the posibilty of something or the lack of therein.

For instance.. "I do not think it is posible for werewolves to exist.."

"You can't scientifically explain something that cannot exist (not correctly explain, anyway)." is the biased human science that rules something out that it does not think can exist and means it does not "exist" untill proven other wise, it's called thinking in the box.. Humans have for along time lost tuch with natural science or what I consider natural science. Natural science only proves how something exists or it's posibilities, it does not rule out possibilty no mater how improbable, and doesn't prove how something is not possible as there is always room for a chance something was missed that could allow the chance of posibility.

It's a condition tought by government to condition you to just take the word of an authority figure as fact regardless if it was completely fabricated.

"You can not scientifically prove what don't exist.."
Again, untill you can view the entire world at all times in your brain, don't say something don't exist because you have not seen it, and there has not been any science to determine that it is not possible, I mean come on, show me some scientific text, I know of none. It's how science is taught now in schools, to rule something out untill otherwise proven, I hate this method as it has proven time and time again to fail.. (titanic "the ship that can not sink", TWC "these buildings will with stand plane attacks!" as two examples) It's what I call the closed mind syndrom or CMS, a result of science funded by uncle sam in my opinion of course!

Anyone?

Just some advice to people to leave open posibility of other peoples views and keep an open mind.

Nitruswolf wrote:It's how science is taught now in schools, to rule something out untill otherwise proven, I hate this method as it has proven time and time again to fail.. (titanic "the ship that can not sink", TWC "these buildings will with stand plane attacks!" as two examples)

Because I am a pedant: The buildings did withstand the planes crashing into them. Had they not, they would have fallen over after the planes had crashed into them. What they did not withstand was the large jet fuel assisted fire which caused the steel frame to weaken.

hmm, maybe you have a point there, but there are so many views on how things happened I don't think we'll ever know for sure, but one thing remains true in the end, it was an evil act regardless who did it and how.

But yes, good point..

Well, I think you have a flawed view of human science, which is what most people seem to share. Human science doesn't say that something unproven by science does not exist. By the demands of modern science, you have to prove that something doesn't exist to say that it does not too. So, it work both ways. You need proof to accept something exists, but you need equally solid proof to accept that something does not, if you have no proof either way, both are possible. Most people just notice the first and overlook the second, which is an incomplete interpretation of science that does not do it justice. Doing that creates a) people that, as stated, think in the box, and treat science as some complete, unfailing dogma the same way as religion, which it is not, and they are, in my opinion, one of the worst kind of people since they call their unimaginative, unprogressive, and dull way of thinking 'scientific, or b) people that see the flaw in this interpretation, yet mistake it as a flaw in science itself, and condemn science. Well... I think we mean the same thing... What you call natural science is what I see as the 'correct' form of human science... I hate it when I get long-winded like that, I confuse myself

Nitruswolf wrote:Now I will jump in here..
This is "your" opinion and point of view, and I would suggest wording your submit more erm.. as such to take into consideration that not everyone will think the same way as your self about the posibilty of something or the lack of therein.

For instance.. "I do not think it is posible for werewolves to exist.."

When has anything I've ever said been anything but my opinion and point of view? And could I not also say that everything you state below is your opinion and point of view? I would not be incorrect if I did. Nevertheless, it is true that I could have been more accomodating; however, and perhaps I am unreasonable in this regard, but I don't care to use hedge-words when I think it's already fairly obvious that I'm stating my opinion.

"That's just your opinion!" is a conversation stopper. It degrades reasoning and tosses logic out the window. Of course it's my opinion! But when you point it out as if it were a fault of mine while you style yourself without any such flaw, well, that could very well be construed as an attack, and it certainly doesn't conduce reasonable discussion.

Nitruswolf wrote:"You can't scientifically explain something that cannot exist (not correctly explain, anyway)." is the biased human science that rules something out that it does not think can exist and means it does not "exist" untill proven other wise, it's called thinking in the box..

I would point out that the statement I made, in and of itself, is 100% correct, if, perhaps, misapplied. If something cannot exist, then it can't be correctly explained. Period. However, that's a rather insignificant point, really.

It seems to me that you are stating (here, and below) that everything is possible and that there is nothing that cannot exist (at least, if there is, we'll never know); hence, rendering my statement pointless since it would never apply.

I think, also, that you are attacking the situation in which I applied it -- my underlying assumption that werewolves do not exist.

I address both of these issues below.

Nitruswolf wrote:Humans have for along time lost tuch with natural science or what I consider natural science. Natural science only proves how something exists or it's posibilities, it does not rule out possibilty no mater how improbable, and doesn't prove how something is not possible as there is always room for a chance something was missed that could allow the chance of posibility.

Here is how I see science:

Science assumes there are laws that remain constant. Laws that govern what we perceive to be reality. It further assumes that we can measure and learn that reality, and extrapolate new knowledge from old knowledge. Science believes that things can be both proved and disproved, to the best of our current knowledge.

Science may not be 100% correct in it's underlying assumptions, and science is not perfect because people are not perfect, but guess what... it has quite an amazing track record at predicting things. It has credibility for a reason.



Now, this is how I see your 'Natural Science':

We never know whether or not something is false. False things can exist, but we can only suspect that they are false, not prove it, because there's always a possibility that something we don't know yet might make it true. Therefore, we also cannot prove things are true either, because there is always the possibility that something we don't know of might make what we think is true actually be false. Or, put in other words, we cannot know that the fact that it is false -- that something is not false -- is true. Hence, we can never really know whether anything is or isn't -- everything is both possibly possible and possibly impossible; we can't tell which, only suspect.



'Natural Science' may be philosophically correct, but it is useless. Science may be incorrect in the end, but it's still useful here and now. Humankind stopped believing in 'Natural Science' when it stopped believing in magic. In other words, when it started believing that some things simply cannot happen; when they realized there seem to be laws that appear to be unbreakable in our neck of the woods.

And that is, if you couldn't tell, my opinion.

Nitruswolf wrote:It's a condition tought by government to condition you to just take the word of an authority figure as fact regardless if it was completely fabricated.

Frankly, I don't believe the government has enough wits about it to pull that off. You can believe this conspiracy theory all you wish, but I will continue to believe that most authoritative figures (but not necessarily 'authority figures') are authoritative because they know enough about something to tell the ignorant masses what's what in that area of expertise. And yes: sometimes they are wrong and sometimes they even lie, but those are human flaws.

Nitruswolf wrote:"You can not scientifically prove what don't exist.."
Again, untill you can view the entire world at all times in your brain, don't say something don't exist because you have not seen it, and there has not been any science to determine that it is not possible, I mean come on, show me some scientific text, I know of none. It's how science is taught now in schools, to rule something out untill otherwise proven, I hate this method as it has proven time and time again to fail.. (titanic "the ship that can not sink", TWC "these buildings will with stand plane attacks!" as two examples)

I would point out that those examples, and just about any that you might give to support this point, have resulted from human fallability, rather than science.





Now, in regards to my underlying opinion that werewolves do not exist, I would point out that our purpose here when describing the 'ultimate werewolf' is not necessarily to look at reality. So whether or not werewolves really exist is not greatly significant. It's our job to construct from the fantasy of our minds what we believe would make a most excellent 'werewolf.' So, if it pleases you to do so, when I say werewolves do not exist, take it to apply to the fictual werewolves we are discussing.

Nitruswolf wrote:It's what I call the closed mind syndrom or CMS, a result of science funded by uncle sam in my opinion of course!

"Keep an open mind, and people will throw junk in it."

I think one of mankind's greatest gifts is that of a reasoning and discriminating mind.

-- Vilkacis

hmm, interesting.. guess we both got points.. heh

But basically what I meant in jist was that stating something as fact that may appear to be imposible to 90% of the worlds population (thats no where near accurate..) doesn't mean every one is ready to except it as fact, thats all.

I know I know, why didn't I just say that in the first place, it would have been easier and shorter.. lol

I appologize if I came across as uhm, shrewd?? I was just trying to hint how one may affend by stating something as ultimate fact. Tosses rubber ducky at Vilkacis

Nitruswolf wrote:Now I will jump in here..
This is "your" opinion and point of view, and I would suggest wording your submit more erm.. as such to take into consideration that not everyone will think the same way as your self about the posibilty of something or the lack of therein.

For instance.. "I do not think it is posible for werewolves to exist.."

Do realize that this is your opinion, also.

Nitruswolf wrote:Humans have for along time lost tuch with natural science or what I consider natural science. Natural science only proves how something exists or it's posibilities, it does not rule out possibilty no mater how improbable, and doesn't prove how something is not possible as there is always room for a chance something was missed that could allow the chance of posibility.

Is it just me, or am I some sort of broken record or skipping CD, in that I keep asking "CAN SOMEONE PLEASE SHOW ME PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF OF A PERSON ACTUALLY CHANGING INTO A WEREWOLF???" I don't care if the statement of "Werewolves don't exist" can be phishphoshed away with "Well, you don't know a thing because you don't have proof that they don't exist!" Such boasting means squat with me without genuine proof, and I have yet to see any actual proof.
Scientists use a little thing called the "Scientific Method" with which they use to observe and explain phenomena. Among the criteria in it, one can not make unfalsifyable hypotheseses, in that, if you refute your critics with "well you don't have proof that it can't exist," you will be laughed out of the Scientific Community.

Nitruswolf wrote:It's a condition tought by government to condition you to just take the word of an authority figure as fact regardless if it was completely fabricated.

Do realize that we have not yet, according to Hinduism, moved to the point where "the robes of office confer the right to govern."
Also, do realize that, if the government is indeed capable of conspiring to brainwash the public, why do we still have to worry about terrorists coming into the country?

Nitruswolf wrote:"You can not scientifically prove what don't exist.."
Again, untill you can view the entire world at all times in your brain, don't say something don't exist because you have not seen it, and there has not been any science to determine that it is not possible, I mean come on, show me some scientific text, I know of none. It's how science is taught now in schools, to rule something out untill otherwise proven, I hate this method as it has proven time and time again to fail.. (titanic "the ship that can not sink", TWC "these buildings will with stand plane attacks!" as two examples)

Do you have undisputed, genuine proof that werewolves exist?
What is it about actual proof that causes people to disregard its use?
Also, do realize that, with the former, it was just an advertizement, and no one said that the World Trade Center could withstand a plane crashing into each of its towers, as no one entertained the idea that there were actually people psychopathic enough to do that.

Nitruswolf wrote:It's what I call the closed mind syndrom or CMS, a result of science funded by uncle sam in my opinion of course!

Vilkacis wrote: "Keep an open mind, and people will throw junk in it."

I think one of mankind's greatest gifts is that of a reasoning and discriminating mind.

-- Vilkacis

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei