HOME | DD

Cardz5000 In reply to Alister-Murkerry [2013-04-16 14:26:50 +0000 UTC]

Pretty clearly stated that it is a God, and in most worlds godhood transcends any specific ties to a species. Calling it a dragon god could just be alluding the the god's preferred from, or the species with which it best relates to or represents. You also can't definitively make statements like this about peoples creative works without knowing the history or cosmology of the world for which they are creating.

This argument aside, the work is beautiful, The hourglass looks amazing, as well as the robes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Araless In reply to Alister-Murkerry [2012-12-03 12:47:55 +0000 UTC]

Just a question in general, why do you think dragon's with feathered wings are not dragons?
And calling it gryphon is a terrible mistake, because gryphon's are definitely something else.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Alister-Murkerry In reply to Araless [2012-12-09 06:45:41 +0000 UTC]

Sorry, Google translator features do not give me the right to say what I mean. Briefly: the wings of a bird has never been an attribute of a dragon. He wears only a membranous wing (membrane or fin). In the entire history of the feathered wing was a mistake, for instance, several times in the late Russian Orthodox icons.

Gryphon and dragon have many similarities in structure, if we look at history, but they never mixed precisely because wings. Today, young artists often try to make the unusual pattern and make mistakes. Their dragon experience changes and becomes a lion with wings, a dog with wings, gryphon with the Dragon's Tail and other chimeras.

Here we see a chimera, which has the head and tail of the dragon, the human body (it can be seen very clearly) and wings of a bird. These features are not enough to call this chimera with the word "dragon".

I have to write a separate article and translate it into English, to give a link to the answer to this question. * sigh *

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Araless In reply to Alister-Murkerry [2012-12-09 13:04:31 +0000 UTC]

I think chimera is a better word than gryphon for a creature like this. Because gryphons are basically birds with body parts of a lion/cat and sometimes other mammalians. Looking at this creature, I don't see any parts of a gryphon besides the bird wings and these are not enough to call it a gryphon. The dragon parts here are still stronger. With a human body like this, it is called a dragon anthro. Anthro's are creatures who are given a human body shape.

I don't think that the shape of wings decide what the creature is called since there are also dragons without wings. They are not less dragon because of this. It is more the overall design that matters. I know that the dragon with feathered wings is not a mythological dragon but a creation of the modern culture. Season's changes, especially for the human phantasy. A nice example for this is the basilisk.

A basilisk used to be a creature with the upper body part of a rooster, a crown on the head and the lower body part of a snake. Many years later, in the middle age, people startet to "change" the creature. Sometimes they gave it wings, a human head or bird legs (sometimes two to six).
The changes in the design were so drastically that they decided to give the two different forms a name. Basilisk = without wings, Cockatrice = with wings

Today, people are giving the same creature both names, I guess it's because they don't know the origines of the creature.
The same thing could be applied to the dragon as well. I think there should be an alternate name for dragons with feather wings or with fur. (because furred dragons aren't mythological dragons as well)

But in the end both things are right, no matter when they started to appear. The dragon is a cultural phenomenon and culture changes constantly. I agree with you on one thing, the original dragon seems to disappear slowly... which is a sad thing.

I'd like to read your article one day but there is no need to rush. Take your time and translate it whenever you like to. I can wait.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Alister-Murkerry In reply to Araless [2012-12-16 09:22:18 +0000 UTC]

I had no desire to speak the word only "Gryphon." Apparently, Google translator deceived you. I talked about the "hybrid" (you can see a lot of "dragon-Gryphon hybrids").

The word "chimera" is correct. I also watch the latest trends in the culture of the dragon. I fear the trend changes dragon because it destroys the image of the dragon. To draw the original dragon, have done a great job. Young artists do not know about it or are lazy.

If this continues, the dragon will dissolve like salt in water, and then disappear completely.

Instead of modern dragon - no dragon.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lindblut In reply to Alister-Murkerry [2012-12-09 10:47:35 +0000 UTC]

It's very clearly an anthromorphic dragon.

Must be hard for you to run into dragons all the time which don't match your opinion on what a dragon must look like. What are you, a dragon nazi or something? WIR MÜSSEN DIE DRACHEN JUDEN AUSROTTEN!!!

Another thing: maybe DeviantART is not the place for you. You know what "deviant" means? It means to do something which is not normal, to do something which goes against the usual rules. So this place is made for people to draw creatures and many other things the way they see them fit. And nothing you are going to say to these artists is going to change that. So why are you even trying?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lindblut In reply to Araless [2012-12-07 22:28:49 +0000 UTC]

Kannste vergessen mit der zu debattieren >XD
Die isn Otherkin, die sind alle gaga und denken, sie wären was Besonderes.

Ich hab schon versucht mit der zu debattieren und zu agumentieren, dass Drachen nicht alle uniform aussehen wie typische oldschool-Western Drachen (Schuppen, Fledermausflügel usw), aber die denkt sie hat die Drachen-Weisheit mit Löffeln gefressen... darüber hinaus glaubt sie, selbst einer zu sein lol :,D
Finde, das sagt ja schon alles. Jedenfalls hält sie es für ihre gegebene Aufgabe allen Drachen-Zeichnern auf DA zu erklären, dass es nur ihre Art von Drachen gibt und alles andere ist falsch.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Araless In reply to Lindblut [2012-12-07 22:43:00 +0000 UTC]

Ja irgendwas davon hab ich auch schon mitbekommen wegen der Otherkin-Geschichte
Angeblich ist "sie" ja eigentlich ein er aber seine Drachenhälfte ist wohl weiblich. Er/sie/es scheint also allgemein ein wenig verwirrt zu sein ^^°
Mich würds nur mal interessieren worauf seine Meinung basiert bzw. warum sich immer alle anderen erklären müssen, aber er selbst es anscheinend nicht nötig hat.

Irgendwie finde ich es ironisch, wie sein eigener Drache Fell anstatt Schuppen hat, aber DAS natürlich völlig in Ordnung ist. Aber wehe die Flügel sind mit Federn bedeckt... dann ist es ganz klar ein Greif!
Ich bekomm da echt Kopfschmerzen wenn ich sehe was für eine verkehrte Logik manche Leute an den Tag legen XD" Hehe, dir geht der Typ mindestens genauso sehr auf den Geist wie mir, oder? XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lindblut In reply to Araless [2012-12-07 22:52:29 +0000 UTC]

Mir kanns ja echt egal sein, für was er/sie sich hält, aber ich finde es geht ja mal gar nicht durch die Reihen zu schleichen und jeden anzugehen, der ihrer/seiner Meinung nach Drachen 'falsch' zeichnet. Dass er/sie sich gar nicht wundert, dass wirklich JEDER ihm/ihr sagt, dass Drachen eben Fabelwesen sind und man sie eigentlich zeichnen kann, wie man möchte.

Naja seine/ihre Meinung basiert auf sich selbst angeeignetes Wissen und selbst ausgedachte Sachen soweit ich das mitgeschnitten hab. Er/sie gibt ständig damit an, einen langen Artikel darüber zu schreiben/geschrieben zu haben was wohl sowas wie ne Drachen-Bibel darstellen soll, wenn man danach fragt wird man nur damit vertröstet, dass der Artikel auf Russisch ist und sie/er ihn generel nicht heraus gibt. Also frei nach dem Motto große Klappe und nichts dahinter.

Jo, er/sie hat auch ne Menge komische Headcanons, wenn ich dem seinen Kigru-Comic da angucke mit irgendwelchen Monstern aus Halo neben komischen Pokemon-Anthros...
[link] Oregenuhl Charactor donut steel!
Und das soll ein Hund sein: [link]
... mit Reisig-Besen Frisur >XD

Naja mittlerweile find ich den eigentlich nur noch lustig >XD ich geh gerne ab und zu mal ganz gerne durch dem seine Activity und guck, was der wieder so für Kommentare auf andere Leute abgelassen hat >XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Araless In reply to Lindblut [2012-12-07 23:49:38 +0000 UTC]

Soll er ruhig glauben was er will aber dann soll er nicht anderen ständig seine Meinung aufzwingen. Irgendwann ist auch mal Schluss mit lustig ^^"
Mein Problem ist, dass ich oft versuche zu verstehen wie andere Menschen ticken oder was sie bewegt. Wenn ich das nicht kann habe ich keine Ruhe bis die Sache vom Tisch ist XD
Aber hast recht, es ist manchmal echt unterhaltsam sich anzugucken was der so wieder für Blödsinn anstellt XD
Mhm, sein "origineller" Comic... dessen Charaktere aus allen möglichen fandoms zusammen gematscht ist. Weswegen die Typen aussehen wie Pokemon aber keine sind
Den Hund find ich ja mal mega krass! XDD Diese Frisur~
Mal abgesehen davon seh ich eher nen Bären statt nen Hund. Soll wohl so ne Art Fukano-Hybrid darstellen.... kA

Am besten ist immer noch die eine Sache wo er sich aufregt das mal jemand IHN Anatomiefehler vorwirft, was ja ne Frechheit ist. Schließlich ist er dovahkiin otherkin und weiß es deshalb am besten! [link]
Ein bisschen Popcorn dazu und du hast ne unterhaltsame Gute-Nacht-Geschichte XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lindblut In reply to Araless [2012-12-08 09:56:16 +0000 UTC]

Ja so gings mir früher auch als ich noch die eine Stalkerin an der Backe hatte die immer Sachen von mir und ner Freundin nachgemacht hat, aber dann immer behauptet hat wir würden von der abgucken o_o
Irgendwann hab ich dann zufällig über Wikipedia herausgefunden dass die eine narzisstische Persönlichkeitsstörung hat, womit sich gleich das ganze gaga-Verhalten erklären ließ. Seit dem ist mir klar, dass es für mancher Leute Verhalten keine logische Erklärung gibt bzw man es nicht nachvollziehen kann einfach weil die nicht normal sind, die sind krank im Kopf.

Ja dachte auch an einen Bären, sieht jedenfalls nicht wie ein Hund aus >XD

DOVAHKIIN *sterb* Ahahaha :,D
Rofl musst mal unten das Arguement lesen zwischen dem und Wardog >XDDD das is echt GOLD
DIE ANATOMIE IST RICHTIG ich weiß es denn ich bin auf dem Bild!!!!
UHMMM okay :,D

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Alister-Murkerry In reply to Lindblut [2012-12-16 10:46:00 +0000 UTC]

Ich sehe hier eine Lachen über das unbekannte. Sie mischen in einem Haufen drei sehr unterschiedliche Themen.
1) Drache in der Kultur (wir sehen das _jetzt_).
2) Otherkin (Ich schreibe und male das nur für andere otherkin; dieses Thema hat viele Fragen über ihre Realität, aber es erfordert eine wissenschaftliche Forschung. Dort gibt es viele _Fakten_. Nein, keine leben Drache in Erde und keine Alien. Ich bin Realist. Bild "ich-drache" ist nur ein Fakt für eine Forschung (eine spezielle Wahrnehmung), darum hier können wir bezüglich Fehler nicht sagen.)
3) Theorie "Fantasies-Reich" (Überwachung der Psyche, wenn sie Erfindung schafft. Hier sehen wir Vermischen die Ideen aus _Nature_und_Kulture_, und - keine Copyright in Psyche. Zum Beispil, KIGRU (rus. КИГРУ - КомандИнгартская ГРУппа) habe gewisseren Geschöpfen als "pokemon" und "zerg" mit ihr Unterschied zu richtig "pokemon" und "zerg". Diese Theorie hat vielen Textseiten. (Na ja, Grou sieht aus wie ein Bär, das ist ein Fehler. Ich kann nicht zeichnen solche Hunde als Chow-Chow. Und ich liebe Pokemon nicht. Paradox. Lange Geschichte mit Grou und Tscharmilian Tscharskij...)

Also, sehen Sie? Ich sage über das erste Thema, denn hier gibt es keine andere Otherkin oder Psychologen und keine Diskussion der Theorie "Fantasies-Reich" (Art der Organisation ervunden Welten). Und innerhalb des ersten Themas habe ich viel Wissen, dass ich in Verzeichnissen und kulturologischen Monographien erhalten haben.

Ich weiß, dass meine Kraft zu klein, um die Auflösung Drachen zu stoppen. Aber ich kann die Gründe für dieses Phänomen. Warum der Drache verliert heute seine Eigenschaften? DA ist ein besten Platz für der Beobachtungen.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lindblut In reply to Alister-Murkerry [2012-12-16 11:37:04 +0000 UTC]

So why is it okay if you mix creatures and characters from other games and movies such as pokemon, but if someone else mixes dragons, it is not okay? Why? That is not fair!
Why do people have to listen to your 'rules' when you ignore them yourself?
I am making fun of you because I think you are a bit silly with this. Why go around and tell people what to draw, or how to draw it? Like, there is nothing wrong with giving critique, but that is not what you do. You dictate people how to draw something and you will not accept when they try to tell you that within their headcanon/story, this is exactly how they do look and work and that it's within their right to create a new design and still call it a dragon, even though it might not look like what you believe to be a dragon.

You said are afraid that people will forget the origin and the true looks of dragons, but I do not think they will. Drawing dragons with feathers and fur is a trend, it came, and sometimes it will go again.
Actually I see a lot of dragon artists who still draw old-type western dragons, like *neondragon , =Shinerai , ~Skysealer and many more. At the same time though while drawing dragons 'correctly' with scales and membrane wings, they like to explore the idea of adding fur and other elements ot thier dragon designs as well.

Just because young artists draw wolves with funny fur colors and special hair and mane will not make people forget how wolves actually look like, will it?
I do not think these young artists who draw dragons in different ways are lazy or didn't do their research or anything.

I for example do know -exactly- how the different types of dragon looks like, such as the wyvern, the classic western dragon, the lindworm and many more.
Still, I like to play with looks and creativity and create my own 'dragon' species which may have fur, feather wings and other attributes which are -not- typically or commonly dragon as we know it from literature and old art. Because that is something -I- like and fancy, so I will add it to the looks.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's within my rights of artistic freedom as an artist to draw something as I see fit, just as it's your right to draw whatever you like, or anyone else's.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Alister-Murkerry In reply to Lindblut [2012-12-18 10:49:07 +0000 UTC]

I do not mind hybridization. Here we see a beautiful hybrid of "dragon-bird-man", and I saw a lot of other nice and interesting hybrids. But. No one can replace the one concept to others.

When I create my hybrids, I give them a new name. If the hybrid does not have enough features of the dragon, it is not called "Dragon." If the hybrid does not have enough features Pokemon, it is not called "Pokemon". Name tells about his pedigree ("semi-Pikachu", for example), but do not lie, and the name does not say that a hybrid is its ancestor.

> You said are afraid that people will forget the origin and the true looks of dragons, but I do not think they will. Drawing dragons with feathers and fur is a trend, it came, and sometimes it will go again.

This is your first thought in the right way. Thank you. I hope you're right. But I do have evidence that the situation is developing differently. But here again, I should go to the specific arguments, and I'm at a dead end, because there is no place for such detailed dialogue, and I do not know the correct translation into English or German. Solution here lies in a great article that I can translate into English. Do you think that I'm not going to write it? You do not think about the amount of work (this is a scientific work, a few weeks, if anyone was paying for it). I need this article to engage in dialogue with interlocutors in other languages. And I'm doing this article, when I have the opportunity to do so.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lindblut In reply to Alister-Murkerry [2012-12-18 11:26:24 +0000 UTC]

That is your opinion. I still see a dragon in anthro form, nothing more and nothing less. I see no gryphon in this character, or a human even. I see a dragon that has arms and legs like a human, but that does not nessecairly mean it's a human hybrid.
That would be like saying anything on 4 legs is a dog because dogs have 4 legs, too.
You're hung-up to the idea that certain attributes belong to certain species, but it's proven in nature that different species can have the same attributes and still be different. All mammals have lungs, for example. Even though there are things we share, we are also very different from one another in shape and thought. This does not mean that certain attributes can't be found in different species however.

Why not draw a dragon with bird wings?
I would like to hear your opinion on the Cockatrice: [link]
The Cockatrice is a recognized, original, traditional dragon 'breed'. It's described the following: "essentially a two-legged dragon with a rooster's head".
So even though this creature features a rooster's head (and is often portrayed with feather wings), and to your rules, would not be a dragon but rather a hybrid or chimera, it -IS- one of the true dragons we know from literature. And there is no room for denying that.
And honestly this Cockatrice looks much less like a dragon than the character in this picture.

To be honest I think it is very unoriginal to take a character of an existing franchise (such as pokemon), mix it and then call it a different species. Your Raichu character looks just like an anthro version of Raichu, and Charmsky does just look like the original with wings. I do not see what is outstanding or much of your own on these characters. Sorry but this is what I see.
It is not really related to the original issue of this conversation though so let me get back to that.

What bothers me about the endless talk about your so called article is that you keep saying there is evidence, but you never show any.
And when asked about the evidence, you keep refering to your article you haven't even written yet. It's a loophole, and you can not refer to something which isn't an recognized article (recognized within an organisation of other, known scientists for example) yet.

I keep telling you that I have all the knowledge of dragons that I need and which I believe is correct, but you keep saying no, no, that is all wrong. But how is your knowledge better than mine? I could also call myself a self-proclaimed expert, scientist, researcher because I spend certainly more than enough time researching on the suvject of dragon (in books and on the internet), but if I would tell you that I can also write an article about it because I know so much (more), I do not expect that you will take my word for granted. Because why should you if I can not prove it, but my words seem empty? And this is the same which goes for you.

Anyone can just write some essay and claim it has scientific background and is the ultimate truth. I hope you can understand why I keep being sceptical about this.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Alister-Murkerry In reply to Lindblut [2012-12-18 11:37:22 +0000 UTC]

Our dialogue has gone from the image above. It might be better to use the personal messages?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lindblut In reply to Alister-Murkerry [2013-01-04 01:07:09 +0000 UTC]

If you insist?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Alister-Murkerry In reply to Lindblut [2013-01-09 12:05:34 +0000 UTC]

This could be interesting ... If Google translator will work well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lindblut In reply to Alister-Murkerry [2013-01-09 19:54:15 +0000 UTC]

Please go ahead!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Araless In reply to Lindblut [2012-12-16 21:16:49 +0000 UTC]

Habe dem nichts hinzuzufügen.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

liiga In reply to Starlit-Sorceress [2011-07-31 20:11:20 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! I'm not interested in points as a payment method so I will decline, but good luck with your project.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1