.

>>31799756
>Top ten anime fight scenes

File: IMG_8542.jpg (52KB, 750x370px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 750x370px

>>31799776

>>31800291
explain this meme

>>31799756
All the single furries?

>>31800291
What's happening here? Did some photographer take an artsy picture and furries decided it was a meme for them to redraw? Why do they ruin everything?

File: image.jpg (247KB, 817x625px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 817x625px

>>31799756

>>31800470
>implying there was much to be ruined
that image is begging to be called deep, if it hadn't been furries it would've been reddit or fucking 9gag photoshops

that Porygon is waiting mate

>>31800500
Who cares? That was someone's piece of art, regardless of whether it was good or not, it meant something to whoever made it. Furfags just shit all over it. I bet that guy didn't even know what a furry was, and now that's all his work will be known for, which is a shame because he shows promise with lighting and palette choice.

>>31800514
again, if it hadn't been furfags it would've been some other online community.

Do you understand how this kinds of stuff work or not? And how do you know the guy who made it wasn't a friend with the furfag who started them meme? for fuck's sake how do you even know if it was furfags who started it? You're just looking to get mad at furfags on way or another and using this as a scapegoat to do so.

>>31799756
Is this a Jojo reference?

>>31800535
I usually don't care about furries but this shit is dumb. I would've been just as mad if it was a bunch of "le ebin frog meme XD" edits. Photography gets shit on constantly and nobody acknowledges it as an art form.

>>31800555
>I usually don't care about furries
>>31800470
>Why do they ruin everything?
that sounds like you think they have a track record for fucking photography up, which I'm doubtful about.

And just because a subset of online degenerates made edits of a pose that was shot in an artsy photo doesn't mean it's ruined, more people will see the real piece than the furry "memes"

>>31800514
This "art" would've been forgotten.
If anything, this gave their image more attention.
Who gives a shit, their art isn't groundbreaking or special.
It's not like someone spit on their mother's grave.
Get over yourself.

>>31800577
>more people will see the real piece than the furry "memes"
No they won't. This is not how these kinds of memes work. More people end up seeing the spinoffs rather than the source.

And they do have a track record for fucking up art forms, not just photography but in general. The same goes for underages who think everything has to be a funny meme. It's just distasteful in my opinion.

>>31800613
>No they won't. This is not how these kinds of memes work.
I'd agree, if it weren't for the fact it's a furfag meme if we're going by your logic. Nobody gives a fuck about what those dumbasses do, specially not photography fans.

>And they do have a track record for fucking up art forms, not just photography but in general.
for instance? when have they fucked up any kind of art form? if you say "digital media" because they do their porn drawings, you're wrong because that's subjective and has its own crowd

>>31800648
The porn is fine, the dick wants what the dick wants. In my time I've just seen far too many redraws of pieces and music re-compositions. In almost all of these cases they have become more popular to the source, often that of an independant producer who is just trying to make their own image.

>>31800674
>In almost all of these cases they have become more popular to the source, often that of an independant producer who is just trying to make their own image.
Maybe I'm just out of the loop, I've noticed only a handful of cases like that, like it happens with most fanbases in general trying to combine their preferences. To be fair, even the pokemon community is guilty of this to a certain degree and bronies are 1000x worse than anybody else in that regard

>>31800291
I like that women's pose along with the tatoo