HOME | DD
FauvFox — COM Protogen mask
#protogen #tf #sequence #transformation
Published: 2019-12-19 17:18:22 +0000 UTC; Views: 32705; Favourites: 248; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
commission for NikolaiClarkson who finds an old protogen relic... and accidentally activates it!Related content
Comments: 24
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well supposedly they are 70% robot so idk probably not lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Slightly inaccurate in regards to how you've shown protogen anatomy;
A protogen's visor is made from nanites that allows them to open or close their otherwise LED-like jaws exactly as how a biological creature would; those images showing protogens doing exactly that aren't doing so out of personal favour.
Here's proof of this sheer fact:
Protogen and Primagen Visors ExplainedI will start with these pictures to put the simple subject across first:
Firstly, yes, both Primagen and Protogen have faces under their visors...in a way.
But, most importantly, please note that neither can come off manually or automatically.
Protogen visors are made up of nanites (mini computer bots), and so if a Protogens visor is damaged or receives an attack, there is a high chance that many or few of those bots will be destroyed, leaving holes or cracks in the visor. Whether or not this can be repaired isn't known, but I would assume not. Also, their visors are technically their skulls, as they hold the facial organs together. The example above only shows it without the visor so you can get a better view of the facial details.
Quote from the official information on protogen visors:
"Protogen Visors are made out of a special nanite matter which is able to change shape and move
The last panel shows the character opening their LED-like mouth... without actually opening the jaw.
Consciousness works in terms of emotion, feeling what it senses (instead of sensing the actual thing, itself), and using feelings to control the body. The latter explains why transformation victims often intuitively know how to animate their new bodies right away (even if they don't know how to use it, or even move from place to place).
Therefore, what would most likely happen should the character attempt to open their jaws is for this fact to come pass: that their jaws would physically open, just as how a biological jaw would. They would need conscious effort to prevent that from happening; obviously, this isn't the case (as the character had just been transformed, and wouldn't had realized any of this would happen).
Seeing as though you've only drew his mouth this way in order for him to facially express his emotions, the correct solution here would be for him to express alarm while keeping his mouth close. Remember, it's not the outside appearance that happens to be the emotion, but rather on the inside; you don't need an open mouth to express surprise.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
why are you trying to explain the anatomy of a digital robot dog lmfao
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because A, Protogens are an entire synthetic species (and are decisively not digital dogs), and B, because if you're going to replicate a reality, at least do it right.
Get the feel wrong, and they won't be a protogen. Feelings count, for feelings are the life force of existence, itself; without feeling, there won't be existence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
its a dog that doesn't exist in real life. it doesn't matter how you draw them. literally nobody asked for your opinion over how someone draws a plain ass robot dog lmfao
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, you're saying that a protogen must not have their bodies work the same way as actual protogens?
Besides which, it doesn't matter whether protogens exist in real life; as far as this artwork is concerned, protogens exist, and since emotions are the life force of existence itself, wrapping, covering and encompassing existence, even if still otherwise confined to the work, protogens exist for real.
What you're really saying is that a protogen does not have to feel like a protogen. Yes, it doesn't matter how someone draws something, but there's only so much creative freedom before something becomes something aside from outselves.
A work that aims to replicate a reality replicates it to a precise degree; doesn't matter anything else. This means even a fictional reality, something that doesn't exist "in real life", has anchors, feelings that hold other feelings down to prevent them from tremendously changing.
If I draw a cat's head with round ears and a muzzle whose nose points upwards, the cat would look like a mouse instead of a cat. The same goes for protogens. This is why the notion of vital building blocks exist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
as you can see,, even the artist does not care lmfao
appreciate the art or don't say anything cause nobody cares about not drawing one fuckin piece of a fictional animal species
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, because the artist did not reply to this chain specifically, it means they do not care, right? The artist did indeed reply; he just didn't give his thoughts on this conversation, specifically.
Besides which, no one enjoys a piece and says "no one cares" at the same time; if you really did enjoy the piece, you certainly would've cared...
Also, someone who truly appreciates a persons race (NOT animal species - get your facts about protogens straight) would care, even if they wouldn't otherwise agree with me. They also wouldn't call people animals, nor say that they're dogs.
You don't know a thing about protogens yourself, don't you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i dont care about protogens cause they're a digital dog lmfao
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then why are you defending the artist's choices?
If you don't care for protogens, by sheer definition, you don't care for this picture at all and thus, you shouldn't be defending the artist's choices; as I've said, emotions are the life force of existence, itself, so, by extension, that mean what you're staring at is an actual protogen.
A person would not like a picture for the sake of liking it; they'd like it because something within it appeals to them. You're just seem to be arguing because those who criticizes other people's works seem to be your pet peeve, rather than because you actually like this piece.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have one question for you.
Its gonna blow your mind.
You ready?
What
Is
Art?
Lets take a look shall we?
What does google say...
“the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”
Now thats a lot of text (a lot less than you used though) but what does it mean...
From what I, and most people would likely gather, its a form of expression used to produce something people find entertaining, beautiful, or inspiring.
Now lets get down to business. (Que mulan training montage!)
I’m going to speak directly now.
This argument you are making is flawed by its very nature because you are arguing that art itself is not something that should be an entirely subjective concept. Art is 100% subjective. Someone could look at a kid’s seizure induced stickfigure drawing and call it art and they would be right.
But does that make it good art?
No, it doesn’t, it almost certainly sucks.
Everyone is entitled to criticism of art, certainly that may offend some but its something given when art is displayed.
However, you have not criticized this art, or rather you have not asked the question, “Is this good art?”, but rather you have asked the question, “Is this art correct?”.
Now thing is, anyone can make art, of anything, it doesn’t have to be bound by any set of rules that is why art is art.
So get your head out of your ass and realize that if the anatomy of a creature (humans for example?) is not 100% accurate, that doesn’t mean you have to try to correct.
You have tried to correct the art, just make a critique and leave it at that. Just say something like, “the anatomy isn’t quite right” and explain a small bit, citing resources and explaining the 10 things the artist needs to know before creating art of it is just absurd.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You do know that as a philosopher, I have analysed emotions from front to back. This is not bragging; go check my page on DeviantArt for the core documents to my philosophy.
Emotions are not subjective by nature; even the term "beauty" is just simply a generalized name given to an emotion. Emotions are the life force of existence, itself, being what leads onto existence just as existence leads onto it. Emotions cover, encompass and surround the entirely of existence.
Have you ever wondered why artwork can seem so completely believable at times, that you could swear you're staring at the actual thing? It's because you actually are; even if still just confined to the emotion, itself, things within exists as bright as te day.
Indeed, a valid interpretation, no matter its outside appearance, is always built from the exact same emotions. If this was not the case, objectivity would not exist.
What gives art an exception? When we look at a person depicted in art, am I looking at looking at that person, or am I looking at something I like? If art is subjective, I wouldn't be looking at that person...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
R/Iamverysmart: Furry edition
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Before you decry me as being a stupid person who's only pretending to sound smart, at least look at what I'm trying to say.
Otherwise, you could just as well fit underneath that Reddit page, yourself...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Where do all of these mask keep coming from?
>.> and where can I find one? :3c
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, a protogen tf, these are amazing but there are so few!
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
They don't need to. However if they want to the masks can open. They aren't Solid like that. Atleast that's what my friend tells me anyway when I asked them. It's a nanite thing apparently.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0