Stephen Neal Senior Thesis Anthropomorphism and Zoomorphism: The Philosophy and Prevalence in Pop Culture and in the History of Man Men are visual creatures. The eyes of man are designed to view the world in all its complexity and beauty. Human beings need to see things and give them a name before the object, animal, mineral, vegetable, et cetera, can be considered a reality. The ancients used to worship fierce deities and monsters that looked much like their human creators. Men today do the same thing with our deities and creatures of imagination, but today it is done with art, music, video, literature, and electronics. The philosophy of anthropomorphism is the application of human characteristics or feelings to an inhuman object (e.g. a car, desk, or pen) or organism (animal or a plant). It is philosophy that is still used today whether consciously or not. John McGraw says it best by stating, “we get „mad‟ at our cars (as if that could coerce the machine to perform) and infer every accident and every chance event in our lives as divinely sanctioned events. We punch the soda machine if it does not give us what we paid for, like we might punch a person who cheated us. The soda machine neither intends insult nor feels our injury” (24). Zoomorphism, however, is the application of lesser animal traits to a deity or a god-head. This is the more visual of the two philosophies, at least to begin with, as evidenced most strongly by the art of the ancients, especially in civilized cultures such as the Aztecs, the Romans and the Greeks, and the Egyptians. Although anthropomorphism and zoomorphism are strong in most of today‟s media, one of the most prevalent sources of these ideologies is in art. To fully appreciate the art of today, one must first understand the historical context of anthropomorphism and zoomorphism in art. Some of the most striking representations of anthropomorphism and zoomorphism occur in Egypt and Europe. In Egypt, the priests and the lay people worshiped humanoid deities with animalistic qualities. Often times their gods would have the heads of an animal but the body of a man or a woman. This is a good, if rather historically unusual, example of combined philosophies of anthropomorphism and zoomorphism. Frequently the gods of Egypt would perform a duty associated with the animal head they possessed. For example, Anubis was the god of death (although he was eventually demoted to the god of mummification) and he had the head of a black jackal (Oaks and Gahlin, 281). To the Egyptians, black was the color of death and Anubis was connected to the jackal because jackals were often seen around the tombs or the necropolises (mass burial cities). Sekhmet was the goddess of destruction in Egyptian religion, and she had the head of a lioness. Sphinxes were also common, although they were not restricted to a human head, though they were not restricted to the human head such as may be popularly believed. In the religion of the Romans and Greeks, the gods were almost always depicted as human beings. However, there were some creatures in Roman mythology that had human traits such as the harpies, centaurs, satyrs, and, probably the most famous, the Minotaur of Mino‟s labyrinth. Indian mythology is also a good place to find anthropomorphic/zoomorphic entities. One of their most famous anthropomorphic creatures is the Rakshasa (male) and Rakshasi (female), tiger humans with magical powers and a taste for human flesh. However, they are also portrayed as giants in some literature. In the more recent times, namely the Renaissance, anthropomorphic art took on a more Christian connotation. In the book of Genesis, one of the most well known passages, and potentially one of the main reasons for anthropomorphic depictions of God, is when the narrator describes man as being made in the image and likeness of God. Famous depictions of God and angels can be seen all over Italy and Europe. Some examples include “The Annunciation” by Duccio di Buoninsegna in which the archangel Gabriel is depicted as a winged human. Probably the most famous example is Michelangelo‟s Sistine Chapel ceiling. The whole ceiling is covered in images of God as an old man, acting out scenes from the Bible. Depiction of the classical gods of Rome and Greece was also popular during the Renaissance, such as in the painting “Primavera” by Sandro Botticelli where Venus is the central figure, but she is accompanied by Apollo, Cupid, and other figures of mythology. In modern times however, the creatures of our imagination still make their mark, though not in the way one might often expect. With today‟s technological advancements in paper, pencil, erasers, and Photoshop, the methods of constructing, drawing, and coloring the anthropomorphic and zoomorphic characters of antiquity and of one‟s own imagination have become more and more popular. Anthropomorphic art has a large following as well, with entire websites devoted to showcasing the art of many artists who are just as fascinated with anthropomorphic animals just as much as the ancients were. Looking at an average box of Frosted Flakes for example will give one an idea of how common anthropomorphic art really is. Major companies found that the use of animal mascots to promote their products would appeal to children especially, and the product would be in the minds of children, then the minds of the parents, and eventually the wallets of the parents (Miller, 10). The methods for drawing the characters greatly vary, referring back to the Tony the Tiger example; one could rightly presume that he was drawn in a cartoonish style meant to appeal to a younger audience. Other artists however draw their anthropomorphic characters in a more realistic style such as artists like Demonpuppy and Starfinder. Demonpuppy (a comic artist by the name of Brett Booth) has used his talents to portray such characters as dinosaurs and human beings, but one of his main staples is his portrayal of anthropomorphic characters. Starfinder (an anthropomorphic artist from southern California) also draws realistic anthropomorphic characters using paints and Photoshop. Both of these artists use more realistic designs meant to appeal to an older audience. As for zoomorphic art, one of the seemingly more popular figures to draw is that of the Egyptian god Anubis, though zoomorphic art is far less popular than anthropomorphic. Sometimes anthropomorphic characters are used to portray touchy subject matter such as politics, race, and sexual orientation. The idea behind the latter is: “If mere animals are doing the dirty work, how terrible can it be” (Miller, 10). If mere animals are doing the dirty work, it seems to make the actions portrayed not nearly as bad as it would be if humans were depicted. Many times, anthropomorphic characters are used to depict heterosexual or homosexual situations ranging from a “G” rating to an “XXX” rating. The use of erotica in this art form has created a sub-division of sorts in anthropomorphic art: “furry” art and “anthro” art. There is no real distinction between furry and anthro art other than, more often than not, anthro art is less likely to contain erotica than furry art, but of course there are exceptions. A sort of “cult” has almost originated around anthro and furry art. The main participants in this “cult” are called “Furries”. Furry fandom is a name given to individuals who have a distinct interest in anthropomorphic animals such as cartoon characters. Many, but not all, furries strongly identify with or view themselves as one (or more) species of animal other than human. Common furry identities (fursonas) are dragon, feline (cat, lion, tiger), and canine (wolf, fox, domestic dog). Some furries create mixed species such as a folf (fox and wolf) or cabbit (cat and rabbit). Furries rarely, if ever, identify with a non-human primate species. […] some furries dress from head-to- toe in animal-like costumes, referred to as fursuits (Gerbasi, 3). However, there are several derogative stereotypes directed at furries, mainly dealing with the psychological health of the individuals. However, in popular media, furries have been portrayed in a decidedly unflattering way. Well-known media portrayals include an episode of the television program CSI (2003) and a Vanity Fair piece (Gurley, 2001). Cauldron (2006) included furries in her book and was kinder than Gurley. A recent episode of the HBO (2007) program Entourage contained a sexual storyline about furries. The furry stereotype promoted by Gurley indicated that furries were predominantly male, liked cartoons as children, enjoyed science fiction, were homosexual, wore glasses, and had beards (male furries only), were employed as scientists or in computer-related fields, and their most common totem animals were wolves and foxes. […] media portrayals have implied, if not explicitly stated, that furries tend to be people with psychological problems. […] furries have objected to most, if not all of these portrayals (Gerbasi, 3-4). A study was conducted by the American Sociological Association at a furry convention called Anthrocon to determine the validity of the following stereotypes about furries: the liked cartoons as children (more so than non-furry individuals), enjoy science fiction (more so than non-furry individuals), and are likely to be homosexual (Gerbasi, 5). The stereotype that furries liked cartoons very much as children proved to be true as well as the stereotype that furries like science fiction (Gerbasi, 11-12). The last stereotype, that furries are homosexual, was not entirely consistent. According to the study, the furries responded that they were just as likely to be homosexual as they were bisexual and heterosexual, making the stereotype inconsistent; however, male furries were more likely to be bisexual or homosexual than other males (31.5% homosexual, 28% heterosexual, and 40.5% bisexual).