Should anyone read this, I hope you will enjoy my perspective on this topic. The odds of someone actually reading it are slim because i spend all my time on FAF rather than submitting art and getting known on FA instead. My apologies in advance for any typos.


If you are lucky enough to have stumbled upon this journal, I am not a very one sided person, and will discuss Rukis' comics from both perspectives. Now onto the journal:

Rukis, she is a somewhat well known artist, particularly in the more NSFW region of the fandom. Her art is quite good in my eyes. But of course saying just that, doesn't give you much to grasp, so allow me to rationalize my thinking for you. Her art style as I like to call it, is texture-realism. The fur, the skin, and any texture really, she is very proficient at making it look near-photorealistic. In the world of furry comics, this doesn't appear very often. Normally fur is implied when drawing characters, this is often to simplify the work of artists by allowing them to focus on the anatomy of their characters, then they can simply add some fur in strategic places to achieve the effect of implied fur. While I certainly do like much of the art that is produced in this style –in fact every other one of my favourite artists uses this style– it is however, nice to see the slight variety Rukis' texture-realism provides to the array of drawing styles.

However, as I mentioned, other artists can use the "implied fur" to their advantage when working out anatomical correctness. This is one of the issues Rukis suffers with. I am in no way trying to defend her by saying her style does not easily permit proper anatomy, because most certainly if she put more effort into each piece of art she produces, she could overcome the limitations of her style, or perhaps she may even simply not be perfect with hear anatomy and it is a skill she must work on. Either way, while it could use work, her anatomy is at least much better than the "Water-Balloon Anatomy" of the artist known as "Aaron". I shudder every time I she Aaron's tumour-covered characters. That is of course beside the point as we are currently discussing Rukis' art, and in particular, her comics.

With much discussion on FAF about Rukis' art, it has been mentioned that a major flaw in Rukis' comic art is her lack of expression in the characters. From my perspective it is because of her semi-realistic style of drawing, in that real dogs, cats, etc, are not capable of a human range of facial expressions. By contrast though, it has been argued to me that a comic (rather than a simple piece of art) must have expressive faces in order to lend some believability to the discussion in the comic. This is a very valid point that I had not thought of, and so I raise the question, "Should Rukis even be making comics?" Evidently comics are not the best outlet for Rukis' art as her characters thus appear emotionless and stiff. This lack of expression may be suitable for individual pieces of art, as it is more acceptable for every piece of art she makes to be serious and unexpressive; in comics this is less appropriate.

The final major flaw I will point out is the phenomenon I will refer to as "Dog Template No.1". What exactly does that meaningless phrase pertain to? It pertains to the fact that every character Rukis draws is inherently dog-like. Even the felines such as the tigers look like dogs. This was vividly demonstrated by another member of FAF who showed a comparison picture of one of Rukis' tigers with the real thing. It was quite clear that the mussel/snout was much too long for a tiger, and of course much more closely resembled that of a dog. Most of her characters indeed to look very much like they were drawn using what I like to call "Dog Template No.1" and I cannot agree more with the other members of FAF about this phenomena.

These flaws could definitely be improved upon and Rukis' art could shine with some of the most popular artists in the fandom. But will she be so inclined to change, as her history has demonstrated previously, I must sadly answer my question with a definitive "no." Rukis, has often been referred to as a self-centered, head-strong, young child when responding to criticism, be it constructive or otherwise. Evidently in some posts that where claimed to be made by her (although verification of those posts has yet to be obtained), she values her watches above all else and so long as she has watches she will refuse to change her technique for the better, claiming it's "her style," rather than accepting constructive criticism and putting efforts towards improving. Referencing my previous paragraph on "Dog Template No.1", my deductions tell me that it is this ignorance of suggestion may have buried her dog-like styling of all characters so deeply that this doggish quality is the permanent result.

Nonetheless, despite the various quirks and flaws of Rukis' art, and despite the ignorance and stubbornness that is said of Rukis, I still have an appreciation for her art. The reasoning behind such an appreciation is not entirely clear, a good part of it could just be personal preference in which I find her art rather appealing, a large part of the appeal though, is simply that her art is a bit more drastically different from that of many other artists. By no means am I saying all other artists' art looks the same; every artist's artistic style has particular nuances that make it their own. Simply put the nuances in Rukis' art are comparatively more different than most artists and I find it particularly "refreshing" even if not particularly "superb."

A thank you to all the members of FAF with whom I had the thrilling discussion with on this such topic and whom provided such great examples of the various phenomena in Rukis' art.


Should you have read this journal all the way through, I certainly hope you enjoyed it. I may do more journals like this for other artists if I get the time. I am always open to feedback and intelligent discussion so feel free to comment or contact me.