My motivations behind this one are a little complex. I haven't drawn 'anthro' just for the sake of it for a long time, and I usually don't submit such drawings to this site. If I did, I wouldn't submit them to the anthro category; probably digital art ->portraits instead.
For me, any art is compelling not because of what kind of subject is involved, but because it is powerful art, technically impressive, or enjoyable to look at. If that's because of a great style, smart execution of a difficult concept, or plain good idea, I don't think it matters if the subject is a human, a wolf-man, or a chair.
From recent hunting through the galleries of deviants I admire, I think that many 'anthro' works are submitted under other categories (such as surreal or illustration). This has led me to wonder, where is the boundary that defines anthro/not anthro? Unlike manga/anime, which is a style (though diverse, it refers to the style, not the content), or any of the other categories on DA, which refer to medium or purpose, "anthro"'s category seems out of place to me.
Is anthro only for cartoony fox and dog people, like the ones in Disney's Robin Hood? Does anthro also encapsulate mythological creatures, like the minotaur and mermaid? Is an illustration for a children's book with the rabbits and cats in clothing not anthro? What if the 'anthro' in question is an animal with a human face, or a human with animal limbs, ears, tails? Is any combination of animal and human anthro, or is it more strict? Each artist decides for themselves. But whether or not it is anthro, isn't there already a category waiting for it? Or should all of those things be lumped into anthro instead of going to other categories?
I guess, ultimately, I am just perplexed as to why anthro is so singled out.
I know it doesn't seem like this has anything to do with the picture, but it's the reason I drew it, and what I thought about while I did so.
Thanks for reading, apologies if it was a waste of time.