From: alberti@ux.acs.umn.edu (Timothy Fay)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Re: Furries and sexuality (again)
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:17:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux.alberti.702850637
Organization: Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League


In <2074@ontek.com> john@ontek.com (John Alan Stanley) writes:

>In article <alberti.702709666@ux.acs.umn.edu> alberti@ux.acs.umn.edu
>(Timothy Fay) writes:
>}
>}When Richard Chandler and I got into a discussion regarding guns & furries
>}(sounds like a Heavy Metal band, dunnit?) in this newsgroup, we were told,
>}in no uncertain terms, to take the discussion elsewhere.  It seems that
>}the furries aren't quite as tolerant as you make them out to be.

>That, Tim, was not at all my point.  If you were only discussing guns, I
>could see some reason for that request.  As I recall, you two were engaged
>in a spirited "I'm Ignoring You!" contest, which some folks here began to
>find tiresome after a few iterations.  So they asked you to stop.

You recall incorrectly, then.  We were told to stop because our discussion
was not considered "furry" enough for this newsgroup.

>}I don't have a problem with furry erotic art, per se.  But most
>}of it, apart from being badly-drawn, just isn't very erotic; 
>}it's usually sexist, _Hustler_-level pseudo-porn, only more juvenile.
>}I like well-produced furry material, but most "furry" creators
>}tend to cast a bad light on other non-furry artists and cartoonists
>}who like to use animals (funny or otherwise) in their works.

>So it's just like most other things, eh?  90% crap, 9% decent, 1% great.
>So what?  People do the things they like to do, and some are better at it
>than others.  You obviously place a high value on artistic merit in and
>of itself, and I'll agree that most furry art has little to recommend it
>in that department...

You can say that again.  I think this a very typical attitude among
"furry", artists, i.e., they want to think of themselves as great
creators, but when confronted with the fact that their stuff isn't all
that good they fall back on rationalizations like "everything is 90%
crap, anyway."

>Ah, but!  As you might have noticed, the better works of art tend to be
>rather highly priced, so much so that even I (a notorious bidding war
>winner) would have trouble affording them.  This, I think, is the main
>reason for the profusion of relatively disposable art.  It sells.  I know
>that crass commercialism is anathema to fine art, but the realities of
>life dictate that artists must eat too.

Just because furry fans are willing to spend their lunch money buying
other furry fans' sketches does not mean that what they are buying
belongs in the Louvre.  But again, you're trying to have it both ways:
You say the "better" works of art tend to be highly priced, then turn
around and say that there is a lot of "disposable art" around because
"it sells."  Is it fine art or crass commercialism?  The fact that
furries often go to great lengths (and expense) to promote themselves,
their art, and their publications suggests the latter.

>Would we be better off if no one ever drew anything less than the finest
>thing they could do?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think the world would definitely be a
better place if the above were true.

>This is not to say that we should not encourage quality work, not in the
>least.  I just think that there is a place for all types of art in furry
>fandom, from the lowest of the lowbrow sleaze, to the loftiest works of the
>best of our artists.  Without that range of choice, things would stagnate,
>and I think they are anything but that right now!  So, rejoice in the 
>breadth of choices we have, and choose carefully for yourself what you
>wish to have, and what you wish to emulate.  But please don't decry the
>fact that there _is_ a choice; that is what true freedom is about, after all.

The choice between good and bad art is not much of a choice; good art
is always going to be preferable to bad art.  And I do not decry the
choice between good and bad "furry" art, because such a choice does not
exist.  The vast majority of furry art is not well drawn, not well
written, and very often just poorly conceived.  Perhaps someday furry
fandom will mature into something resembling a true art form.  Until
then, I think the phrase I quoted in a previous article comes closest
to characterizing furry fandom as it exists today:  Infantile funny
animals crossed with adolescent exaggerated eroticism.

-- 
		Reply to:  avatar@pnet51.orb.mn.org
 "Bowl a strike, not a spare; Revolution everywhere!"  -RABL credo