From: john@ontek.com (John Alan Stanley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Re: Furries and sexuality (again)
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:07:59 GMT
Organization: Ontek Corporation -- Laguna Hills, California

In article <alberti.702709666@ux.acs.umn.edu> alberti@ux.acs.umn.edu (Timothy Fay) writes:
}
}>In article <2070@ontek.com> john@ontek.com (John Alan Stanley) 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 could
just as easily have ignored them and continued.  I think that we are all
grateful that you did not... :-)

The point I was making, however, was that I think it is quite disingenuous
to say that only "furry" topics should ever be discussed in furry space.
If that means we can never discuss any sort of real world concerns which
relate to being furry, then I will politely beg to differ.  I think that you
are agreeing with that, but in a rather oblique and personal fashion.

}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.  But then, most any sort of genre art is like that.
I like furry art, and I have no qualms about it being a populist sort of
artform, mostly unsullied with the trappings of fine art.  I'll happily
buy anything which catches my interest, whether it is a cheap piece of
furry dick art (my own preference), or a masterpiece of good taste and
artistic sensibility.

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.  And so, there is pandering.  
Would we be better off if no one ever drew anything less than the finest
thing they could do?  Undoubtedly, but that is true of any field.  Like it
or not, IBM PCs are a standard of computing, but they are far from the best
possible computer.  What they shine at is being _affordable_, and that is
no little thing.  Similarly, if all we had in furry art was exquisite
pieces which sold for multiple thousands of dollars, I think we would all
be the poorer for it, both in money, and in talent.

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.

JAS
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry