I struggle to see any point to this article. You state that the purpose of the article is "to explain why criticism is needed, what kind of criticism, and finally to offer a few points of criticism as examples." I don't feel that you ever did any of those.
The only part where you were giving a reason for more criticism was because there wasn't any. That isn't a reason in and of itself. Why do we need criticism of the genre? We don't need it just for its own sake. You also seem to claim we need it to understand the genre but that ignores that the appeal is different for different people. Some claim a spiritual connection and some merely like the aesthetic appeal. There's no one way of understanding furry and I can't see how trying to explain the genre would benefit anyone.
You make an attempt to say what kind of criticism is needed but never said more than it needing to be descriptive. There's no more support to that idea and I raise the same objection as in the above paragraph. Why do we need descriptive criticism other than for its own sake?
You do manage to offer a few points of criticism but, apart from the section on funny animals, I think you're just trying too hard. Your explanation of the definitions just misses the point in a number of areas.
Adult is not a furry-exclusive term and generally denotes that it contains material not appropriate for minors, that can be sexual, violent, drug-related and such.
Anthropomorphism is just the attribution of human traits to non-humans. Any amount is enough to make it furry because there is no organisation to declare how much is needed. Some people, such as myself, are fine with just mental anthropomorphism but others will care about the body more. That's an individual's decision and one of the reasons why rule 2 that you provide fails.
And again you make the term animal into something far more complicated than you need to. Pokemon, mythical creatures etc are all animals. They don't exist but if they did they would be animals. Taking that as a difficult definition would be the same as getting worked up just because furries are not real.
I also find your analyses of Kistelli to be trying to find something that isn't there. If Greenreaper is right then perhaps you are correct but those sort of analyses should be done by anyone other than the artist themselves. You are just looking for some sort of symbolism and can fit the picture to whatever you want.
I could claim the picture is a homage to the WWII spy Mata Hari. She was also an erotic dancer so that link is obvious but more than that she was a spy using her feminine ways to get behind people's guard. In the same manner foxes are known to perform a 'dance' to distract rabbits and allow them to get close enough for the kill. That behaviour is referenced by the dancing foxes on the vases.
Those sort of analyses can be made to link a picture to almost anything you want and only the artist (or commissioner) knows what the real meaning behind the picture is.
In short you haven't convinced me of anything you set out to convince me of. This essay meanders across the genre, sometimes making sense but often vague and unguided, and never makes a real point.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I struggle to see any point to this article. You state that the purpose of the article is "to explain why criticism is needed, what kind of criticism, and finally to offer a few points of criticism as examples." I don't feel that you ever did any of those.
The only part where you were giving a reason for more criticism was because there wasn't any. That isn't a reason in and of itself. Why do we need criticism of the genre? We don't need it just for its own sake. You also seem to claim we need it to understand the genre but that ignores that the appeal is different for different people. Some claim a spiritual connection and some merely like the aesthetic appeal. There's no one way of understanding furry and I can't see how trying to explain the genre would benefit anyone.
You make an attempt to say what kind of criticism is needed but never said more than it needing to be descriptive. There's no more support to that idea and I raise the same objection as in the above paragraph. Why do we need descriptive criticism other than for its own sake?
You do manage to offer a few points of criticism but, apart from the section on funny animals, I think you're just trying too hard. Your explanation of the definitions just misses the point in a number of areas.
Adult is not a furry-exclusive term and generally denotes that it contains material not appropriate for minors, that can be sexual, violent, drug-related and such.
Anthropomorphism is just the attribution of human traits to non-humans. Any amount is enough to make it furry because there is no organisation to declare how much is needed. Some people, such as myself, are fine with just mental anthropomorphism but others will care about the body more. That's an individual's decision and one of the reasons why rule 2 that you provide fails.
And again you make the term animal into something far more complicated than you need to. Pokemon, mythical creatures etc are all animals. They don't exist but if they did they would be animals. Taking that as a difficult definition would be the same as getting worked up just because furries are not real.
I also find your analyses of Kistelli to be trying to find something that isn't there. If Greenreaper is right then perhaps you are correct but those sort of analyses should be done by anyone other than the artist themselves. You are just looking for some sort of symbolism and can fit the picture to whatever you want.
I could claim the picture is a homage to the WWII spy Mata Hari. She was also an erotic dancer so that link is obvious but more than that she was a spy using her feminine ways to get behind people's guard. In the same manner foxes are known to perform a 'dance' to distract rabbits and allow them to get close enough for the kill. That behaviour is referenced by the dancing foxes on the vases.
Those sort of analyses can be made to link a picture to almost anything you want and only the artist (or commissioner) knows what the real meaning behind the picture is.
In short you haven't convinced me of anything you set out to convince me of. This essay meanders across the genre, sometimes making sense but often vague and unguided, and never makes a real point.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~