>But I do believe symbolism in art is not always conscious; sometimes it just happens.<
Most of the time it doesn't, especially if the picture is as tecnically complex as the one you've chosen. But even when it just happens it doesn't mean it happens by chance. Much of an artist's growth consists in turning conscious processes into unconscious ones. For example, when you first try out a new media you have to struggle with it for a while and think very carefully about the technicalities and what you are trying to do, but after a few years you have learned the gestures and the routine operations so well that you no longer pay attention and you can focus on more abstract thoughts. First you were wondering "should I use green or blue to paint the water here?", later you are wondering, "do I make the mood of this picture lighter or gloomier?".
The same happens with symbolism. After years of looking for hidden symbols in other artist's work, studying, trying consciously to convey certain meanings etc., symbolist thinking becomes the norm of the artist's fantasy. It becomes integrated with composition, anatomy, etc., so that all choices in a picture are connected to each other. I'm sure if Xianjaguar wasn't consciously thinking of a Genesis metaphor it's because at the time of inventing this picture she crunched so fast through possible symbols and ways to depict the scene that it was by all means a subconscious process for her. But it was not a [i]random[/i] process at all. The difference is very important to understand the traditional approach to art (as opposed to the modernist/conceptual approach) and to understand its achievements.
>Here, furry parts company with funny animals. While I argue that furry is simply a subset of funny animals, it is chosen for specific stylistic concerns, rather than as a cheap shortcut.<
I disagree with this, I think furry is rather a superset. There are things which fit well into modern furry art but have no place in traditional funny animal stuff, for example the strong atavistic/pagan undertones of some works and the urge to actually identify with one's avatar at the deepest levels. Erotica has no place in fables and funny animal stories either: sexual matters were referenced only for the purpose of jokes or satyre, while in modern furry art eroticism is often very "real" and physical, meant to cause actual arousal, on top of the fun factor.
I find furry art to be plit between two kinds of fetishism at least: one for real animals, atavism and biological facts, and the other for childhood feelings and animal symbolism. Funny animals were only the latter and modern furry art has expanded upon them to include the former, probably because the former has been all but dismissed from other genres and media.
I'll also add that the biggest mistake of people who criticize furry art is assuming that a "fetishistic" approach to a subject is inherently degrading and pornographic. Almost all human cultural activities could be described as "fetishism" for some item or concept, from religion to politics to the highest art. That this is somewhat "wrong" is an immature idea the furry fandom has inherited from the funny animal fandom and it has stifled all criticism attempts so far, turning them into sterile discussions about morality and social norm rather than artistic merit.
>But I do believe symbolism in art is not always conscious; sometimes it just happens.<
Most of the time it doesn't, especially if the picture is as tecnically complex as the one you've chosen. But even when it just happens it doesn't mean it happens by chance. Much of an artist's growth consists in turning conscious processes into unconscious ones. For example, when you first try out a new media you have to struggle with it for a while and think very carefully about the technicalities and what you are trying to do, but after a few years you have learned the gestures and the routine operations so well that you no longer pay attention and you can focus on more abstract thoughts. First you were wondering "should I use green or blue to paint the water here?", later you are wondering, "do I make the mood of this picture lighter or gloomier?".
The same happens with symbolism. After years of looking for hidden symbols in other artist's work, studying, trying consciously to convey certain meanings etc., symbolist thinking becomes the norm of the artist's fantasy. It becomes integrated with composition, anatomy, etc., so that all choices in a picture are connected to each other. I'm sure if Xianjaguar wasn't consciously thinking of a Genesis metaphor it's because at the time of inventing this picture she crunched so fast through possible symbols and ways to depict the scene that it was by all means a subconscious process for her. But it was not a [i]random[/i] process at all. The difference is very important to understand the traditional approach to art (as opposed to the modernist/conceptual approach) and to understand its achievements.
>Here, furry parts company with funny animals. While I argue that furry is simply a subset of funny animals, it is chosen for specific stylistic concerns, rather than as a cheap shortcut.<
I disagree with this, I think furry is rather a superset. There are things which fit well into modern furry art but have no place in traditional funny animal stuff, for example the strong atavistic/pagan undertones of some works and the urge to actually identify with one's avatar at the deepest levels. Erotica has no place in fables and funny animal stories either: sexual matters were referenced only for the purpose of jokes or satyre, while in modern furry art eroticism is often very "real" and physical, meant to cause actual arousal, on top of the fun factor.
I find furry art to be plit between two kinds of fetishism at least: one for real animals, atavism and biological facts, and the other for childhood feelings and animal symbolism. Funny animals were only the latter and modern furry art has expanded upon them to include the former, probably because the former has been all but dismissed from other genres and media.
I'll also add that the biggest mistake of people who criticize furry art is assuming that a "fetishistic" approach to a subject is inherently degrading and pornographic. Almost all human cultural activities could be described as "fetishism" for some item or concept, from religion to politics to the highest art. That this is somewhat "wrong" is an immature idea the furry fandom has inherited from the funny animal fandom and it has stifled all criticism attempts so far, turning them into sterile discussions about morality and social norm rather than artistic merit.