Taking that as a difficult definition would be the same as getting worked up just because furries are not real.
Here is where we two must always part company; the fact that furries (or anything else in art) are not real doesn't stop them from producing real emotions.
The call for criticism is of most use to, well, critics. It isn't entirely fair to compare apples to oranges, nor is it easy. Therefore, critics must try and compare apples to apples to find out which is the best apple, and which are the bad ones. Unfortunately, if noone knows what an apple is, how can they know if a particular apple is good or bad example of appleness?
Actually, your analysis of the Mata Hari symbolism isn't bad. I've mentioned my use of Jungian psychoanalysis in my reply to Green Reaper. The problem with it is that it turns art into inkblots; my analysis may reveal more about me than Xian Jaguar.
Taking that as a difficult definition would be the same as getting worked up just because furries are not real.
Here is where we two must always part company; the fact that furries (or anything else in art) are not real doesn't stop them from producing real emotions.
The call for criticism is of most use to, well, critics. It isn't entirely fair to compare apples to oranges, nor is it easy. Therefore, critics must try and compare apples to apples to find out which is the best apple, and which are the bad ones. Unfortunately, if noone knows what an apple is, how can they know if a particular apple is good or bad example of appleness?
Actually, your analysis of the Mata Hari symbolism isn't bad. I've mentioned my use of Jungian psychoanalysis in my reply to Green Reaper. The problem with it is that it turns art into inkblots; my analysis may reveal more about me than Xian Jaguar.