The article sets out by establishing three goals. Unfortunately, it fails to meet any of them with great satisfaction.
First, is the goal of stating why criticism is needed. The article could well have a goal of stating why fish need water. Sadly, it doesn't actually state the benefits of Criticism. Instead, it launches into a strange and not quite correct description of the criticism deemed to be needed. What is described is not Critique, which determines the 'worth' against certain measures, but Analysis which examines the work's meaning and form. Something that is rather rare outside of academia anyway.
Then the writer goes on to make two easy to falsify claims to support a need for more criticism. First that all Furry creativity is by necessity to be categorised by the audience as "children's art", and then that "children's art" is not critiqued. The latter can be falsified by pointing out the column inches printed in newspapers on Pixar's film output. The prior can be dismissed by pointing out that there is confusion between 'the general public' perception, a works intended audience, and side stepping of the existence of clear non-children's art works accepted by the general public, not least of which includes The Island of Dr. Moreau.
More so the writer asserts that critique does not exist in any meaningful form within furry fandom. Again, this is easy to falsify, from personal experience attending furry conventions which held writers circles and discussions on a high level of critical appraisal of 'furry' creative work.
Next onto what kind of critiques the writer things we should give. Confusingly the writer addressed this before the first goal, by providing his unique definition of Criticism. This includes the rather abstract phrase, "Criticism is not necessarily critical", which seems to deny the very definition of the word. As mentioned before, what is then described is analysis of a work, not critique of a work. The two having very different results and purposes, it is hard to understand why they have been confused in this way. Analysis asks "What does it mean?" while Criticism asks "Did it achieve it's goal?".
Thirdly, the article provides some 'examples' of his desired criticism. The first is frankly a sophomoric over-analysis of a painting. It projects meaning onto the painting, and invents from whole cloth a connection to a bible verse so vague it could be applied to nearly any similar picture. Then to compound this, it asserts that even should there have been no intentional link, then there must have been a subconscious link.
The second example provides us with an attempt to critique an entire format of presentation, 'The Funny Animal'. But the definition of what is 'Funny Animal' here is so amorphous, that it even becomes possible for the writer to declare that the entirety of furry can be a subset of it. The writer then goes on to make some vague assertions that 'Funny Animal' is a creative-crutch to avoid 'the uncanny valley' and allow for easy characterisation. While the writer provides an apt example in Redwall, he ignores the contemporary counter examples such as Duncton Wood.
The writer than departs into what I have to consider the absurd, by establishing what he calls Rules for appreciable furry content in it's new definition as a subset of 'funny animal'. These rules are nothing less than the ghetoization of furry into a clearly defined and restrictive set. And they would exclude some of the greatest pieces of creative work in furry creative art, and indeed most popular 'furry' literature and film.
The conclusion attempts to wrap this up with a bow of "but that's just what I think, and I'm trying to start the debate" as a limp mitigation for any flaws. Along with a parting shot that attempts to belittle and side-line the written word as a legitimate part of furry creative endeavours.
Over all, the article lacks a terse and concise summary style that should be expected from journalistic work. Instead it reads like a rambling essay, delivered by someone who had had a half formed idea push it's way onto the page. And it seems published without much editing.
A Critique of this article.
The article sets out by establishing three goals. Unfortunately, it fails to meet any of them with great satisfaction.
First, is the goal of stating why criticism is needed. The article could well have a goal of stating why fish need water. Sadly, it doesn't actually state the benefits of Criticism. Instead, it launches into a strange and not quite correct description of the criticism deemed to be needed. What is described is not Critique, which determines the 'worth' against certain measures, but Analysis which examines the work's meaning and form. Something that is rather rare outside of academia anyway.
Then the writer goes on to make two easy to falsify claims to support a need for more criticism. First that all Furry creativity is by necessity to be categorised by the audience as "children's art", and then that "children's art" is not critiqued. The latter can be falsified by pointing out the column inches printed in newspapers on Pixar's film output. The prior can be dismissed by pointing out that there is confusion between 'the general public' perception, a works intended audience, and side stepping of the existence of clear non-children's art works accepted by the general public, not least of which includes The Island of Dr. Moreau.
More so the writer asserts that critique does not exist in any meaningful form within furry fandom. Again, this is easy to falsify, from personal experience attending furry conventions which held writers circles and discussions on a high level of critical appraisal of 'furry' creative work.
Next onto what kind of critiques the writer things we should give. Confusingly the writer addressed this before the first goal, by providing his unique definition of Criticism. This includes the rather abstract phrase, "Criticism is not necessarily critical", which seems to deny the very definition of the word. As mentioned before, what is then described is analysis of a work, not critique of a work. The two having very different results and purposes, it is hard to understand why they have been confused in this way. Analysis asks "What does it mean?" while Criticism asks "Did it achieve it's goal?".
Thirdly, the article provides some 'examples' of his desired criticism. The first is frankly a sophomoric over-analysis of a painting. It projects meaning onto the painting, and invents from whole cloth a connection to a bible verse so vague it could be applied to nearly any similar picture. Then to compound this, it asserts that even should there have been no intentional link, then there must have been a subconscious link.
The second example provides us with an attempt to critique an entire format of presentation, 'The Funny Animal'. But the definition of what is 'Funny Animal' here is so amorphous, that it even becomes possible for the writer to declare that the entirety of furry can be a subset of it. The writer then goes on to make some vague assertions that 'Funny Animal' is a creative-crutch to avoid 'the uncanny valley' and allow for easy characterisation. While the writer provides an apt example in Redwall, he ignores the contemporary counter examples such as Duncton Wood.
The writer than departs into what I have to consider the absurd, by establishing what he calls Rules for appreciable furry content in it's new definition as a subset of 'funny animal'. These rules are nothing less than the ghetoization of furry into a clearly defined and restrictive set. And they would exclude some of the greatest pieces of creative work in furry creative art, and indeed most popular 'furry' literature and film.
The conclusion attempts to wrap this up with a bow of "but that's just what I think, and I'm trying to start the debate" as a limp mitigation for any flaws. Along with a parting shot that attempts to belittle and side-line the written word as a legitimate part of furry creative endeavours.
Over all, the article lacks a terse and concise summary style that should be expected from journalistic work. Instead it reads like a rambling essay, delivered by someone who had had a half formed idea push it's way onto the page. And it seems published without much editing.
In all, the article does not impress.