I am going to make a bold statement here, one that is going to ruffle some feathers: Furry is not a genre.
In fact, furry isn't even a theme. Also, furry should not even be a label for anthropomorphic creatures, the two terms should be disjoint and not used in parallel. This might already have some of you riled up, but I shall explain below if you care to read on.
I think the problem with the term 'Furry' is the word 'Furry' itself needs a proper definition. I offer this one that I think is pretty all encompasing: "Furry is term for a person or group of people who have a deep appreciation of anthropomorphic creatures". We certainly could nit-pick finer details of the definition but I think at the core this is a rather encompassing definition.
Notice, though, that Furry is a verb, a word that requires something to take action. It is the act of appreciating anthropomorphs at a deep level. This appreciation can take the form of a person drawing art, writing, costuming, going to conventions, or whatnot, but this requires an appreciative entity performing an act. An inanimate object like a piece of paper, or text on a screen or bits of fabric does not have any appreciation, it has no emotions, no feelings. A costume of an anthro creature is a costume of an thro creature. A drawing of an anthro creature is a drawing of an anthro creature. Art can only have a meaning tacked on by it's creator and even then that meaning if affected by what is the accepted meaning of the viewer. The act of making it may be furry, the act of viewing it may be furry, but he art itself is an anthropomorphc creature in some genre of some theme.
My other portion of the argument comes from examples about other already established fanbases. Furries are one of a very unique set of fans of having a label attached to them. Most forms of fans are just that, fans. A person who likes Star Wars is a Star Wars fan, a person who likes anime is an anime fan, a person who likes comics is a comic fan, etc., etc.
The term Furry should be used like the term 'Trekkie' or 'Gamer', both terms also for a type of person who enjoy a certain thing to a deep level. When a Trekkie makes some Star Trek art, it is Sci-fi, with a theme of Star Trek with their (or other) characters. Trekkie is not a genre, it isn't even a theme. The same should go for a Furry. A furry should make a piece of art of X genre, whith Y theme that has anthros in it, not a furry making furry art of a fury universe with a furry in it (furry furry furry). Even without my definition argument can it be seen how silly that sentence sounds?
I think the need to have a proper definition and to apply it properly is quite paramount. I believe a huge problem with defining Furry is people trying to apply the term Furry on just about anything to try and bring it in to the cultural sphere. People will describe Bugs Bunny as Furry, Madagascar as Furry and a host of other anthropomiorphic creatures as Furry. These things are not Furry. They are again pieces of media with no ability to appreciate anything. Also, they aren't even made with furry in mind, making it farther from the truth. Bugs Bunny was made more for a social commentary and a way to convey dark humor to the public in a light hearted way. The creator of an Orangina commercial did not create a piece of media about scantily clad animal creatures splashing around in their drink as an appreciation of anthropomorphic creatures, they made it to sell Orangina.
If furry as a fanbase wants to mature, we need to have a proper definition of what we are and ensure that defintion is properly applied. Any term for any group or object that can't properly be defined has a hard time existing because more structured definitions take place. The same goes for a group or sub-group. If you can't define what you're group is about, you can't draw a boundary to be a group.
I am going to make a bold statement here, one that is going to ruffle some feathers: Furry is not a genre.
In fact, furry isn't even a theme. Also, furry should not even be a label for anthropomorphic creatures, the two terms should be disjoint and not used in parallel. This might already have some of you riled up, but I shall explain below if you care to read on.
I think the problem with the term 'Furry' is the word 'Furry' itself needs a proper definition. I offer this one that I think is pretty all encompasing: "Furry is term for a person or group of people who have a deep appreciation of anthropomorphic creatures". We certainly could nit-pick finer details of the definition but I think at the core this is a rather encompassing definition.
Notice, though, that Furry is a verb, a word that requires something to take action. It is the act of appreciating anthropomorphs at a deep level. This appreciation can take the form of a person drawing art, writing, costuming, going to conventions, or whatnot, but this requires an appreciative entity performing an act. An inanimate object like a piece of paper, or text on a screen or bits of fabric does not have any appreciation, it has no emotions, no feelings. A costume of an anthro creature is a costume of an thro creature. A drawing of an anthro creature is a drawing of an anthro creature. Art can only have a meaning tacked on by it's creator and even then that meaning if affected by what is the accepted meaning of the viewer. The act of making it may be furry, the act of viewing it may be furry, but he art itself is an anthropomorphc creature in some genre of some theme.
My other portion of the argument comes from examples about other already established fanbases. Furries are one of a very unique set of fans of having a label attached to them. Most forms of fans are just that, fans. A person who likes Star Wars is a Star Wars fan, a person who likes anime is an anime fan, a person who likes comics is a comic fan, etc., etc.
The term Furry should be used like the term 'Trekkie' or 'Gamer', both terms also for a type of person who enjoy a certain thing to a deep level. When a Trekkie makes some Star Trek art, it is Sci-fi, with a theme of Star Trek with their (or other) characters. Trekkie is not a genre, it isn't even a theme. The same should go for a Furry. A furry should make a piece of art of X genre, whith Y theme that has anthros in it, not a furry making furry art of a fury universe with a furry in it (furry furry furry). Even without my definition argument can it be seen how silly that sentence sounds?
I think the need to have a proper definition and to apply it properly is quite paramount. I believe a huge problem with defining Furry is people trying to apply the term Furry on just about anything to try and bring it in to the cultural sphere. People will describe Bugs Bunny as Furry, Madagascar as Furry and a host of other anthropomiorphic creatures as Furry. These things are not Furry. They are again pieces of media with no ability to appreciate anything. Also, they aren't even made with furry in mind, making it farther from the truth. Bugs Bunny was made more for a social commentary and a way to convey dark humor to the public in a light hearted way. The creator of an Orangina commercial did not create a piece of media about scantily clad animal creatures splashing around in their drink as an appreciation of anthropomorphic creatures, they made it to sell Orangina.
If furry as a fanbase wants to mature, we need to have a proper definition of what we are and ensure that defintion is properly applied. Any term for any group or object that can't properly be defined has a hard time existing because more structured definitions take place. The same goes for a group or sub-group. If you can't define what you're group is about, you can't draw a boundary to be a group.