Futurama was about what I expected. Basically, an incredibly nerdy show.
I really have no idea what you're talking about with the charity work. Seriously, if you think I'm worried about our reputation, I'm not. In fact, a "bad" reputation is, if nothing else, even more exploitable than a good one. And I have no problem with exploitation.
My mindset is neither the "let's give them what we like because it will be good for them" or "let's give them what they want," but "let's convince them that what we want and what they want are the same thing" which probably wouldn't even be dishonest, at a basic level.
What "they" want is something new yet familiar, which applies to furry art. It takes familiar cartoon animals, and does something new with them; furry has developed a distinctive style that goes beyond just "adult;" I can't articulate the exact differences without writing a a small treatise, but I believe there is something new on the planet with furry that has never been seen before.
It's actually more about the development of the art; the way furries use anthropomorphic animals is essentially different than how they have been used in the past. The next step is to bring this to outsiders and get there take on it, which will spur new directions.
Because right now I see stagnation. Furry is becoming a little inbred, actually. Also a bit self-destructive.
I really do believe in furry, as an artform; I believe, if given the chance, it can be taken seriously on it's own merits. As a group of people, I'll be generous and say, meh, whatever.
To a certain extent, what I'm getting here is a feeling that furry art is being hidden; it's like the opposite of the kid's hymn "This Little Light of Mine." I do see some artists actually caring, but the average fan is, for whatever reason, afraid to actually show what they are a fan of.
Fear is a lot of it, I think. I've seen comments that literally say "I don't want to be laughed at." I think that's wrong on two levels; it's cowardice wrong on one level, and, just factual wrong in that, hey, we're already being laughed at.
I mean, really, it's about the purpose of art, especially story-telling. Stoy-telling is story-sharing; if a work of art is never seen, heard, screened, whatever, does it even really exist?
Yes, Green Reaper makes the point that exposure to an audience changes art. I'm getting into my view of what art is and what it does, but when I've done something creative, the audience reaction and the change to what I'm doing to get a better reaction is the single most important thing in the creative process.
Furry has played to a captive audience for long enough; the next step in the process is to bring in a new one.
And even if I am wrong, and furry does truly horrify the general public or whatever, well, then at least I know where we stand.
So, anyway, that was really something. An offhand comment about The Lion King porn in an article page about Omaha the Cat Dancer. We've gone all over the board. How did that happen?
Futurama was about what I expected. Basically, an incredibly nerdy show.
I really have no idea what you're talking about with the charity work. Seriously, if you think I'm worried about our reputation, I'm not. In fact, a "bad" reputation is, if nothing else, even more exploitable than a good one. And I have no problem with exploitation.
My mindset is neither the "let's give them what we like because it will be good for them" or "let's give them what they want," but "let's convince them that what we want and what they want are the same thing" which probably wouldn't even be dishonest, at a basic level.
What "they" want is something new yet familiar, which applies to furry art. It takes familiar cartoon animals, and does something new with them; furry has developed a distinctive style that goes beyond just "adult;" I can't articulate the exact differences without writing a a small treatise, but I believe there is something new on the planet with furry that has never been seen before.
It's actually more about the development of the art; the way furries use anthropomorphic animals is essentially different than how they have been used in the past. The next step is to bring this to outsiders and get there take on it, which will spur new directions.
Because right now I see stagnation. Furry is becoming a little inbred, actually. Also a bit self-destructive.
I really do believe in furry, as an artform; I believe, if given the chance, it can be taken seriously on it's own merits. As a group of people, I'll be generous and say, meh, whatever.
To a certain extent, what I'm getting here is a feeling that furry art is being hidden; it's like the opposite of the kid's hymn "This Little Light of Mine." I do see some artists actually caring, but the average fan is, for whatever reason, afraid to actually show what they are a fan of.
Fear is a lot of it, I think. I've seen comments that literally say "I don't want to be laughed at." I think that's wrong on two levels; it's cowardice wrong on one level, and, just factual wrong in that, hey, we're already being laughed at.
I mean, really, it's about the purpose of art, especially story-telling. Stoy-telling is story-sharing; if a work of art is never seen, heard, screened, whatever, does it even really exist?
Yes, Green Reaper makes the point that exposure to an audience changes art. I'm getting into my view of what art is and what it does, but when I've done something creative, the audience reaction and the change to what I'm doing to get a better reaction is the single most important thing in the creative process.
Furry has played to a captive audience for long enough; the next step in the process is to bring in a new one.
And even if I am wrong, and furry does truly horrify the general public or whatever, well, then at least I know where we stand.
So, anyway, that was really something. An offhand comment about The Lion King porn in an article page about Omaha the Cat Dancer. We've gone all over the board. How did that happen?