Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

I actually want to start by apologizing, because my last post was dreadfully unfair; I pretty much accused you of cowardice and then posited the only way to prove you're not is to do what I want you to do, which I didn't really do on purpose, but is unfair, so sorry.

I'm not talking about the anonymous stuff (I can totally believe laziness), I mean that it's fear of failure or embarassment keeping furry back.

Since it got brought up by another anonymous guy, would you consider Watership Down furry? In that case, obviously, the furries had no influence on the work, as they, well, didn't exist yet.

Your definition of furry art seems to be "art produced by furries," as opposed to what a lot of Flayrah furries seem to going by, which is "everything, as long as it has something that could be construed as an anthropomorphic animal if you turn your head and squint right in it."

In this case, it may be a question of ownership; do furries "own" furry art, exclusively? Can any group lay claim to an artform like that?

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.