"Furry fandom didn't spring from an original concept in the 1980's- it's specific inspirations include golden age post-WWII animation, Disney movies and much more."
Ehh, maybe that's the most notorious influence in the last years, but truth is, there're evidences that point out the human interest in zoomorphism dating as much as 40,000 years ago. If that many years don't sound important enough, mind humans haven't developed concepts like housing and agriculture by that time yet.
Before I go into "pseudo-furry", I'd like to put my views regarding the definition "Furry Fandom".
I believe the definition "Furry Fandom" is correct because fandom implies being fan of something, and somehow, the furry fandom is fan of itself. This is possible because there's also a "Furry Culture". This also would explain certain aspects in the fandom like people who like furry art but aren't furry themselves. They're fan of furry content thenfore part of the furry fandom, but don't follow a furry culture.
The term "pseudo-furry" is employed then for content that falls in the category of zoomorphism and also might or might not contain some certain specific characteristics commonly found in the furry fandom (fursuits for example) but as a whole is still content that is not capable of pertaining to a furry culture, and/or not made by furries.
But then, what is the "furry" in pseudo furry?
If considered as a follower of furry culture (or commonly used in this case, a person that partakes the furry fandom), in that sense the term "pseudo-furry" would have a correct etymology and semantics.
But if the "furry" in "pseudo-furry" is related to the furry fandom or culture, it would be at least dubious but probably wrong anyway. The word would be etymologicly wrong at least. Because if certain elements are truly part of the furry fandom, you couldn't call it "fake" (pseudo) by any means.
As from the point of view of marketing, it might be the furry fandom is indeed influencing some tendencies outside the fandom. It's been exaustively exemplified on the internet that weird = famous, and since furries are "weird" it could be a publishing approuch.
Regarding fame, popularity and overuse, that's a natural tendencies for pretty much everything. The 2 videogame crisis were around the same line: Few people thru hardwork and vast knowledge made lots of money with "few" efforts and few expenses. Not-so-successful businessmen (and not-so-successful for a good reason) consider the approuch as something worth trying (after all, who doesn't want easy money?) but sadly they lack of said vast knowledge and hardwork, thenfore producing "themed-garbage". If too many people try too without responsability, the result is a market flooded with garbage, which after a crisis is painfully purged and, if said market content is good enough, renewed. The point here is more the fact of "copying" successful people without understanding the true reasons behind the success -- happens everywhere all the time; it's natural. You could also consider the point of view of quality: it has "ups and downs" "seasons".
This could happen with the furry fandom soon. But in my opinion, the furry fandom seems far more resilient than videogames market, and this one already survived 2 crisis. Again, zoomorphism is over 40,000 years old.
And let's face it, despite furry fandom having it's own culture, it is nonetheless a part of human society too. "Mainstream" and "underground" are relative concepts -- you have mainstream and underground inside the fandom, but the fandom per se is also "underground". Happens the furry fandom become more "mainstream", all you'll see is an increase of number of furries. Proportionally, the level of quality would remain the same.
And regarding furry art, it's more depending of the interpretation and abstraction of art. My view regarding art is everything that is transmiting a message by other means beyond usual communication. This would explain the main reason people do art: to send a message. This is why you scribbled when you were a kid and why cavemen did paintings on walls and made sculptures. And you also could have various degree of high and low quality art, which would be how well the message is transmited. So even if the message in a certain artwork is simple... ...If nobody get it, the artist failed.
For example, Picasso never were a good at drawing, but he was a good artist. While there's a implicit common sense that the more the details and more realistic and hard to do it is, higher is the art quality... It's all about message in the end. No message, no art.
The thing is that, if you're transmiting a message, you need to consider who's going to recieve it. Like right now I'm writting in english to english-readers read my comment. In art, if you narrow your "target audience" too much the message is going to be understood by few, but probably very well. But if you make it too broad, the more likely people will misunderstand it. Not that it intrisicly lowers art quality by become broader, but that's probably what will happen anyway.
And now you need remember that the furry fandom is a part of human society, it has it's own culture, tastes and knowledge (like the fact most people outside the fandom don't know the difference between a cheetah and a tiger, for example). A furry artwork might be broader in the sense of reaching those outside of the fandom, but naturally sounds harder to convey both instead of just doing something very "furry". Impossible? Certainly not, but why make things harder? Will it worth?
"Furry fandom didn't spring from an original concept in the 1980's- it's specific inspirations include golden age post-WWII animation, Disney movies and much more."
Ehh, maybe that's the most notorious influence in the last years, but truth is, there're evidences that point out the human interest in zoomorphism dating as much as 40,000 years ago. If that many years don't sound important enough, mind humans haven't developed concepts like housing and agriculture by that time yet.
Before I go into "pseudo-furry", I'd like to put my views regarding the definition "Furry Fandom".
I believe the definition "Furry Fandom" is correct because fandom implies being fan of something, and somehow, the furry fandom is fan of itself. This is possible because there's also a "Furry Culture". This also would explain certain aspects in the fandom like people who like furry art but aren't furry themselves. They're fan of furry content thenfore part of the furry fandom, but don't follow a furry culture.
The term "pseudo-furry" is employed then for content that falls in the category of zoomorphism and also might or might not contain some certain specific characteristics commonly found in the furry fandom (fursuits for example) but as a whole is still content that is not capable of pertaining to a furry culture, and/or not made by furries.
But then, what is the "furry" in pseudo furry?
If considered as a follower of furry culture (or commonly used in this case, a person that partakes the furry fandom), in that sense the term "pseudo-furry" would have a correct etymology and semantics.
But if the "furry" in "pseudo-furry" is related to the furry fandom or culture, it would be at least dubious but probably wrong anyway. The word would be etymologicly wrong at least. Because if certain elements are truly part of the furry fandom, you couldn't call it "fake" (pseudo) by any means.
As from the point of view of marketing, it might be the furry fandom is indeed influencing some tendencies outside the fandom. It's been exaustively exemplified on the internet that weird = famous, and since furries are "weird" it could be a publishing approuch.
Regarding fame, popularity and overuse, that's a natural tendencies for pretty much everything. The 2 videogame crisis were around the same line: Few people thru hardwork and vast knowledge made lots of money with "few" efforts and few expenses. Not-so-successful businessmen (and not-so-successful for a good reason) consider the approuch as something worth trying (after all, who doesn't want easy money?) but sadly they lack of said vast knowledge and hardwork, thenfore producing "themed-garbage". If too many people try too without responsability, the result is a market flooded with garbage, which after a crisis is painfully purged and, if said market content is good enough, renewed. The point here is more the fact of "copying" successful people without understanding the true reasons behind the success -- happens everywhere all the time; it's natural. You could also consider the point of view of quality: it has "ups and downs" "seasons".
This could happen with the furry fandom soon. But in my opinion, the furry fandom seems far more resilient than videogames market, and this one already survived 2 crisis. Again, zoomorphism is over 40,000 years old.
And let's face it, despite furry fandom having it's own culture, it is nonetheless a part of human society too. "Mainstream" and "underground" are relative concepts -- you have mainstream and underground inside the fandom, but the fandom per se is also "underground". Happens the furry fandom become more "mainstream", all you'll see is an increase of number of furries. Proportionally, the level of quality would remain the same.
And regarding furry art, it's more depending of the interpretation and abstraction of art. My view regarding art is everything that is transmiting a message by other means beyond usual communication. This would explain the main reason people do art: to send a message. This is why you scribbled when you were a kid and why cavemen did paintings on walls and made sculptures. And you also could have various degree of high and low quality art, which would be how well the message is transmited. So even if the message in a certain artwork is simple... ...If nobody get it, the artist failed.
For example, Picasso never were a good at drawing, but he was a good artist. While there's a implicit common sense that the more the details and more realistic and hard to do it is, higher is the art quality... It's all about message in the end. No message, no art.
The thing is that, if you're transmiting a message, you need to consider who's going to recieve it. Like right now I'm writting in english to english-readers read my comment. In art, if you narrow your "target audience" too much the message is going to be understood by few, but probably very well. But if you make it too broad, the more likely people will misunderstand it. Not that it intrisicly lowers art quality by become broader, but that's probably what will happen anyway.
And now you need remember that the furry fandom is a part of human society, it has it's own culture, tastes and knowledge (like the fact most people outside the fandom don't know the difference between a cheetah and a tiger, for example). A furry artwork might be broader in the sense of reaching those outside of the fandom, but naturally sounds harder to convey both instead of just doing something very "furry". Impossible? Certainly not, but why make things harder? Will it worth?