The key point of Andy Warhol's work (and also Roy Lichtenstein's) was that he was appropriating mass-produced stuff. An artist "appropriating" another artist's unique work is another thing, although in contemporary art such "appropriation" is relatively common. (It was common in art of the past too, but in less blatant forms such as mannerism and adoption of foreign national/ethnical styles.)
The entertainment industry appropriating furry imagery is the opposite of what Warhol did, but it's an ordinary thing since entertainment has always appropriated all sort of art. Whether such exposition will be harmful to the furry fandom raises the question of what the furry identity *is* anyway... a notoriously difficult question. It will certainly bring more people.
However mainstream meadia cannot appropriate all elements of the furry fandom equally, because many of them aren't things which can be shown or even discussed on general audience media. Ever since the CSI episode of 2003 mainstream media have focused on the less outrageous visual element of the fandom - fursuits. I doubt they will ever come close to appropriating the sexual oddities of furry art, except for wacky humorous stuff like "Furry Force". And the people brought in by mainstream exposition will be mostly interested in the stuff they have seen "advertised", that is fursuits and general partying.
The trends in the furry community since this article was posted two years ago seem to confirm that. Fursuiting has benefited a lot from mainstream exposure and is now booming, but it is not yet clear whether other elements of the furry culture will benefit the same way.
The key point of Andy Warhol's work (and also Roy Lichtenstein's) was that he was appropriating mass-produced stuff. An artist "appropriating" another artist's unique work is another thing, although in contemporary art such "appropriation" is relatively common. (It was common in art of the past too, but in less blatant forms such as mannerism and adoption of foreign national/ethnical styles.)
The entertainment industry appropriating furry imagery is the opposite of what Warhol did, but it's an ordinary thing since entertainment has always appropriated all sort of art. Whether such exposition will be harmful to the furry fandom raises the question of what the furry identity *is* anyway... a notoriously difficult question. It will certainly bring more people.
However mainstream meadia cannot appropriate all elements of the furry fandom equally, because many of them aren't things which can be shown or even discussed on general audience media. Ever since the CSI episode of 2003 mainstream media have focused on the less outrageous visual element of the fandom - fursuits. I doubt they will ever come close to appropriating the sexual oddities of furry art, except for wacky humorous stuff like "Furry Force". And the people brought in by mainstream exposition will be mostly interested in the stuff they have seen "advertised", that is fursuits and general partying.
The trends in the furry community since this article was posted two years ago seem to confirm that. Fursuiting has benefited a lot from mainstream exposure and is now booming, but it is not yet clear whether other elements of the furry culture will benefit the same way.