I don't really think "fan" means anything different to a culture... considering the fact that every creation is always inspired from somewhere else, deeper to one thing, or less. (Sometimes forgetting the original start, though doesn't change that it's fan like.)
Are "furries" fans? Yes, maybe but many other known cultures (Gaming, Movies, Arts, etc) has pretty much the same thing.
Furry - "Fan of Anthropomorphic Characters", Sci-fi - "Fan of Science (Right?)", Video Games - "Fan of Free Choice of Media", Movies - "Fan of Arts, movement, and acting", Art - "Fan of design, detail", etc.
And all got created by being inspired and influence by a start of someone or multi, these days if "Art" was new, it may be consider "Fandom" if people made more based off the idea by some people..
Also, they all share other things such as "Movies can share arts" for example.
Oh and "art" is probably the least media to be known by a "smaller" source.
I could say "Furry" is a "Fandom and a Culture (or community)" at the same time, and labeling should be up to anyone, not by others, even if it replaces "Fandom and Culture (or community) a bit. The same however would go to other cultures too (Even though, Gaming, Movies, Arts, are more tools but made of the same results, then again thinking about it "Furry" is kind of a tool used like the other ones.).
To extra note again: I say Furry can mean anything to you, even if it wasn't fan.
"Judging by the way JM has used fandom and canon, he seems to be implying that furry cannot be a fan of its own creations. But even as we grow on our own work, rather than "outside" sources we might want to ask why we can't be fans of our own creations."
Got to remember, in order for creation to happen, people would need to be fan of other things in the first place.
Seems kind of odd that you can't be a fan of your own works, people make stuff based on there interest (Inspire, and Influence). that's kind of how a culture works.
Speaking of this, I get reminded about how "little fandom" cultures get created like you know those "sonic" inspired things? In a way, I say this is another part of how "original" and "art" works because every creation in the world is basically made up of many parts that the creator never made. Vampires, werewolves, cats, (Some more known, some less) or whatever anyone can think of is like it.
Oh god, it's a bit hard to explain more about the history of things like this. xD
But yeah that's what I think all the time when I think about "Fandom" labels, "Arts" and "Creativity".
I don't really think "fan" means anything different to a culture... considering the fact that every creation is always inspired from somewhere else, deeper to one thing, or less. (Sometimes forgetting the original start, though doesn't change that it's fan like.)
Are "furries" fans? Yes, maybe but many other known cultures (Gaming, Movies, Arts, etc) has pretty much the same thing.
Furry - "Fan of Anthropomorphic Characters", Sci-fi - "Fan of Science (Right?)", Video Games - "Fan of Free Choice of Media", Movies - "Fan of Arts, movement, and acting", Art - "Fan of design, detail", etc.
And all got created by being inspired and influence by a start of someone or multi, these days if "Art" was new, it may be consider "Fandom" if people made more based off the idea by some people..
Also, they all share other things such as "Movies can share arts" for example.
Oh and "art" is probably the least media to be known by a "smaller" source.
I could say "Furry" is a "Fandom and a Culture (or community)" at the same time, and labeling should be up to anyone, not by others, even if it replaces "Fandom and Culture (or community) a bit. The same however would go to other cultures too (Even though, Gaming, Movies, Arts, are more tools but made of the same results, then again thinking about it "Furry" is kind of a tool used like the other ones.).
To extra note again: I say Furry can mean anything to you, even if it wasn't fan.
"Judging by the way JM has used fandom and canon, he seems to be implying that furry cannot be a fan of its own creations. But even as we grow on our own work, rather than "outside" sources we might want to ask why we can't be fans of our own creations."
Got to remember, in order for creation to happen, people would need to be fan of other things in the first place.
Seems kind of odd that you can't be a fan of your own works, people make stuff based on there interest (Inspire, and Influence). that's kind of how a culture works.
Speaking of this, I get reminded about how "little fandom" cultures get created like you know those "sonic" inspired things? In a way, I say this is another part of how "original" and "art" works because every creation in the world is basically made up of many parts that the creator never made. Vampires, werewolves, cats, (Some more known, some less) or whatever anyone can think of is like it.
Oh god, it's a bit hard to explain more about the history of things like this. xD
But yeah that's what I think all the time when I think about "Fandom" labels, "Arts" and "Creativity".
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.