Is there room in serious art criticism for an examination of

>implying any of this really matters

>>2722460
>basquiat
>warhol
>grafitti
>legitimate

>>2722520
You can say it's shit but beyond gallery showings they're doing glowing cultural reports on it on network news and Bratton is seen as a monster for cracking down on it. 99% of people under the age of 60 accept that it straddles the line between folk and fine art.

>>2722589
It straddles the line between my balls and asshole

>>2722460
Yes. Check back in 5 years.

>>2722971
kek

What exactly do people have to "say" through furry art? Graffiti has clear ties to certain subcultures and is inherently anti establishment due to it generally being a crime. I don't know a lot about it really but I imagine a lot of people see it as a way to get their voice heard.

Furry art is just media that people consume like cartoons, anime, porn etc. If people want to see furry art they go looking for it and often pay for it. It's a commodity.

>>2723345
My personal opinion is that, with kink relating so closely to identity for a lot of people, it's inevitable that even a commercial art movement that traffics in fetish (and especially one so reliant on avatars) will eventually start to explore those kinds of issues: identity, body image, persona, etc. So furry is at the nexus of the more philosophical side of erotic art (but even more so, as the abstraction animal anthropomorphism allows) and the explorations of identity that lots of contemporary art represents. A lot of it is trite and a lot of it is unskilled, but not you could say the same about a lot of pre-modern and modern work (fauvism providing humorously relevant examples).

If I'm to be very specific, knowing some and how they relate to their work, I wouldn't hesitate to call their work explorations of their sense of masculinity.

>>2723609
>masculinity
Stopped reading right there. What has masculinity to do with anything?

>>2723705
You stopped reading at the end of the post?...

But to answer your question, the hyper-musculature and oversized genitals applied to the avatars of furries who are very much not ridiculously-built and over-endowed in real life. It's certainly a form of wish-fulfillment for them to take on those identities when they know that it differs greatly from their flesh-and-bone self, but it's also an artistic statement about their relationship to the western masculine ideal. The energy of the dynamic exists both within the art itself and in the delta between it and reality.

I dunno. I might have bought into my epiphany a bit too much. I can't really tell.

Haaaaaaaaaa

>>2722460
>>2723609
>>2724102
I hate people like you. You find some random subject, then you do a pseudo-analytical, pretentious rant where you basically say nothing, while completely misunderstanding the community you're trying to explore, and finding meaning and depth where there is none to be found.

I've seen this in various forms throughout my entire life - how so-called intellectuals try to analyze various cultures that I've been part of, that I've been critial of or that I have knowledge of in one way or another, and they always miss. And they miss because their analysis is based on feelings, hyperbole, their own rigid world view and because they try to create a literary narrative, as if the world was one big Rolling Stones article. You'll never find any scientific rigor or attempts to be objective. Anything that kinda fits and sounds nice is golden, as long as you can squeeze in as many references and quasi-intellectual assumptions as possible. It's like listening to college kids after taking Philosophy 101, or wannabe gonzo journalists who just got their first taste of Hunter S. Thompson.

>But to answer your question, the hyper-musculature and oversized genitals applied to the avatars of furries who are very much not ridiculously-built and over-endowed in real life.
Or, you know, they're faggots who like big cocks. And it's not like pornographic art usually exaggerates sexual organs, right? There is no deeper meaning to it.

>>2724113
>then you do a pseudo-analytical, pretentious rant where you basically say nothing, while completely misunderstanding
This is deeply ironic.
>Or, you know, they're faggots who like big cocks. And it's not like pornographic art usually exaggerates sexual organs, right? There is no deeper meaning to it.
I tend to think that something different is going on, psychologically, between a man who jacks off to pictures of a hot chick, and a man who jacks off to pictures of a hot chick with his face shooped over hers.

>>2722460
They aren't movements. There's nothing deep or meaningful about it outside people drawing and painting what they like to see, you're looking for something that isn't there.

>>2724123
>This is deeply ironic.
A "no u" was all you could come up with?

>I tend to think that something different is going on, psychologically, between a man who jacks off to pictures of a hot chick, and a man who jacks off to pictures of a hot chick with his face shooped over hers.
And what does this have to do with furries? I don't know of any communities where men photoshop their faces onto female bodies in order to mastubate to them.

>>2724137
What makes other movements deep?

>>2724137
>They aren't movements.
What disqualifies them? I'm not saying you're wrong; I just want to hear someone articulate it beyond a gut feeling.

>>2724145
Why do pretentious people ask loaded questions, instead of coming up with arguments?

>>2724146
What qualifies them?

>>2724143
>A "no u" was all you could come up with?
Anything else would be trying to argue with word soup.
>And what does this have to do with furries? I don't know of any communities where men photoshop their faces onto female bodies in order to mastubate to them.
It's an analogy. I'm not sure if I should explain it, because if it wasn't self-evident to you, you might not be worth engaging.

>>2724113
>I've seen this in various forms throughout my entire life
all 16 years huh

>>2724151
A lot of people are doing similar things in a similar medium at the same time. They're exploring similar forms, concepts, and modes of expression, often responding to the social, political, personal, and aesthetic realities of their era. I'm not sure what else you would call an art movement.

>>2724148
I wanna know what you consider "deep" as opposed to any of the things mentioned.

>>2724153
>It's an analogy.
Okay, so a "movement of furries" is analogous to a bizarre fetish you made up.

>Anything else would be trying to argue with word soup.
Looks like I hit a nerve. You rely on your own pretentious word soup to try to make an argument, and resort to projection and ad hominem attacks when you're called out on it.

>>2724155
>all 16 years huh
Yeah, what a mature argument.

>>2724157
>They're exploring similar forms, concepts, and modes of expression, often responding to the social, political, personal, and aesthetic realities of their era.
You sound like a lobbyist or a left-wing politician, or like you're reciting an ad or a textbook. You're just listing vague concepts, without saying anything.

>>2724159
And how does that make you feel?

>>2724166
>Okay, so a "movement of furries" is analogous to a bizarre fetish you made up.
The psychology of being attracted to certain qualities in a hypothetical partner is different from the psychology of sexualizing qualities that you desire for yourself.
>Looks like I hit a nerve. You rely on your own pretentious word soup to try to make an argument, and resort to projection and ad hominem attacks when you're called out on it.
If thinking so makes you feel better, sure.

>>2724166
>You sound like a lobbyist or a left-wing politician, or like you're reciting an ad or a textbook. You're just listing vague concepts, without saying anything.
I have to assume that you're either a teenager or an American, because no adult from any other developed country would have so much trouble comprehending the point.

I'd like you to rewrite the portion of my post that you quoted, in your own words. I want to see if you actually understood it, or if you're just assuming that there's nothing there because you're incapable of understanding it.

>Is there room in serious art criticism for an examination of the meme/furry/tumblr movements?
yes, of course. If you can ask questions, and create discourse, there is room. In fact, you're already filling it, by asking, as long as you put form to it.

>If fine art is about deliberate intent,
No, you can't place all fine art into one neat box like that. It can utilize deliberate intent, but all fine art doesn't have to "be about" a specific discursive quality

>can conceptual exploration ever be carried out by the (evolution of the) sheer volume of work produced by the unconscious over mind?
It makes as much sense as saying that the purpose of art is the collective will of everyone practising meme magick

>Or is there the option to take seriously what people have to "say" through their work in the same way that graffiti was eventually accepted?
There is always the "option" to whatever you find fruitful to explore through working along the lines of occillation, between any given polarity. This is discourse in and of itself, and there aren't any rules to what you choose to explore, and the means of doing so.

>Does there need to be a direct line to proceeding movements (as with modern and post-modern art), or does there need to be legitimization by current fine artists (as with Basquiat and Warhol)?
Read http://www.metamodernism.org/
it's basically where we're at, even as most artists are unaware of it. Most people working in arts, understand that we are all working in a transition away from post-modernity, but there is no consensus. Do as you please.

>tl;dr
yes, I went to an exhibition two years ago, dealing with furries. It was basically installations, videos and performances with furries.
>just because it's possible, doesn't make it good art

>>2724168
I don't know since you haven't answered anything. Probably because you have nothing to back your shit up with.

>>2724201
You should probably give up on art if you're so uncreative that the best insult you could come up with is accusing someone of being young. Also, while I'm not American, actually accusing someone of being stupid because they're American - as if people from other countries are any smarter - really speaks volumes about what a quasi-intellectual cliché you are.

>>2724196
>The psychology of being attracted to certain qualities in a hypothetical partner is different from the psychology of sexualizing qualities that you desire for yourself.

Homosexuals make up a disproportionate amount of furries, which means many of them would give themselves the same sexual traits as their potential partners. I mean, go look at the people who attend gay clubs or walk in the pride parade.
Also, it's absolutely idiotic to imply that heterosexual men and women don't want to look like the stereotypical ideals for their gender. A lot of men want to be muscular and have a big dick, because those are inherently masculine traits, and a lot of women want an hourglass figure and large breasts. This is particularly common among people who are so obsessed with sex that they join a community for fetishists and create avatars. Hell, go look at the Facebook profiles of sexually promoscuous men and women, or just take a look at Tinder. Or just look at what hentai artists draw. Big dicks are a staple in hentai, even among weak beta males.

>>2724227
Have you thought about how this would impact the socioeconomic conditions of the African American LGBT community?

>>2722460
We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between furries or meme magic, depending on the artist, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional artistic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.

>>2724250
Look, I understand that people come here to get in unresolvable arguments that they can feel like they've won because they don't have any other way to nourish their ego. I get that, I really do. But I'm asking you nicely to just not, in this thread. I started it in good faith, looking for a discussion, and you're basically the only one responding who is spending so much effort trolling.

Don't be so cynical. Maybe if you actually engage the subject in earnest you'll find something to hate the world less about.

>>2724250
>Homosexuals make up a disproportionate amount of furries, which means many of them would give themselves the same sexual traits as their potential partners.
I don't think that follows? Many lgbt people explicitly want partners who aren't like them, furries included.
A lot of men want to be muscular and have a big dick, because those are inherently masculine traits, and a lot of women want an hourglass figure and large breasts. This is particularly common among people who are so obsessed with sex that they join a community for fetishists and create avatars. Hell, go look at the Facebook profiles of sexually promoscuous men and women, or just take a look at Tinder. Or just look at what hentai artists draw. Big dicks are a staple in hentai, even among weak beta males.
So maybe they're related? Also, how would you explain fat fetishists? That's very much not a masculine ideal, but there are plenty who find masculinity, even dominance, in an enormous gluttonous form.

>>2724339
Are you actually retarded? Why would you come to /ic/ to start a pseudo-intellectual discussion about a topic this insipid? I honestly don't know if the recent rise in threads like this is a result of angry cunts trying to troll 4chan into oblivion, or if you're actually delusional enough to believe this is the right place to post this shit. I mean, if you want a circlejerk where you use a lot of meaningless jargon to make yourself feel smart, there are plenty of sites that cater to your needs. In fact, many of the biggest sites on the internet are specifically aimed at people like you.
4chan's can thank much of its popularity for being a place where people go to get away form people like you, and to call you out on your shit.

>>2724348
>Many lgbt people explicitly want partners who aren't like them

The world isn't binary. I specifically used terms like "many of them", to indicate that I was not talking about all of them. Even if my example only accounted for 40% of the gay furry community, that is still a significant enough proportion that these people would be visible.

>Also, how would you explain fat fetishists?
Because different people have different fetishes, some being more prominent than others. Your problem is that you're trying to infuse some kind of narrative or environmental cause into these fetishes, when in most cases, people with fetishes are biologically predisposed to them. I'm not saying people are born as ponyfuckers, but they're born with the predisposition to adopt certain fetishes, something that is often reflected in their personality. For example, something like 50-60% of bronies have an autism spectrum disorder. If you look at homosexual twinks, you'll notice their inherently feminine behaviour, which appears at an early age. The narrative is created a result of the fetish, not the other way around. That's why I find the genetic and neurological component infinitely more interesting, because you go to the source.

>>2724264
Well, you got me. I have to admit that I spent some time looking up the terms I didn't understand, and was stymied by not knowing what "catalysis" was bring referred to. So I googled the entire passage.

https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/explaining-a-sentence-by-guattari/

So, yeah, it's not gobbledygook, and you forgot to add in the necessary context to make the copy pasta a proper troll. It only doesn't make sense because you didn't. this sentence.

>>2724374
>Why would you come to /ic/ to start a pseudo-intellectual discussion about a topic this insipid?
I don't know why I would, either. It's a good thing I didn't.
Once again, your post is humorously ironic.

>>2724379
>this is so ironic
>you're so stupid
>I'm so nonchalant
>if I keep repeating this, everyone will think I'm winning this non-argument

>>2724375
Actually, I pulled it from an article by Richard Dawkins where it was specifically used as an example of meaningless jargon.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html

>>2724374
>The world isn't binary. I specifically used terms like "many of them", to indicate that I was not talking about all of them. Even if my example only accounted for 40% of the gay furry community, that is still a significant enough proportion that these people would be visible.
I was pretty explicitly talking about a subset of the people who aren't in that group, though.
>Because different people have different fetishes, some being more prominent than others.
I was speaking specifically within the context of seeking to express or venerate a particular notion of masculinity.

>That's why I find the genetic and neurological component infinitely more interesting, because you go to the source.
None of that necessarily precludes furry from being an artistic expression of those fetishes? In fact, it would be quite interesting if you could connect someone's hyper-knotted dickwolf to their biological predisposition to one thing or another. But that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not furry can be considered serious art any more than Louise Bourgeois' obvious mental illness takes away from the legitimacy of "Maman" as a seriously freak but profound piece of sculpture.

>>2724225
Thanks for the link. It does seem like we're struggling to some degree with the ramifications if the means of creation becoming so widely available. There are only so many rich people around who can bestow legitimacy on work with their wealth, and they're as susceptible to groupthink as anyone. Hence, Hirst (if you ask some people).

>>2724391
Yes, and I linked an article where someone explains how Dawkins was wrong in the article that you just posted.

>>2724394
>I was pretty explicitly talking about a subset of the people who aren't in that group, though.
And this subset conveniently doesn't overlap with the groups I was referring to? You didn't specify any group. You just said furries draw themselves as muscular and with big dicks, which, once again, are traits that both normal people and homosexuals would like to possess. And if it's in a sexual context, it makes even more sense why they would do it.

>I was speaking specifically within the context of seeking to express or venerate a particular notion of masculinity.
In other words, you were trying to infuse some kind of bizarre social commentary on horny deviants who fap to cartoon animals, because your world view revolves around creating these narratives and finding meaning in everything. I see this in a lot of people. In the past, it was usually the domain of intellectuals who had grown up with books, and spent more time talking about theoretical concepts than actually experiencing the world. Today's generation seems to suffer from it to a much greater extent. A personal hypothesis of mine is that it's caused by people growing up with TV, books and games. They subconsciously start applying the logic of fictional worlds to the real world, where everything happens for a reason or has some deeper meaning. You also see it more and more in the news, in educational institutions and among liberal political pundits, often in the form of virtue signalling.

>None of that necessarily precludes furry from being an artistic expression of those fetishes?
No shit. What else would furry porn be? It's drawings of cartoon animals fucking. That's literally what it is. The problem is the weight you give to the term "artistic expression".

>serious art
That's just a meaningless phrase in the current climate. I've been drawing for a decade, but consider myself a commercial artist. It's a craft. I'm not pretentious enough to apply any higher, esoteric meaning to my art.

>>2724400
Yes, by a pretentious dick with a blog, who's the exact kind of person Dawkins was criticizing.
I mean, this shit is right at the top of his blog:
>Pluralism and Individuation in a World of Becoming

>>2724415
>And this subset conveniently doesn't overlap with the groups I was referring to?
Not 100%, no. Out of all of the people who imagine their avatar to be muscle-bound, some of them must prefer a mate who isn't, even the gay ones.
>In other words, you were trying to infuse some kind of bizarre social commentary on horny deviants who fap to cartoon animals, because your world view revolves around creating these narratives and finding meaning in everything.
The cause of a major deviation in behavior is usually significantly meaningful, yes.
>No shit. What else would furry porn be?
Emphasis on artistic.
>The problem is the weight you give to the term "artistic expression".
Oh. Hm. Why is that?
>That's just a meaningless phrase in the current climate. I've been drawing for a decade, but consider myself a commercial artist. It's a craft. I'm not pretentious enough to apply any higher, esoteric meaning to my art.
Oh. Well, that's fine, I can do it for you. :^)

>>2724418
You're defending Dawkins by appealing to the standing (or lack thereof) of his critic rather than the substance of their argument? Wow.

>>2724398
I don't know who 'we' are, but I don't see how that's any different than the modus operandi of the free market in general.

You can open up a store, but there will be contest. You can become an artist, but not all artists will be recognized by the global art world. Solution? Don't be an artist, unless it's really important that you are.

>>2724589
"We," as in, "society."