Had an extended conversation last night with @murrzbow about furry art and why it feels furry

Specifically, what exactly the "furry" aesthetic is in general? What is it that makes furry art, furry art, as opposed to non-furry art that just happens to have anthro animals?

It's kind of made all the more bizarre when you think about how you can just...know that something feels furry as opposed to just "anthro animal" just by looking at it

To clarify, I'm less interested in the "what makes YOU, an INDIVIDUAL, furry" question. Instead I'm refocusing to a more "what is the furry AESTHETIC? what trends are present in furry work that non-furry work that have anthro animals fails to capture?" https://twitter.com/LimeSlushy/status/1248658571329404932

The topic came up when we were talking about the very excellent Night Runner - Magnum Bullet video. Amidst the talk of the expression and quality of animation, one comment stood out to me

Folks in the comments joke about Dan Avidan, the singer/songwriter, being a furry-in-denial.

But if he doesn't self-identify as furry, why do we get a the furry feel in the video regardless? Does it suggest there are some inherent qualities beyond the identity of the creator?

This kind of initially makes sense until you sort of start considering the breadth of stylised, cartoony art in the fandom. Furry artists with a cartoony style still feel distinct from cartoon animals in non-furry work https://twitter.com/Kludgetown/status/1248660997448937474

Like, the rebuttal to this argument is that there's a lot of furry artwork that focuses on feral/quadruped characters. There's no human anatomy or proportions to speak of.

Yet it still feels furry.

Of course there isn't a hard line, like with anything in the arts. But there are trends, and with the uptick of anthro animals in mainstream television makes this an interesting topic to chew on

This I can't really get on board with because in my experience the vast, vast majority of furry work does not seem concerned with modifying tools and environments to fit animal-people ergonomics https://twitter.com/starseeker8749/status/1248667233452093440

There are some examples like @_RKGKNK_'s excellent exploration of hooded jackets and ears, but it's kind of eclipsed by all the art of wolves wearing human-style headphones, human-style glasses, and aiming down the sights of human-style rifles

Admittedly, I've been holding back on some of the theories I drew up last night. I wanted to see what you all thought first

The primary one that I began to hone in on was that there was an unabashed sincerity to furry art that anthro work does not have, culminating in this chat line

One of the observations I made was that in non-furry work, the presence of animal people is kind of in service for some other goal. In Zootopia, the themes of racism as well as scenario specific jokes (i.e. sloths are slow) feel like they're to justify the existence of anthros

a film like Kung Fu Panda 2 is a bit more vague, but feels roughly the same. The henchmen are wolves because the artists presumably thought wolves would be the best in characterising them as evil and wicked. The aesthetic is used to justify the existence of animal people

Actually, wolves kind of highlight this divide. In mainstream media wolves have certain tropes attached to them - usually evil, strength, one might even say savagery, as loaded as that term may be

But in furry circles wolves have very different traits attached to them. If there is any overarching attitude the fandom has towards wolves, it's that they're seen as a sort of "neutral" species, with not a lot presupposed about them

(Art by @CaraidArt)

I think from there we kind of see the divide between non-furry anthro work and furry work?

The former's attitude towards wolves is completely based on its ability to be in service of some external goal. The latter, it's kind of just, "they're there, yannow? Do what you want!"

Actually, this is kind of what I was getting at - Zootopia kind of constantly utilises there being animal-people for jokes, themes, setups, etc. It's like the film is constantly trying to reassure itself that it has animal people for a /reason/, dammit! https://twitter.com/Eerookah/status/1248675430162403331

I notice on the non-furry side of my online life moderating r/worldbuilding and its Discord is that when I present +700 to them, there is a good-to-fair chance someone will start to ask where the animal people come from, how the world is different because of it, etc

Non-furries, when they approach my work, always reach for explanations as to why there are anthro animals. Perhaps there's a lore reason, or thematic reasons a la Zootopia, or maybe I'm doing it for humour

Conversely, not a single furry soul I have spoken to and presented +700 to in any depth, including all of you on Twitter, have /ever/ asked me to justify why there are furries.

The furries in +700, like in wider furry art, are just treated as a constant. There is no "where did they come from" or "why are they there", they just are.

Furries just do not care why there are furries extant in a work. There is no justification needed.

You do you.

To loop it back to the Magnum Bullet music video, it's likely why it came off as distinctly "furry" and not "normies doing anthros". Nothing in the video predicates there being, or benefits from, there being animal people

Or, to put it differently,

never does the music video attempt to justify, or feel the need to justify, the existence of animal people.

The anthros just /are/. There is no reason provided, no reason discernible, beyond perhaps personal preference.

I think that's what it captures about the furry aesthetic. Little to do with colours or execution.

It, and broader furry aesthetic, can only be described as being amazingly, incredibly, shockingly sincere about liking animal people.

What makes furry art is authenticity and sincerity; an unhindered feeling to just say you like what you like because it's cool, and a rejection to justify its existence.

And as an queer person of colour, I cannot express how important that is for me to see.

Mainstream media's failings to represent minorities can be characterised by a constant, unrelenting attempt to "justify" why they should represent people. There always needs to be a device, lest it will rejected by a mainstream audience.

"Why are they making him gay? Stop bringing politics into this!"

"Why does he have to be Asian? Are you trying to meet some quota?"

"Why should there be trans people? It doesn't do anything for the story"

In this light, OF COURSE the furry fandom has a disproportionately high number of people who are LGBT, poor, non-white...people who have always had to justify their existence to a larger system who has always pushed them to the sidelines

Like the anthro animals in furry artwork, I, a queer asian immigrant to Canada, do not need to justify why I exist.

I do not serve your purposes. I am not here for a "reason" to make you feel comfortable.

Like the anthro animals in furry artwork, I just.

Am.

I, like the furries in my and my peers' works, do not owe you justification to exist.

And you will never, ever, ever convince me otherwise.