So.... Bugs Bunny would technically be furry art. It surely doesn't make everyone that watches the cartoons furry though. And it does not necessarily mean the artist is a furry either. So I guess you could say Bugs Bunny is "Unintentionally furry art" because it was made without the furry fandom in mind as far as I know. "unintentional furry art" isn't really a great term, but that's my explanation anyway. It's technically furry by definition, but it wasn't really made for furries.
Nice artwork, but the farthest thing from "furry" that I have ever seen.
Also, a few people are missing the point that you don't have to be furry to draw them. Okay, so my example who springs to mind at first is such a furry in denial, but I know plenty of artists who draw furry and related stuff, but are not furry themselves.
Wow...that artist is AWSOME! Cool post, regardless of whether it is furry or not.
Oh, by the way...I think there needs to be a distinction between furry and anthromorphic.
I believe--correct me if I am wrong--that "furry" refers to the community which associates its self with anthromorphic characters. Whereas, "anthromorphic" refers to an artistic representation of an animal in human form (and does not refer to, though it implies, the furry community).
And if anybody noticed my extended furlough (ha, ha...), I apologize for being gone for so long. I...am...busy...