The… "References" (the academic in me refuses to call it that without quotes) for the Otherkin article (which covers both Therianthropy and Otherkin) are also … as expected: everything is just plain web links (without even any timestamp/permalink/…), lots of secondary and tertiary sources, etc.

My references

https:// [that Grokipedia page I refuse to link to] /page/Otherkin. Accessed 2025-10-28 at 16:26:12 UTC. I don't see any option to permalink on that site, so the best version specification I can provide is that it claims it was "[f]act-checked by Grok" on 2025-10-27 5:57 PM.

To be fair, there are also a bunch of links (not proper doi.org links, to be clear, but still) to a few research articles. But that really feels more like happy accidents that appeared on an AI-controlled Google search than anything else.

The… "References" (the academic in me refuses to call it that without quotes) for the Otherkin article (which covers both Therianthropy and Otherkin) are also … as expected: everything is just plain web links (without even any timestamp/permalink/…), lots of secondary and tertiary sources, etc.

So I certainly agree with art being "worth a lot." But I'm unsure about "worth a lot of money." Not because I undervalue it, but because I cannot imagine any amount of money being equatable to the true value of an artwork.

Money is just the unfitting unit of measurement of "value" forced on us.

But I'm hesitant to accept the wording that art has monetary value that can be fair or unfair. Because that, in some ways, implies it can be equated to it. And one minute spent on an artwork artistically, to me, cannot be equated to monetary value. A billion dollars would be "underpaying" for that.

Let me be perfectly clear: in the society we live in, having an income to support being able to make art is a necessity. So in this world, putting a price tag on art, on the hours spent (with a price that supports one's living), is unavoidable. And that price has to be high enough to support that.