>>101572041One threshold I suppose worth keeping in mind for people in this situation is whether the fetish art one does would make one be seen as "an artist with a fetish" or "a fetishist who does art." And I think the dividing line between them is whether the fetish-art in question would have any appeal - or maybe that's too strong; maybe even just "would make any sense" - to someone who doesn't have the fetish.
That is, for fat-fetish art, are the pictures in question closer to "somewhat-chubby pinup girls" or "planets of flesh with hands and feet poking out and the design traits of well-known cartoon characters?" Or, say, for foot-fetish art, is the extent of the fetish just that there's always a good view of a character's feet in whatever else the scene happens to be, or are all the pictures the same wrinkly soles, front-and-center, with vestigial rest-of-bodies of random well-known characters in the background?
I think the risk is that, if too much of one's portfolio doesn't make any sense to a non-fetishist, said non-fetishist would just write the artist off as someone they don't really have common ground with, in terms of interest, and so maybe that, beyond base prudery, would be something to be concerned about.
On the other hand, I understand and expect that most fetish art, by its nature as artifice, will go absolutely wild in the pursuit of whatever the stimulus is, beyond what can be found in nature, and so striving for restraint or so-called tastefulness of this sort might completely defeat the point. So, I guess, in that case, my recommendation might boil down to that one should draw enough other stuff to make it clear to a viewer that you don't just have a one-track mind.
