Killing animals for art?

[LadyU]

I'm not one for really posting subjects up on here but I came across this in one of my friends LiveJournal (yes, sshh u lot).. and it begs the question...when did it become legal to mulilate creatures for ART???? Even though I have a great appreciation of art I can't condone this sort of thing and am shocked and horrified that people can do this sort of thing tbh. I just wanted to let others know about this and find out what they think....

==================
Found in the community http://www.livejournal.com/community/kurt_halsey/

Some background :

If you care about animals AT ALL.

There's an artist, Nathalia Edenmont, who kills cats, mice, doves, rabbits, and other animals, mutilates their bodies, and then takes their photographs. She's on exhibit, among other places, at the Wetterling Gallery in Sweden. She has taken the top halves of five white mice and made them into finger puppets. She beat a cat to death with a stick. And this is called art. This is not only inhumane, but morally reprehensible.

Link to samples of the exhibit (warning! offensive content): http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/archive/nathalia/nathalia_main.htm

The Wetterling Gallery's Justification of her work: http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/newsletter/newsletter.htm


*****Link to the petition against her: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/853089392

[Pumpkin]

I concur, I find the killing of an animal for a purpose other than using one of it's products for the betterment of mankind to be cruel and indefensible.

I don't consider art to be a reason to kill an animal, although I would have no problem with her using animals which had died from other causes (or even been killed for reasons we consider to be humane) to be used for this art.

[Afty]

Pumpkin - playing Devils Advocate for a minute, are you saying that art is not for the betterment of mankind?

I find the act of killing the creatures distasteful (particularly if the killing is inhumane, such as beating a cat to death with a stick), but I wouldn't sign the petition - it's her choice after all. Similarly, I don't have a problem with people petitioning this person or people around her - as long as we're not petitioning for laws.

P.S. I went to look at the link, and I actually found some pieces in the gallery provocative, striking and interesting. I would prefer to know the animals were killed in a humane way though.

P.P.S. Incidentally, the gallery does claim that the artist kills the animals as humanely as possible - I can't find any mention of her beating a cat to death - is this corroborated? The validity of such claims makes a big difference to any debate on the subject.

[Rich]

PMSROFL @ That. Oh e-dear.

[Mingtea]

I concur with Daves view on this, the inhumane killing of animals for ART is babaric.

edit: but of course, who are we to know how the animals are killed, "beating a cat to death with a stick" sounds very animal welfare scaremongering to me, lets not blur the line of truth here.

[LadyU]

I don't know if the beating the cat to death with a stick is true or not - I just posted what I found in Livejournal and wanted to know about people's thoughts etc...sounds like something PETA would come out with though...

But seriously...killing an animal for food is one thing...killing them for humans to look at in a gallery is a bit warped...even for me...

[Njoroge]

How do you know she didn't eat the bits she didn't use?

[Say_Ten]

It's nothing new though, just look at the moth and butterfly collections. They're usually alive before someone sticks a pin through them...

[Njoroge]

And there's certainly no spare bits of meat on them to nibble on!

[Afty]

Originally posted by Say_Ten
It's nothing new though, just look at the moth and butterfly collections. They're usually alive before someone sticks a pin through them... Yup, same with Hunters putting stuffed heads onto walls. I agree it's distateful for many but I respect others right to do it.

[RocketKnight]

http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/bilder/nathalia/Star2.jpg

I always thought art to be a form of expression. I completely fail to see what the artist is expressing by creating the above. Maybe it's a desperate cry for attention? Maybe as a child her pet mouse hated her and ran away?

I wouldn't object if the animals involved had died anyway because I could choose not to look at her "art". But if the animals are being put down just for this then she should be stopped.

[TE-Hellfire]

I think it's so sick it's cool.

I especially like the cat's head on a vase.

I would perhaps submit my request that the artist mounts a human's head on a firework and then videos the subsequent hilarity.

[Njoroge]

I feel sorry for the poor bastard she killed for the hand

[KingDaveRa]

Sorry...

But fingermouse takes on a whole new meaning.

Now, swinging back to being serious, this is just plain wrong. Its not art. Art is expression through different medium. Its conveying meaning and a message.

Killing something says 'the artist has a problem and needs help'

This could of course be a fantastic hoax. It could be that its all fake, and the art is that she's supposedly done this, and its all to gain a reaction.

Somehow, I'm worried it isn't.

[Steadders]

That is the worst excuse for art....ever!

These arty snobs will be looking at people like us saying "oh well they dont understand, those un-cultured fops"

OK, so im not up to date with whatever "modern art" is these days. Spaced makes fun of it, because thats what it is. just silly.
This isnt silly. It's stupid.

[bigc90210]

this was featured in bizarre mag about 6 mths ago


still interesting though

[Say_Ten]

Originally posted by afty
Yup, same with Hunters putting stuffed heads onto walls. I agree it's distateful for many but I respect others right to do it.

Indeed, they have the legal right, absolutely. However there used to be a purpose for hunting, if they eat the animal then fine I see no problem with a throphy. However if all they do is kill for the trophy then I think that modern moral standing is moving against them tbh.

[phil]

I don't see a huge problem with this. It's not a new idea, but it is making people think.

She's not doing anything wrong (at least, not "wrong" as in illegal) and I imagine the kind of talk starting here is exactly what she wanted to provoke with her art.

[Mamacita]

Thoroughly disgusted.

[TE-Hellfire]

I'm not quite so sure why everybody thinks this is legal.

Since when was killing animals for entertainment made legal? Apart from bull fighting etc, but I do believe they fry that big bastard into a nice burger afterwards.

[Mouce]

I do think that she has taken things rather too far to be honest. What is art? Expression? Ideas? The gallery takes its standpoint that it has to be thought provoking. I guess some people can call Jack the Ripper an artist and an idealist. His moral standpoint and the way he mutilated bodies were thought provoking!

I guess what I'm trying to say is, that you can call anything art, because we express ourselves in a way every minute of the day. We're dynamic. But, this kind of expression I find offensive, I can agree on double standards, that the newsletter mentions. But, I believe that even if that is the case, we have the right to not be exposed to more than we wish. Why should we be forced to opinionate?

We live in a closed world. Such pieces bring us to the brink of our reality and show it in full colours. But, I cannot endorse such behaviour, I do not believe that an animal, or a human, or anything should be killed in the name of art. If we think ourselves as the most advanced species on the planet, why aren't we acting like it? Why are we so selfish?

Kinda brings back the whole question of society and morals...

The worst human attrocities are commited in the name of the highest ideal

[Njoroge]

What if she used a goldfish? No one cares about fish cause they're stupid.

[maxrealism]

What about using Tuna, mmm edible art :D

http://artchive.com/artchive/H/hirst.html

Some of Damien Hurst's work. Animals and slicing involved. Discuss.

http://dh.ryoshuu.com/art/1996someco.html (sliced cow)
Entitled: Some Comfort Gained From the Acceptance of the Inherent Lies in Everything

http://www.mummytombs.com/news/2003/4.london.hirst.htm
Bit more discussion about it.

[phil]

Originally posted by Mouce
If we think ourselves as the most advanced species on the planet, why aren't we acting like it? Why are we so selfish?

There is an assumption here that the more advanced a species is the less it should kill other species. I'm not sure that is necessarily true. In fact, we might consider ourselves the most advanced because we have the ability to control and manipulate the other species to a large extent and I'm not sure restraint comes into it. On the other hand, there is the philosophical view that more advanced might mean more compassion and empathy for others.

There is also the possibility that by bringing the double standards out in the open and promoting this kind of discusssion that people could change their opinions on meat, furs, leather, and animal testing and therefore prevent cruelty in the long run. Which would bring us back to the good old, "should I (and could I?) kill this one person to save more people overall".

The usual response to this is that there are better ways of spreading the message, but you don't see many forum threads discussing RSPCA adverts.

[Strych]

The wording of the first quote reeks of propaganda.

These animals were killed humanely in the name of creating something beautiful. If you find this, in Mamacita's words "thoroughly disgusting" then I guess that you better apply the same logic to all those leather shoes or coats you own.

The thing I find most morally reprehensible in this thread is the barefaced hypocrisy of the majority of the people replying.

If you really care, then become a vegetarian, throw out all your leather and suede goods, and buy cruelty-free cosmetics.

Otherwise stop being so damn reactionary.

[TE-Hellfire]

Leather goods are not quite the same though, now. The moo moo is killed for its meat content and the skin is a byproduct, but what we have in this gallery is the killing of animals for "art", a highly subjective use for an animal's body.

[Skoffin]

Hmm, kill animals for food or art? Well, seeing as food is abundant here at least (alternatives to meat included) I say kill them for art. I think it's far more respectful to the animal to be immortalised in art rather than launched into a loo after a meal.

Or I could take the view that killing animals is wrong but then I'd be a vegatarian or a hypocrite.

[Corpus Deus]

well.... it worked. If nobody gave a damn and didn't mention it on the forums (or anywhere else) then it would have failed miserably. I've got a degree in art and it only taught me one thing... modern art is all about shock factor and has feck all to do with artistic talent or ability.

It's not a cry for help, or as this guy said:
These arty snobs will be looking at people like us saying "oh well they dont understand, those un-cultured fops"

... I just see if for what it is, one-upsmanship with Damien Hurst or Tracy Emin, just trying to be that little bit cooler, or rather that little bit more shocking. It's a type of subjective art, the work on display is NOT the artwork, the art is simply the reaction that people have to a given stimulus; in this case things that have been killed, mutilated and put on display, for the specific purpose of illiciting exactly the reaction that everyone is having.

The discussion on the forum, the reactions in the press, or of those visiting the exhibition... THAT is the artwork.

This is about as transparent and talentless as it gets... if everyone simply ignored it, in this case, it really would go away.

[maxrealism]

Originally posted by Strych
The thing I find most morally reprehensible in this thread is the barefaced hypocrisy of the majority of the people replying.

If you really care, then become a vegetarian, throw out all your leather and suede goods, and buy cruelty-free cosmetics.

Otherwise stop being so damn reactionary.

I don't know how to reply without you taking offence (which I'd rather avoid).

I think vegarians miss the point that animals are on this earth for food. The products; food, hide, soap etc are made from what comes from the animal.

Art on the other hand is for amusement (see bullfighting, cock fighting and other blood sports). These are entertainment, these are questionable.

So I am certainly no hypocrite. I think they're for our use. I like meat and leather.

The problem we're stumbling over is: How we use them isn't directly down to us (see government).

[Mamacita]

Originally posted by Strych
The wording of the first quote reeks of propaganda.

These animals were killed humanely in the name of creating something beautiful. If you find this, in Mamacita's words "thoroughly disgusting" then I guess that you better apply the same logic to all those leather shoes or coats you own.

The thing I find most morally reprehensible in this thread is the barefaced hypocrisy of the majority of the people replying.

If you really care, then become a vegetarian, throw out all your leather and suede goods, and buy cruelty-free cosmetics.

Otherwise stop being so damn reactionary.

Leather as said above is a by product of an already dead animal. This animal was not killed for my pair of shoes, it was killed for X reason. The animals used in this "art" was killed... purely for that; and I find that thoroughly digusting. However, if she has used already dead animals I'd still find it a wholey.... un-tasteful art technique.

[JeRkY]

Originally posted by Mamacita
Leather as said above is a by product of an already dead animal.

what about snake skin or mink coats, admitably the latter is less common than it was once, but it still happens. And are you not just assuming that all leather comes as a bi product from meat processing. Personally i dont know enough about the topic to say 100% either way....do you?

[Mouce]

There is an assumption here that the more advanced a species is the less it should kill other species. I'm not sure that is necessarily true. In fact, we might consider ourselves the most advanced because we have the ability to control and manipulate the other species to a large extent and I'm not sure restraint comes into it. On the other hand, there is the philosophical view that more advanced might mean more compassion and empathy for others.

What I was trying to say that what we can't do is move on and away from the phase we are in now. People wear leather and fur, eat meat etc... claim it's natural, and then when something is killed in the name of art, we somehow forget that wearing leather and fur is another form of expression. And what about the fact that designers are also artists? Mink is killed so that this artist created his master piece.

If you really care, then become a vegetarian, throw out all your leather and suede goods, and buy cruelty-free cosmetics.

What about countries where there has been a long tradition of fur wearing due to the climate, where people cannot afford synthetic substetutes... what about them? Where one fur coat as been with them for generations? And what about the fact that alternatives are not always available and or too expensive for an average household to afford. Not everyone in this world can become a vegetarian!

Just look at it this way, one fur coat in london costs over 3k where is the same fur coat costs 500$ in Russia. Why? Because the demand is higher, here it's not as much as a statement of class and prestige, rather a nessesity. Where temperatures reach -50C, you kinda don't have another choice, as alpine gear is far more expensive.

Why don't people who have the 3k in the first place, donate them to a cause where synthetic goods would be brought on mass to other countries? .... Because at the end of the day, we only thinks of ourselves! While we like what we see, we turn a blind eye on the way we get there!

[Afty]

Originally posted by maxrealism
I think vegarians miss the point that animals are on this earth for food. The products; food, hide, soap etc are made from what comes from the animal.

Art on the other hand is for amusement ... questionable.We no longer require animals for food - we could surivive on a vegetarian diet just fine (some would say a healthy vegetarian diet for all would be overall more healthy than the crap we eat now) so eating animals for sustenance is merely something we still choose to do. We need animals for art just as much as we need the for food.

Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable. - George Bernard Shaw

[Skoffin]

Everyone's arguing about the difference between eating an animal and making art out of it but what about where the two meet.

Is there no art in food preparation?

[Njoroge]

I like the vase-cat. Conveience of a vase, beauty of a cat, doesn't require food.

Rather than call it art can't we call them pets v.II

[JeRkY]

Njoroge actually has what appears to be a stuffed cat, clearly the vase would complement his collection.

[phil]

Although it appears to be a stuffed cat, it is actually 14 different stuffed cats spliced together. It doesn't make much difference to the final result, but you get to beat more cats with sticks that way.

[Mamacita]

Originally posted by JeRkY
what about snake skin or mink coats, admitably the latter is less common than it was once, but it still happens. And are you not just assuming that all leather comes as a bi product from meat processing. Personally i dont know enough about the topic to say 100% either way....do you?

Yeah I'm assuming.