Cycle Forums: Motorcycle and Sportbikes Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Ladies love fatbuck's Cupcakes
Joined
·
17,553 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
ART

Is it permissible to kill animals in the name of art?

Most people who see Nathalia's pictures for the first time are impressed by how beautiful they are. It takes a few seconds before you start to wonder how they have been made. A photo-montage? Some kind of digital manipulation? When you look closer, there is something slightly distorted in the rabbit's expression. Something slightly abnormal about the face of the cat. Slowly you realise that the animal is dead, that the animal has died for the sake of the picture. Is this acceptable?

One can, of course, choose to think that it is always wrong to kill animals in the name of art. That nothing can defend Nathalia Edenmont. But if you feel more doubtful, we would very much like to explain Nathalia's reasoning, and how we at Wetterling Gallery argue when we exhibit her art.

Art arouses thoughts and poses questions that are necessary. Nathalia's beautiful pictures are frightening in the same way that many other beautiful things hide some sort of suffering. One can enjoy beautiful exteriors, or one can go beneath the surface and find things that perhaps you do not want to know about. If Nathalia's pictures had been repugnant, it would have been easy to reject them. But now they are so beautiful - and the insight into the reality behind them gives rise to thoughts about people's shallowness and double standards. Many of us eat meat, wear leather or use make-up that has been tested on animals, without this arousing especially strong reactions. But when a picture shows a dead rabbit, all hell breaks loose.

Nathalia grew up in the former Soviet Union, and she has a razor sharp eye for paradoxes and gaps in our western morals. She is not the first to use dead animals in her works of art - that has been done at least since the 1700s, but she is a contemporary debater who provokes questions which nowadays everyone should ask themselves. Her pictures tell lies in front of our faces, but they are not alone in this - the lies exist all around us every day, without us questioning them.

There is nothing illegal in Nathalia's art. She has killed the animals in as humane a way as possible. Has she been guilty of a moral crime? We do not think so. We think that art is of vital importance. What do you think?
 

·
Doin' the things a particle can...
Joined
·
37,282 Posts
pauldun170 said:
ART

Is it permissible to kill animals in the name of art?

:eek :rant :rant

this could get ugly reeeeealy quickly...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,189 Posts
Disgusting............. She is a sick individual.

I feel sorry for her. And the animals she kills "humanely" I'd like to watch her be euthanized for art........

This looks just like my cat :(

Sick...



Oh yeah, this is art............. :rolleyes



Who buys this shit?

Yes, I'd like a dead cat head in a vase please..........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,881 Posts
Disgusting....Even if it is art, that doesn't make it ok.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,150 Posts
:eek , thats fugged up....i agree string he up like her "art"....:rant :mad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,692 Posts
:mad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,837 Posts
Reminds me of putting heads/antlers on a wall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,189 Posts
ManaBurrn said:
Reminds me of putting heads/antlers on a wall.
I thought the same thing at first.... but I then decided that those are generally "trophies" form a hunt. The rest is usually eaten or used, and it took SKILL to kill it.

What skill does it take to put a healty cat to sleep, and cut off it's head?

I dunno, I always found trophy heads disturbing too. :shrugs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
ManaBurrn said:
Reminds me of putting heads/antlers on a wall.
Most things like that are killed for sport/food. Most hunters eat what they kill, and the antlers or heads are like trophys. I see that as a little different than killing something to make a statue out of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,432 Posts
I'm not defending her or her "art"., and it's not for me, thats for sure, but it's nothing new.....shock for the sake of shock. Think Damien Hirsch, who sawed a shark in half and embalmed it for exhibit. or the Piss Christ sculpture. go back to DuChamp's Urinal, which was shocking in it's time. Have you seen the human body scupltures? real bodies dissected and posed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1869687.stm

:confused this disgusts me:
http://www.beachbrowser.com/Archives/eVoid/April-2001/Plasticized-Corpse-Exhibit.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,837 Posts
You don't think it takes skill to drive to the pound and get a cat? Driving is very difficult, especially in Sveden.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,189 Posts
I saw a woman on Ripley's Beleive it or Not who did stuff like that to animals too. Just as sick, but she did them to already dead animals. Like your pet dies, you bring it to her, she mounts it or makes a sculpture...

The one they showed was a small kitten that died. She cut it's head off, and mounted it to an doll body dressed as an angel..... Sick, but at least SHE didn't kill the animal for arts sake.


Sometimes I really don't understand the hard core "art for art's sake" crowd................
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,568 Posts
:showtime

When's PETA supposed to get here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,779 Posts
i'm up in the air about it. If they rescue the cats from a "kill" shelter, is the fact that they're killing them then using them from art worse than letting the shelter kill and incinerate them as waste? What if they're using "feeder" mice? Is it really that big a difference from using leather made from cows that are raised for slaughter? It's a fine line. :shrug

...dave
:redcreep
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,891 Posts
I'm one of the first people to stand up for an artist's right to make a statement without censorship, but....uh....this is crap.

It's sensationalism and shock-value. That's a technique that can be used a positive manner to be sure, but this is just a pathetic way to get one's name out there.

Pitiful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,891 Posts
inanima said:Think Damien Hirsch, who sawed a shark in half and embalmed it for exhibit. or the Piss Christ sculpture. go back to DuChamp's Urinal, which was shocking in it's time. Have you seen the human body scupltures? real bodies dissected and posed:
True. Shocking in their own right, but shock alone isn't the negative here. It's right vs. wrong (or whatever moral sense a person may have).

Piss Christ was a statement about the degradation of the Catholic Church, by a man who professed to love God.

DuChamp's "Fountain" was meant to promote rhetoric within the iconoclastic form. He challenged art and, essentially, sought to destroy all pre-conceived manifestations of it.

The argument for the dead animal heads can be rationalized with a brief explanation, but it breaks down to more concrete personal values.

That would be a worthwhile effort if she was raising any viewpoint about those personal values. I don't think she does, though. Not in the least.
The statement makes it seems as though she does, but her work is not a reflection of that.

What really gets me is that it says so very little. There's no depth to her proposed concept. For that reason, I think it's sensationalisitc garbage. It's a one-dimensional ploy that doesn't go anywhere.
With the supporting statement in mind, I can instantly think of many other ways to bring about the same end result in a much more interesting manner. This is one idea repeated in various forms that don't really even connect to the supposed concept. It lacks honesty.

She sticks a head in a lamp. She puts another head on a small statue. How does that connect to the "fine line" between acceptable animal death and horrific termination?
I see the point, but it doesn't work. Her featured work doesn't fill in the appropriate blanks. She's too busy trying to upset people and cause conversation. Nice idea, but the conversation doesn't further the intended purpose. That being the case, what's the point?

All it amounts to is showing the dead body of an animal and saying "Does this bother you?" That's hardly breaking new ground. There's no meat (excuse the pun) to any of it.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top