Results 1 to 28 of 28
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    2,961
    Thanks
    1,343
    Thanked 1,308 Times in 307 Posts

    You will not believe this...(not for the squeemish)

    #1 on PETA's most wanted list

    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?


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    723
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
    While the content is obviously different, the vibe I get from this is the same I get from Jock Sturges. Not necessarily a good thing.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    2,961
    Thanks
    1,343
    Thanked 1,308 Times in 307 Posts
    All I see is another desperate hack who makes up for their lack of vision through shock value. She'll cause her stir and be forgotten.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Hartford, CT
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    I tend to agree.

    I think Exo's probably right. It used to be that art was supposed to arouse the higher aspects of humanity. These days, it's enough to get a reaction. Just like everything else, I suppose.

    Of course, it does start an interesting conversation – if it's acceptable to kill animals for food or fur (debatable, I know), why not art? Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Malmö, Sweden
    Posts
    1,127
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    There was an exhibition a couple of years ago in Copenhagen, atleast i think it was Copenhagen, where the "artist" had put goldfishes in a mixer.. they were alive and happy, but the visitors had the option to turn the mixer on and kill the fishes. That is not art in my oppinion, that's just retarded.

    But at the same time, even though I've been a vegeterian for years, if killing animals would make me a more skilled artist, I'd be down at the zoo shop right now with a chainsaw and a happy grin on my face..

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 3 Posts
    Personally, I find it more acceptable to kill animals for art than for food, but I purposefully avoid making up my mind about it. This is the same idea as Damien Hirst's work... which I find oddly fascinating, but it had all the animal rights activists up in arms too.

    The difference is that displaying the death of animals in art is very public and when it has eyes and a face, you can't get away from what it really is. Yes, people eat meat, wear leather, etc. but very often there's absolutely no connection made between the product and the animal whose body it came from. A belt doesn't look like a cow. A breast filet doesn't look like a chicken. Is it a bad thing that displaying it this way forces the viewer to see it? If that is indeed her aim, then perhaps it's an end justifying the means situation.
    Art is long and time is fleeting

    Sketchbook
    Website

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    sweden
    Posts
    834
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 87 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by OLSEN
    There was an exhibition a couple of years ago in Copenhagen, atleast i think it was Copenhagen, where the "artist" had put goldfishes in a mixer.. they were alive and happy, but the visitors had the option to turn the mixer on and kill the fishes. That is not art in my oppinion, that's just retarded.

    But at the same time, even though I've been a vegeterian for years, if killing animals would make me a more skilled artist, I'd be down at the zoo shop right now with a chainsaw and a happy grin on my face..

    LMAO


    I am a meat eater and sometimes when i say it people start to throw rocks at me. "look at the meat eater" they say, then i say HAH.

    We have been eating meat since forever and im going to eat meat because i like it, and yes ive been a part of a pig slaughter and yes i know that the pig feels pain then they do it.

    But killing animals for art?
    i dont know man, its like killing your cat because the fucker doesnt stay still when you want to do a portrait of it.

    Kill for food, not some leather jacket or shiat, we have fabrics for that.

    (btw i dont have anything against vegis, i just hate it when people tell me how to eat and so on)

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Encinitas
    Posts
    1,541
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 6 Posts
    how can you justifly killing an animal for art? it makes no sense. and how is this not illegal?

    some animals are grown for meat, but hat aloows many to not go hungry. these animals were jsut killed so they could be displayed.
    -=[ Sinister Six Sketch Group ]=-
    -=[ Cookiedough Fooxoo |ntern Hyver Character Evildisco]=-

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
    One time this artist had goldfish in blenders and it was left to the viewers what they chose to do. I believe all the goldfish died.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by |NTeRN
    how can you justifly killing an animal for art? it makes no sense. and how is this not illegal?

    some animals are grown for meat, but hat aloows many to not go hungry. these animals were jsut killed so they could be displayed.
    In the US and Canada, I believe it's legal to kill any animal that belongs to you as long as it's done humanely. Not sure about any other countries.
    Art is long and time is fleeting

    Sketchbook
    Website

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Malmö, Sweden
    Posts
    1,127
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I believe theres value in all life, but that doesn't make life the most valuable thing around. I honestly believe that, for example, a Caravaggio is worth more then a cats life. That means that if i had to kill a cat to save a Caravaggio, I'd do it. If Carravaggio needed to kill cats to make art, that would be perfectly fine with me. Killing animals for crap art though, is an entirely different thing in my oppinion.

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    secret underground lair
    Posts
    740
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    I'm a member of PETA..

    People Eating Tasty Animals..
    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed, The world in arms is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross."

    ...I have a sketchbook?

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,081
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    omg..

    i think the artists only intention is making money by shocking the audience.. disgusting

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    712
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Great argument, she has there. Why shouldn't we start killing people in a 'human way' to showcase them as art. Just like von Hagen's "bodyworlds"-exhibition.

    bullshit.

  16. #15
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    607
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
    Yeah, humans would make great art pieces...and I know some cultures have used human bodies as decor in the past. Too cool.

    You all are going to see my and my human artwork on the news soon. Talk about getting noticed and making networks!!!
    Motivation...gone.

    Sketchbook be here...

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    409
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Did people learn nothing from a hundred and one dalmations?! *shakes fist*

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    2,961
    Thanks
    1,343
    Thanked 1,308 Times in 307 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanuka
    Great argument, she has there. Why shouldn't we start killing people in a 'human way' to showcase them as art. Just like von Hagen's "bodyworlds"-exhibition.

    bullshit.
    speaking of that, where the heck can I find pictures? I've seen a segment done on it on the National Geographic chanel but stuff about it online is pretty scarce.

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    About Bodyworlds: it's at the California Science Center right now, you might want to try their website.

    It's actually not what I expected at all. I don't think it's art, but I think it's a good exhibit.
    Adventure Dog: my work

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    404
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Sad excuse for shock art.

    And I bet she is thinking to herself, "Oh this 5 mice finger thingy peice shows the extent of man's trouble to control his world on his fingertips."

    Want to slap people like that. Me personally I eat meat but sheesh at least I'm helping to kill them for my sustainance. Not for some pathetic attempt to get some attention.

  21. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    South Florida USA
    Posts
    384
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by |NTeRN
    how can you justifly killing an animal for art? it makes no sense. and how is this not illegal?

    some animals are grown for meat, but hat aloows many to not go hungry. these animals were jsut killed so they could be displayed.
    Um is this something new to you?

    You will not believe this...(not for the squeemish)You will not believe this...(not for the squeemish) You will not believe this...(not for the squeemish)
    Member of Team Insect Battle X-Tream !
    <-Drop-Shadow Infiltrator->

    The Waffle house sketch book.

    Room 301!

  22. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    secret underground lair
    Posts
    740
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    I second the "check out the body works" thing. I saw it at the museum and it's fascinating. Yeah, not really art, but increadible and astounding either way.
    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed, The world in arms is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross."

    ...I have a sketchbook?

  23. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    2,961
    Thanks
    1,343
    Thanked 1,308 Times in 307 Posts
    I think what bugs me the most is that it is blatant shock art. The art itself is shitty and couldn't fetch three bucks at a yards sale. I wonder what her first thoughts were when she first conceived this so-called "breakthrough". "well everyone seems to think that my ceramics are boring and unimaginative... Hmmm, let me think... MITTENS! COME HERE MITTENS!" Let's put the whole animal cruelty thing aside and look at what she's doing. It's not even good shock art. She’s going to piss a few people off and become yesterday’s news faster than she can even imagine.

    As for taxidermy, whether or not you believe hunting is morally justifiable, you have to acknowledge that stuffing and mounting a buck is quite different. The motivation behind it is only partly concerned with creating a visual aesthetic. It's mainly to display proof of a conquest of sport. It's a trophy. Again, whether sneaking up on an animal that's minding it's business and shooting it from behind cover is sporting, that's debatable. It's not a matter of eating meet or not, but come on, hiding behind some bushes a thousand yards a way and killing it when it's not looking? Let's not kid ourselves.

    For the record, I'm a meet eater. Animals eat animals. They evolve and become specifically adapted to take nourishment from other animals. It's simple survival principals. Carnivores don't go out of their way to to obtain proteins through soy, so why should I? I find it hilarious when people take it upon themselves to impose souls and human attributes on on a cow but not a spider or fish. Why not a plant for matter? What arbitrary standards are being applied that make one form of life edible but not another? If someone refuses to eat meet for the animals sake, why can't I refuse to eat a plant as a botanical rights activist? Why is okay to hurt a plant when they clearly have develop thorns, tough skins and even poisons as defensive measures against being eaten? Let's face it; No living thing wants any other position than #1 on the food chain.

    However that there are huge differences between killing out of necessity and for the simple satysfaction of doing so.
    Last edited by N D Hill; November 1st, 2004 at 10:06 PM.

  24. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,622
    Thanks
    649
    Thanked 819 Times in 305 Posts
    I had forgot about this...

    There is usually a huge hassle about artists doing this kind of stuff. One was what is posted here, a second is the goldfish in the blender, a third one is the see-through shoes made with living goldfish in the heel. Needless to say, you had to use the shoes withing a certain periode of time, or else you'd go up the red carped with dead fish in your heel.

    I can understand the "artistic view" of the photos. I cannot understand the need to kill animals. In my view there's no excuse to kill goldfish, cats or humans for art. Taking an already dead cat and put in on a pidestall, yes. Killing it to put it on the pidestall, no. And there's no excuse for killing it for food or stock reduction, as for moose, in the first place either.

    What was said about doing this to create PR and get your name known is probably the main drive for anyone doing anything like this. Then again, instead of getting a lifelong and maybe longer acknowledgement, you get two weeks of publicity, and then get forgotten. At least in the art world. PETA and other organisations will probably hunt you for the rest of their lives.

    I will not go any further into what her personal motives might be, as that has probably been discussed up and down other places, but I will for sure delete her name out of my brain again, as I see no need to remember people within the art world that make works just to shock, and doing it making works that I deeply disrespect. Remembering her would only make her goal fulfilled.

  25. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    South Florida USA
    Posts
    384
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post

    hunt PETA

    just a note: thoses dead animals are not mine.

    I dont have a problem with hunting i just dont think it would be enjoyable. Sitting in a tree stand for 12 hrs and wating for a unsuspecting animal to wander into view and shooting it from 50 yards away seems kined of dull.

    I do condone killing, stuffing and mounting PETA members for art.Im thinking off killing afew and sticking there heads in some crappy earns i have laying around.
    Member of Team Insect Battle X-Tream !
    <-Drop-Shadow Infiltrator->

    The Waffle house sketch book.

    Room 301!

  26. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Encinitas
    Posts
    1,541
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 6 Posts
    hey waffle the differnce wih hunting is that they use the meat and skin (if not completely stuffed) i don't like the idea of hunting cus i couldn't do it.

    i havent heard of too many cat burgers or mouse steaks and tthese were killed for art. just not right
    -=[ Sinister Six Sketch Group ]=-
    -=[ Cookiedough Fooxoo |ntern Hyver Character Evildisco]=-

  27. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    944
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Exo
    I find it hilarious when people take it upon themselves to impose souls and human attributes on on a cow but not a spider or fish.
    Exactly. There seem to be two different kind of 'nature lovers'.

    The ones who wish to protect nature in general for the well beeing of the eco system etc. WWF kind.

    The other is the love of cute nature. Bunny's are cute and have to be protected, spiders are ugly and may be smashed. They like taking walks through nature, but complain when there are windmills generating clean electricity because they "polute the horizon". Get that shit out of my face.
    /fd
    "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"

  28. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    3,515
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 122 Times in 62 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Helium Macaroni
    I'm a member of PETA..

    People Eating Tasty Animals..

    I have dual membership to said PETA orgainization, as well as the Clean Plate Club.
    I self-published a book on the fundamentals of drawing from life.

    http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-D...8951905&sr=8-1

  29. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,622
    Thanks
    649
    Thanked 819 Times in 305 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Floris Didden
    Exactly. There seem to be two different kind of 'nature lovers'.

    The ones who wish to protect nature in general for the well beeing of the eco system etc. WWF kind.

    The other is the love of cute nature. Bunny's are cute and have to be protected, spiders are ugly and may be smashed. They like taking walks through nature, but complain when there are windmills generating clean electricity because they "polute the horizon". Get that shit out of my face.
    I eat animals killed for food and stock limitations. No problem. And I carry each spider out of my basement insted of killing it, just as I would with whatever bunny I found on my bathroom.

    My problem is killing for art only. War-related works with humans, yes. Humans made to look like they're in a difficult situation, no. Same with animals.

Similar Threads

  1. Child born without a face (not for the squeemish)
    By Crash in forum Artist Lounge
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: December 18th, 2004, 02:39 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Designed by The Coldest Water, we build the coldest best water bottles, ice packs and best pillows.