Petition Against Murdering Artist

That picture was disturbing, but i think it was art. Not the sort of art that i would myself consider buying, but its art all the same. Remember Damien Hurst's creations? half an animal suspended in liquid?, this is old hat really.



The truth is I believe its wrong to do that to any animal, especially killing the animals just for art.

However someone said something about taxidermy, i don't entirely agree with that. Taxidermy is not like it was, animals have to have died of natural causes to be legally stuffed nowadays ((excluding game birds) and in uk anyway). a person cannot simply go out and kill a cat and get it stuffed, apparently they have to have a post mortem before they can be stuffed. so taxidermy is not that evil, maybe freaky and potentially disrespectful of the dead animal to be displayed, but a minor wrong in the world compared to killing animals for art, trade in endangered species and wild animals as pets.

on a side note, i once saw a exibition of pictures of roadkill, somehow the animals seemed to have dignity and looked rather peaceful in a rather poetic way. It was shocking at first but it kinda made you respect them, and care about them. it was kinda nice.

 

Taxidermy .. no .. Just not necessary .. I remember seeing stuffed animals when i was a child and the only thought that went through my head was how strange someone would do that .. In this day an age with the technology there is there is no reason for this.

though I am beginning to come round to killing and images of death for art .. yes .. I just may go remove some eyeballs and set them in jelly then wire them up to some power .. hmmmn .. may work on it .. wonder if Nathalia Edenmont's dissapearance would be noticed though? ,,, It would be okay though wouldn't it? it's art after all .. maybe you could come and see .. I am sure you'd like that but I wouldn't expect you to buy of course .. just encouraged me to do some more for my vanity and self impotence.















Hellooo000oo! .. anyone home!

 

wat if the animals were euthanized? aren't you protesting brutal killing of animals? imagine they did that with the meat you eat. you'd get pretty damn sick from it.

 

Hello .. Meishka .. I want to like you but please .. why do you insist on bringing irrelevences into this .. we are not talking about the most humane way to kill here .. We are talking about killing for art! .. for art .. not for a food supply.

We could go into the intricities of killing for a food supply if you like but not here .. here the point is of killing for the sake of killing.

I suggest you move to another town the one you are in now seems to be hindering the thought process.


Peace.

 

alright, but this means i have to balance out the bad rep i just gave you lol laterz

 

oh jesus .. tell me you didnt give me a bad rep .. oh no .. fuck .. tell me you didn't do that .. I'm going to have kill myself (artisically of course) .. and from someone who has posts on The good rep thread where good folks like yourself can go and get a good rep fix .. right .. don't patronise me please.

 

i cannot even begin to comprehend something so cruel and heartless being called art.
someone should beat her to death with a stick and make a puppet out of her.

 

i'm sorry...but i'm with meishka on this one...just because she doesn't agree with you doesn't make her stupid...it's an opinion...

i'm sorry to say but you're all being a little pig-headed about this...it may be wrong...it may be murder...but there is no need to be like this about someones opinions...this is after all a free speech site...how many times have we heard people advocating free speech when it suits them...if you don't like it then just say you don't like it...theres no need for name calling and mob mentality about something so trivial as a picture...

and need i even point out the number of people who have said "i'll kill her and make her into blah blah blah" is it just me or has this become the double standards brigade?

 

i.think.it's.the.lives.she.has.killed.to.make.the.picture.that.is.the.problem.josie

 

that sounded very patronising

i understand the reason people are getting upset about it...i'm just not sure i fully comprehend why...

i feel like i'm not getting my point across...whether that is down to my inability to explain my thoughts correctly...or just because people aren't listening i'm not sure...

there is something about the whole idea of death that both fascinates and scares people...the closest we come to it without dying is seeing relatives in a coffin...which is where people feel death belongs...to see death in such a radically different setting doesn't feel right...people want death to be safe and vacuum sealed so that they don't have to actually deal with it...when someone you love dies it's not the the death that upsets you...it's the fact that they aren't around anymore and won't be around in the future...people see it from the point of view that they aren't around because they are dead. in my mind i see them as two separate things. The person/animal is dead, and they aren't around anymore. But i like the idea that death is the great unknown.

I think the reason people are reacting this way is because they feel like that's how they should react. Yes the animals pictured are dead. But that's not the issue. That is a completely different topic. You cannot dismiss it as art because of it's content. You have to approach the two subjects very carefully. The death of the animals is completely seperate from the pictures of their bodies arranged the way that they are. By all means believe what you like about animal cruelty and animal murder. but don't make this argument about something that it isn't. Just because you don't like the way it was made doesn't mean it isn't art.

does that make more sense?

 

i definitley do not react that way because i feel like that is how i should react as Josie said. this is wrong period! about the double standard you mentioned, it's not a double standard for me. animals that small are defenseless. when it comes to animals, humans in most cases are not. so yes if she does those things to animals, i see nothing wrong with it being done to her. i care more about the animals, people can to to an extent control what happens to them.

 

yeh...animals.dont.have.a.voice ...so.we.have.to.be.it.for.them...IMHO

 

That's a non-argument. I could gut you, slice of your mother's tits and shove them inside your bleeding carcass and then shit on your face. Having done that, I could call it art. Would you still consider it reasonable for people to study such an image on the basis of its artistic merit, or would you be more comfortable with them vomitting?

Anything can be described as art. Describing something as art is therefore not an argument for placing it beyond moral critique. In fact, moral critique should be inherent to our understanding of art, or else art just exists in a cold, existential vacuum and has no relevance to the human condition.

 

Yeah i agree but its as simple as (i think)

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50173&page=2&pp=10

Dragging 'is it art' into it is just diverting in some ways , well to this particular thread anyway imho.

Is it art ... mmm i would love to know what she is trying to say ?.

 

I don't see how it matters anyway. Shit on a wall can be art. Doesn't stop it being shit on a wall.

 

Your right , but if the artist told me 'shit on the wall' actualy meant their study into the duality of shit and walls who am i to argue.

 

Indeed. But it's still a wall covered in brown smelly stuff. 'Art' isn't a label that can be applied to something in order to lift its worth beyond its inherent value. If it's used in such a way, the term 'art' rapidly disappears up its own arse.

 

You can call anything art but when it involves killing and cutting apart animals then its morally disgusting. People are whacked....

Edit: Its visualy disgusting too...

 

Who are we to judge the value of a peice of art. we don't have to like it . We can even petition it...but its in the eye of the beholder.

Now i am dissapering up my own arse hahahaha

 

if you were making a point or a valid statement through that then yes...it is art...but only if you have a message...if she was killing them just for the shit of it and making rubbish pictures of dead animals then fair enough she has no reason...but the very fact that people are so upset about it is one of the reasons it needs to be done...but i've still to see anything that proves that she is actually killing them that is undeniable proof...art is a medium where hype and spin are rife...there is no reason why this can't all be a part of the publicity for it...it seems like stretching it a bit far...why would you go out and publicly tell the press that you kill animals and risk all the shit for it? to get it seen, to get it on the news, in the papers and in peoples heads and on their tongues. There is no part of this that couldn't just be a cleverly made plot to get her famous...

i'm sure glad i turned off the rep points thing...