Petition Against Murdering Artist

This woman is sick.
Her path towards art has lead her in the wrong direction.
I hope she some day understands this.

 

why? why did she do this?

who would have thought

 

Claire... pull the stick out your bum please. I have a question. Why did you bold RABBITS in your original post. Is the rabbit a more noble or in some way better animal? It just seems to me someone who was really conserned about the animals rights would be for the animal be it cute or not and if it was cute that it wouldn't make said animal more important than the next. So she kills animals to make art. People are killed every day, so why should we be concerened about the animal first. It is art, whether you like it or not. You dont have to agree with it to be art. It is what it is and throwing a hissy fit does not change facts

 

Well now you're entering the dangerous territory of trying to determine what is and isn't art. Why should art convey a message? Art has always been about striking images. Social commentary in art is a fairly recent development.

I disagree. It would still be art. It would also still be sick.

Something 'needs to be done' because it's upsets people?!? That's no reason nor justification. By that definition, any atrocity could call itself art.

And if 'artist' feels the need to manipulate people in such a way, then they're fairly sick and need to take a long, hard look within.

 

why.are.you.having.a.go.at.me?...&.what.hissy.fit?...

 

Just a picture?

 

Josie? ... art .. beauty .. There is no objective definition of beauty. All definitions amount to the same thing; that art is that which makes beauty manifest, and beauty is that which pleases without exciting desire.. But there is and can be no explanation of why one thing pleases one man and displeases another. Scientists cannot work out the laws of art. Nor we.

Dark Lunacy .. claire thinks as much about people as animals .. she is also a realist .. She also does a lot for good causes .. do you? if so then why you attack her on such a trivial point as putting the word rabbit into bold and having a tantrum.


Whatever resons or arguemeants you come up with for this artists work .. however you compare it to other aspects of life, society. Whatever you say you cannot get away from the simple fact that this is WRONG!


plain and simple

 

OK, I've got to an internet cafe so can respond to you fully Mr Dark Lunacy

This really adds nothing to this post, it's purely a personal insult.... I'd suggest you approach debates in a calmer and more respectful manner in future...

I don't take kindly to being attacked on the forums especially as I don't attack other people.

It was cut and pasted off the website source as it came... Personally I prefer Cows if I had to choose a favourite "cute" animal. However, I haven't met one person in animal rights that does what they do because animals are "cute". A life is a life, animals should be able to live there's free from abuse and murder from Humans in my opinion. Life not cuteness is my driver.

Yes animals including humans are killed everyday... it's appalling isn't it I am not concerened with the animal first. How can we compassionate to each other if we can't show compassion to other species as well?

Whether it is or isn't art is not the point of this thread. I posted this so people who agreed that animal abuse and murder is wrong, could sign the petition against this artist.

If you don't agree... don't sign the petition end of...

I haven't thrown a hissy fit either Being passionate about what you are saying isn't having a hissy fit. This isn't an issue to mix words over in my opinion.

It seems it's you thats lost your cool and resorted to insults. Please note that I didnt attack anyone on this thread I have just given my views and offered my opinion.

Feel free to come back and visit my forum again, but please pay mind to the forum rules next time...

 

What is life if it isn't the pursuit of understanding ourselves as a species? How can we understand ourselves unless we are faced with things we both adore and detest. I think these pictures are beautiful. I think they are works of art. I don't mean to say that the way they were created isn't bad. Just that it isn't simply as black and white as "this is wrong" "this is right"...it can be both at once...

That's how art, music, advertising, film-making, almost any medium that requires an audience, works. By manipulating feelings and emotions and making people ask things about themselves and the world around them. Admittedly it's usually only used to make you buy something or see a film...or buy into a particular lifestyle/image/idea...but it's still the same principle

 

I think that's true and describes the mixed emotions I went through when I looked at these pictures. They are art and they are beautiful. One of the first things I thought after realising that they were "real" was that if they had been created with photoshop they would have been just as powerful and would have made me think the same thoughts about animal exploitation and our hypocrisy. The fact they were created by killing made me quickly develop a lively disgust at the artist. They are beautiful, they are art, they are wrong...

 

You can't detach art from ethics in such a simplistic fashion. Would we be having the same conversation if the work of 'art' in question featured a six year old child being sodomised with a 12 inch dildo?

 

Can i just say Josie, films they do as you say do things we adore and detest.. but they don't use living things to do that. So a film shows a gruesom murder, or a rap or something. But they haven't used real people, in the sence they haven't killed people to create a truely gruesom film, they haven't let some one be raped. Because people know its going to far, it maybe a form of art but its repulsive and maybe thats the point but it still doesn't justify its self its wrong, its unjustified and its truely disgusting.


This art uses really things, animals that have lived and thats why people detest it so much. Maybe if she'd just recreated synthetic animals.. people could apprecaite it better. But, whats she's done to those animals is wrong for a lot of reasons. Whether your an animal rights activist, a vegetarian or a passer by. I think you'll find they all pretty much agree, how wrong it is.

But i can see your argument, there are a lot of artists who have gone to extreme lengths to provoke their audiences because thats the whole idea.
But this is just, barbarik its like... when people were hung or beheaded and their bodies/heads were put on display. It's sick.

 

No. I am sorry, this just isnt the case. It's wrong Josie.

We are not debating really whether the images are beautiful or not etc etc ..

We are saying this is wrong! ...

Why do you continue to try to justify someone which is so fundamentally wrong.

 

It's probably been said already, but the original post is somewhat inaccurate.

 

how?

 

"Wrong" is subjective, no matter how many people agree, and that's all I'm going to say here.

 

Anybody who can support or condone the killing of animals for the sake of 'art' in my view needs a fucking good kicking!

Intellectualise that you fuckers!

 

So I line up a row of babies and proceed to jump up and down on their heads carefully keeping the squishing of the skulls in tune thus creating a piece of music.
But that's ok, wrong is subjective.

 

Wrong is subjective, yes. Even in cases as trampling babies or turning living creatures into hand puppets, where almost if not everyone would agree that it is wrong, it's just those people's opinions. If we had lived in another at-the-moment-non-existent culture, it might have been alright. This opposed to, say, a table, which will stay a table in any culture though probably have a different word for it.

I'm not saying I like the idea of animals being killed for art. In my opinion she should have used already-dead ones if she really wanted to go on with this. I just wanted to comment on your treating everybody who even faintly questions your authority in regards to ethics, like shit.

 

There was a story this week in the Guardian where a couple became irritated with their child and repeatedly threw the said child against the floor. The ferocity of this assult caused neighbours to call the police as the noise caused by the child hitting the floor was enough to make the neighbours call the police.

The couple have been found guuilty for what it is worth.

So wrong is subjective?

Only if you generalise.

If she had used 'already dead animals' then this thread may not have been here, or would have been different but the fact is she didn't and here we are.

'treating everybody who even faintly questions your authority in regards to ethics, like shit' you say.

Well however you see it, you see. Isn't that quite hypocritical of you?

Justify these things for me. Justify these things for us all. Justify these things to yourself.