Petition Against Murdering Artist

Hey can I have the link where you found the info on her? I can't find where it says she killed the animals, or how she killed them. Im trying to research this a bit more.

 

http://www.sweden.se/templates/AFPN...sf/js.latest/01196C4638760FC4C1256DFA0063E858

http://wyldwytch.com/lofiversion/index.php/t3571.html

http://www.recirca.com/artnews/218.shtml

http://www.memefirst.com/000206.html

http://dogfightatbankstown.typepad.com/blog/2003/12/yes_but_is_it_a.html

http://prox2.reducedphat.com/stopabuse.html

http://forums.petlovers.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-3002.html

 

once again...and this is the last time i'm going to post on this thread because no-one is getting anywhere here...

conclusively prove to me that she killed the animals...and not just someone saying that she did...and i will take it all back...

 

why not write to her & ask her, seen as though you dont believe the gallery,PETa & the media...you're wasting my time JOsie...do some research yourself...or drop it? Thanks

 

That's not the real issue anyway as far as I'm concerned. It's about whether we choose to view images that glorify butchery and death as 'art'. If it was photoshopped, it'd be just as sick. Would you consider an image of child abuse to be 'art' so long as no children were harmed in its making?

 

Look I'd have to say that this is obviously art, so were the horses in formaldhyde so was the "Piss-christ" statuette. Art sometimes pisses people off. Despite the fact that someone might not like the piece doesnt make it any less art. Duchamp displayed a urinal and it now sits in the Philly museum of art. The nice thing about art is that they the artists are free to make what they wish as long as they do not break the law, and you (the viewer) are free to not look or support the work. (This artist is in Sweden and may have broken the law by not having a veteranarian present when she killed the animals. This is not a problem in the US and I evaluate based on U.S. Law.)

As for the reasons he does this artwork.
The photograph that has provoked the strongest reactions portrays a hand with the head of a dead mouse stuck on each finger. Wetterling said the work was meant to symbolise the five stars of the former Soviet Union, which he said was responsible for the murder of Edenmont's mother when the artist was only 14.

Reading all those links I found numerous times where it is indicated that he animals were intended to be used as snake food.
Many people in many countries kill, mice, cats, rats, rabbits just because they are a pest in their gardens, if this woman has really killed them, (if i hadn't know that the animals were killed for those pictures i seriously would've believed they were digitally done or montaged- and if she has done this I will laugh for days)

Many of these animals are killed for art everyday anyway in the art world of fashion, for fur coats, shoes, and handbags (except the animals animals don't get imortalized in artworks made famous by controversy and PETA's advertising money)


A petition and the media hupla will not stop this artist. The petitions and media made careers for Robert Maplethorpe, Andres Serrano, and Leni Riefenstahl. When art is reduced to what everyone likes, art is reduced to nothing.

 

So, back to my question: with such a broad definition, what's to stop images of child abuse being considered as 'art'? And again: the issue isn't whether it's 'art' (since the definiton of 'art' appears to be so broad as to be meaningless), but rather whether we wish to promote a society in which images of butchery and slaughter are consider aesthetically pleasing.

 

The law stops images of real child abuse, and an artist who was to do that would be investigated for instances of real child abuse, and the artist would be arrested if charges were filed. In fact one Appalacian female photographer in the US had all her possessions confiscated, and was jailed until her court date, because she displays nude pictures of her children who run around their river side farm naked.
However, I have seen artists create fake scenes of murders, in fact popular drama and televisions shows do this all the time. It is done for arts sake and for your entertainment all the time.
The defenition of art is isnt so broad its meaningless, its so broad that it is part of our genetic culture as humans and an issue throughout time.

Your right I don't like to promote this kind of society. I will not sign the petition and I will not promote this artist, doing so creates the opposite affect and by morning all will sit around the table talking about the famous Swedish artist who kills mice.

 

I wasn't asking if it was a crime - I was asking if it's art. If images of child abuse can be considered artistic, then the question of whether an image is art or not is essentially meanigless, since are clearly doesn't inherently convey any integrity or value to an image.

 

That's the point. They're fake. They haven't actually gone and murdered a bunch of people and taken pictures of it.

Nobody's saying that's right either. Personally I don't wear or use any leather/suede/fur etc because I don't see the point in not eating meat and then wearing byproducts of the meat industry.

 

What would you like to see then? A prosecution perhaps? Maybe some blood on her carpet and a fridge full of bones?

She said she killed them ... so are you saying that she is lying for attention? Can you provide proof that she is lying or even demonstrate reason why you should believe her to be lying?

Would it matter if she had killed them or if the pope had killed them? The admission that she killed them is still tasteless and still condones the act.

 

Yes is it is art, that is the answer.
What is the image doing? How can you decide if something is art when it doesnt exist? There are photographers out there who create images that give the feeling of child abuse, these photographers work for the child abuse centers and are awarded for drawing awareness to something that is never photographed. If there are images of real child abuse, they are documents that can be used in a case against the abuser, and he can contemplate if his transgressions were worth it for his art all he wants in jail, and I have not heard of any art like this, have you?


"the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" (Britannica Online)

Leo Tolstoy~
The activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man's expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it. To take the simplest example; one man laughs, and another who hears becomes merry; or a man weeps, and another who hears feels sorrow. A man is excited or irritated, and another man seeing him comes to a similar state of mind. By his movements or by the sounds of his voice, a man expresses courage and determination or sadness and calmness, and this state of mind passes on to others. A man suffers, expressing his sufferings by groans and spasms, and this suffering transmits itself to other people; a man expresses his feeling of admiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to certain objects, persons, or phenomena, and others are infected by the same feelings of admiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to the same objects, persons, and phenomena.
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Coffeehouse/6831/whatsart.html
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartists.html

 

In which instance, debating whether an image is 'art' or not is meaningless in the context of considering the ethics of the image. Which was my point.

 

I wasn't asking if it was a crime - I was asking if it's art.




Ethics are subjective to personal views, one cannot abandon art because someone takes offense to something.

I personally am offended by cutesy middle of the road non-confrontational to anything, bad art. That doesnt mean I don't think Norman Rockwell isnt art, its just not what I like.

 

The point about the cop shows was not about the Swedish artists work. I was talking to Dr. Atomick, making this case for art that is violent. Read up above.

Personally is the key word here, personally, i don't care that she killed some mice and other such animals to create her sureal images.

What I am saying is that PETA and the PETA petition to stop her is making her famous.

 

But lots of other people do. You can't just dismiss opinions.

 

I did'nt think I was dimissing anyones opinions. The images are art, that is not argueable, it meets the criteria of the defenition of art, you don't have to like it and I understand that.
Personally is the key word here, personally, i don't care that she killed some mice and other such animals to create her sureal images.

What I am saying is that PETA and the PETA petition to stop her is making her famous.

 

You're missing the point. You can pursue art to your heart's content, but whether or not what you're creating to art is entirely irrelevant to the wider debate about whether your activities are morally acceptable.

For example, if I was to create an image of someone being raped, it doesn't matter whether it's art or not - there's still a debate to be had over whether such an image is ethically acceptable.

Now if that image actually involved someone being subjected to rape in order to produce it, it could still be art, but it would involve an act that was almost universally considered to be morally intolerable.

Why, therefore, do we need to concern ourselves over whether an image is 'art'? Clearly such a categorisation has no bearing on whether or not something is ethical.

 

In this thread you have explained your point, my answer to this is, no we do not have a conversation of whether or not this is art, because yes it is. It was created as to communicate some message to another human. That defines it as art. End of case.

Ethically, now we can get into something that is just opinion based. I personally do not enjoy some of her work, I keep cats as pets in this country and feel a personality bond to them, so I do not like seeing cats and dogs dead, I feel they have a soul. Mice, rabbits, I do not feel as being so offensive. We learn alot from these animals in their deaths, weather that be through medical research, the exploration of art, or feeding your pet snake. I personally do not kill them, nor like to see them dead, but a few of her works are pleasing to me, like the egg yolk in the flower, and some of the mice ones. But that is a personal opinion.

 

that's a valid point...

animal testing proves the test on animals not humans arguably...