PDA

View Full Version : Is Road Kill Art?


slaughters
06-10-2005, 07:45 PM
LONDON - A rabbit becomes a pot plant and a beheaded owl is turned into a desk tidy: by the alchemy of art, British university student Ebony Andrews is turning dead animals — including pieces of roadkill — into provoking artworks...

>>>> Link <<<< (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050610/ap_on_fe_st/britain_roadkill_art;_ylt=AjNPyfJDQwgr0stR3j2Ft0jtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

ThePumpkinKing
06-10-2005, 07:53 PM
Wow. Never thought I'd ever see something like that happening. I wonder what he does about the smell...

shivmoo
06-10-2005, 08:14 PM
definalty not my kind of art... but if it comes from an idea it is art..
so i guess.. yes it is art..

true.. wonder how they smelt.. must be a quick gallery :)... or.. the air conditioning was maxed out :)

barcode
06-10-2005, 08:27 PM
I imagine they have been preserved using taxidermy so they aren't decomposing.

leigh
06-10-2005, 08:34 PM
but if it comes from an idea it is art..
so i guess.. yes it is art..


So by that logic, the gas chambers in World War II were art too, because they came from an idea? Unusual way of looking at things :shrug:

This sort of thing is certainly not to my taste, but if people want to surround themselves with this, then that's their choice.

Nathellion
06-10-2005, 08:39 PM
How are you supposed to answer that if you haven't even seen the artwork? This is tantamount to asking: Are pencil marks on paper considered art?

JasonA
06-10-2005, 08:42 PM
this reminds me of the Duchamp "the fountain" debate. I suppose it can be considered art, although I can't say that I like the message or appreciate the form.

LouisCho
06-10-2005, 08:42 PM
may is, maybe is not. Maybe the artist just want to make a shock to the art community, it's a good pub for him. A couples years ago there was shit art and it was not that original because the idea is a little bit easy, there is often no good research in that kind of art. (Like a lot of art student who say: heu yeah, I put black in my drawing because the feeling is sad and i am sad and black is sad to show the society is sad...)

But maybe I am worng, we must hear the artist to know what is his intention with that.

Louis

LouisCho
06-10-2005, 08:45 PM
this reminds me of the Duchamp "the fountain" debate. I suppose it can be considered art, although I can't say that I like the message or appreciate the form.

Yes and he won the artwork of the century!

Louis

plastic
06-10-2005, 08:54 PM
So by that logic, the gas chambers in World War II were art too, because they came from an idea? Unusual way of looking at things :shrug:

This sort of thing is certainly not to my taste, but if people want to surround themselves with this, then that's their choice.


speaking of nazis, it was them who used the term "entartete kunst" (degenerated art) when they started burning books and banned art they didn't like.
IMO this is the best argument why nobody should dismiss art just because it's disturbing or doesn't follow common aesthetic guidelines.

paperclip
06-10-2005, 09:25 PM
Is there actually a line as to what art is?? I really don't think there is one anymore... you don't even need to think anymore, just create instinctively.


Maybe THAT is what art is...something that is created. There you go, I've solved the dilemma!

Off to find a cup of tea....where's Erilaz?

Marc-OlivierBouchard
06-10-2005, 09:30 PM
The real question is: Is Art roadkill?

SpeccySteve
06-10-2005, 10:10 PM
Seen it all before.

"Oooh look , I pickled a cow, how controversial!!"

Boring, but it does seem to hit the newspapers so I suppose it's worth doing for the publicity, someone give her a Turner Prize.

ashakarc
06-10-2005, 10:22 PM
It's absurd to compare the work of an art student to Gas chambres..that doesn't give any merits to the argument.

As Nate mentioned, we haven't seen the work, how could we judge it? But if we want to build a wall around what art is, then it is a different discussion.

Dead animals are being stuffed with preservative materials and being sold in many places around the world, exhibited in museums for learning purposes, a form of art that has been practiced by older tribes in more primitive societies, it's been practiced along history, now suddenly it's wrong!!
It is disgusting to my taste, and pathetic, but doesn't make it wrong. What is wrong is killing the animal for pathetic reasons like art. If that student killed the animal to use its parts for a project, then yes, this goes beyond this discussion, and there is no point of questioning the artistic merits anymore.
----------
Edit: re; first line above: Surely, art definition doesn't follow the logic of the idea as an essence, however the idea represents one of core values to define art.

lordmachuca
06-10-2005, 10:30 PM
she uses road kill in her art. It works.
http://www.customcreaturetaxidermy.com/fantasy/fantasy.html. made me think twice about it.

ashakarc
06-10-2005, 10:39 PM
she uses road kill in her art. It works.
http://www.customcreaturetaxidermy.com/fantasy/fantasy.html. made me think twice about it.
OK, having seens these pictures on a screen is different from reality. I don't think I can be in one room with this work, it's just cruel. Is it art? I don't care, it's just disgusting to my taste.

XYZRGB
06-10-2005, 10:54 PM
It's absurd to compare the work of an art student to Gas chambres..that doesn't give any merits to the argument.

As Nate mentioned, we haven't seen the work, how could we judge it? But if we want to build a wall around what art is, then it is a different discussion.

Dead animals are being stuffed with preservative materials and being sold in many places around the world, exhibited in museums for learning purposes, a form of art that has been practiced by older tribes in more primitive societies, it's been practiced along history, now suddenly it's wrong!!
It is disgusting to my taste, and pathetic, but doesn't make it wrong.What is wrong is killing the animal for pathetic reasons like art. If that student killed the animal to use its parts for a project, then yes, this goes beyond this discussion, and there is no point of questioning the artistic merits anymore.

I agree ! Just yesterday, I found a dead dragonfly that I intend to place in a glass display case. These creatures really are fascinating to look at, and give a new appreciation for the complexity and beauty of the creature.
What would make it wrong would have been if I killed the dragonfly just to get my three seconds worth of " Wow that's really pretty !" in.
I do think that art such as this tends to turn the death of these animals into more of a joke - it would be like digging up your dead grandmothers corpse and dressing her as a clown.

Concerning the Nazi 'art ' topic, the Nazis DID create "art" from people. Do the research.:) They used the tanned leather from the dead to make lampshades, and other trinkets.
People sometimes loose the realization that leather is skin - be it from a cow or a human bieng.

ashakarc
06-10-2005, 10:57 PM
[/color]
Concerning the Nazi 'art ' topic, the Nazis DID create art from people. Do the research.:) They used the tanned leather from the dead to make lampshades, and other trinkets.
People sometimes loose the realization that leather is skin - be it from a cow or a human bieng.
Sadly, I am aware of this most ugly crime of all, but you are putting a cruel definition to what is art!!

Kargokultti
06-11-2005, 01:31 AM
But both use roadkill. How is it cruel to use roadkill in art? Cruel to the viewers sensibilities? Who's making you watch it?

What I'd love people to do is stop mixing art and good. Art is lots of things, making a show of carcasses doesn't fit into most people's idea of good. I don't see a connection between these two.

And didn't you guys notice that the Nazis were dragged into this because of a fuzzy comment in the thread, not because of the art itself?

ashakarc
06-11-2005, 02:35 AM
But both use roadkill. How is it cruel to use roadkill in art? Cruel to the viewers sensibilities? Who's making you watch it?
Precisely, viewers sensibility. What is art without a viewer. I know, one would say, 'but there are other viewers who enjoy such work', fine with me, as long as it's not publicly thrown at my face. But you have a point there ;]

CLONEOPS
06-11-2005, 02:43 AM
Let's see ....a leather jacket,shoe..whatever (design) can win a fashion award ,that is created by a some recognized world famous fashion designer.
Some dead animal parts used in a different context..so i guess it depends on your perspective and sensibilities.Eskimoes use bones for spears..its a craft for survival.
Heck i think its more a efficient use for a dried carcass than most people can come up with...
now if he had folded up a bit of the flat stuff into a really interesting origami thingy maybe it might tip off the edge into artistic...extra points i would say.

ashakarc
06-11-2005, 02:53 AM
Let's see ....a leather jacket,shoe..whatever (design) can win a fashion award ,that is created by a some recognized world famous fashion designer.
Some dead animal parts used in a different context..so i guess it depends on your perspective and sensibilities.Eskimoes use bones for spears..its a craft for survival.
Heck i think its more a efficient use for a dried carcass than most people can come up with...
now if he had folded up a bit of the flat stuff into a really interesting origami thingy maybe it might tip off the edge into artistic...extra points i would say.
Cloneops, may be you are implying that some of us think it is absolutely cruel to "kill" animals for whatever reason. If so, then NO. What I personally meant is to kill for the sake of "art".
But, for survival purposes, I wouldn't redicule myself and say please don't kill! Heck, that moment, there is little room for reason and good taste. We are made of bones and flesh after all and more accurately, Protein hungry creatures :banghead:

eks
06-11-2005, 04:44 AM
you guys are missing one point: who decides what is art or not these days are those few people that choose to place this or that piece inside a museum.

since duchamp, and many others, tore down all kinds of walls that defined "art", it seems that, for the "art system", roadkill is art.

but we still can have a question in the issue: is it art for you?

i would agree with nathellion, i´d have to see it first.



eks

stepington
06-11-2005, 06:03 AM
It's too bad animals can't make art from the remains of people that came to a sticky end based off of their own self absorbed technologies.

XLNT-3d
06-11-2005, 10:42 PM
It's too bad animals can't make art from the remains of people that came to a sticky end based off of their own self absorbed technologies.

You can probably get pretty creative with cremated ashes. Just think about all the colored sand in bottles at ocean tourist areas.

My environmental science teacher used to give us extra credit towards our grades if we brought in road kill. Maybe he was making art too.

jmBoekestein
06-12-2005, 01:07 AM
Luckily we've left all sorts of monuments to our stupidity;). I think these will last a good while after we get extinguished. The Eiffel tower, some pyramids, and cigarette boxes saying how lethal smoking is and what not. I'm quite sure one or two aliens will be ROFLMAO at the sight of it all. Too bad they'll be the ones in charge of exterminating the human race, because it goes without saying us humans can't be set loose once again after all this. There's no telling what kind of hell we have in store with our minds actively bent on revenge. And these aliens, they might think we got kind of cute and cuddly after getting back our fur and clubs and all.

CLONEOPS
06-12-2005, 01:55 AM
You can probably get pretty creative with cremated ashes. Just think about all the colored sand in bottles at ocean tourist areas.

My environmental science teacher used to give us extra credit towards our grades if we brought in road kill. Maybe he was making art too.

hahaha ..remonds me of the story of some older lady who collected roadkill....and had a roadside meat-jerky stand....mmmh, maybe teacher taking in extra income too.

Gord-MacDonald
06-12-2005, 02:11 AM
There is nothing new about using animals as the centre piece of an 'artwork' - I am not a big fan - esp. if the animal died or suffered cruely to become to object of someones 'art'.

Gord

XLNT-3d
06-12-2005, 02:21 AM
What about stuffed animals? I am referring to the real ones from taxidermy. You always see mooseheads and deer on the walls at hunting stores or in people's houses that are avid hunters. A friend of ours was a big game hunter and loved to bow fish off of fan boats. His house was decorated with wildlife he had killed. He ate all of them, but had some of them stuffed and setup scenery in his house. Like squirrels and stuff climbing around trees and stuff like that. He had no stuffed deer because he had a pet deer(saved it from wild dogs as a baby...ironic) that thought it was a dog.

6foot5
06-12-2005, 06:00 AM
its true that duchamps fountain(see avatar) posed these sort of questions many moons ago, he did it in a typically irreverant and witty way, and its been done , its over! Duchamps readymades should have been the last word on it. why cant we move on? or indeed move back and put art once again into the hands of those who can actualy create with style and techique.

this conceptual rubbish has had its day and too many talentless people have used it to disguise their own lack of skills and innate artistic ability.:rolleyes:

Gunilla
06-12-2005, 08:03 AM
It is disgusting to my taste, and pathetic, but doesn't make it wrong. What is wrong is killing the animal for pathetic reasons like art. If that student killed the animal to use its parts for a project, then yes, this goes beyond this discussion,

Some year ago an exhibit by Natalia Edenmont caused a lot of discussions and actions over here - she's killing all her "models" personally like these ones. (http://images.google.se/images?q=Nathalia%20Edenmont&hl=sv&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wi)
Kills them, arrange them and then photograph them.

I can't say anything about the artistic quality, never saw the show, but is it really more offensive to kill a rabbit for making a piece of art than for making a cool looking jacket? If the later is O.K then the first one must be too in my opinion.

Kargokultti
06-12-2005, 11:41 AM
By the by, did you know that the sculptures on the old facade of the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona were based on casts of real animals. Dead ones. They were very impressive. A great work of art, I'd say. (So it's quite weird that they bothered to cover the new facade with those tedious, nearly social-realist blockhead figures. Leaving it blank would've been much more stylish.)

And yup, the biggest difference between the truck-flattened rodent and the fur embellishes on a coat or what not is the time they took to tan and cure the leather. Bits of dead animals are bits of dead animals. Sticking them to garments doesn't change them into plastic.

shivmoo
06-12-2005, 12:47 PM
i have been thinking....
if this roadkill art makes poeple think about the damage that cars are having to the animal population, shurely there is a positive thing from it.. my mum cries for a few minutes every time she runs something over... i think it has happened twice.. she nearly broke the car trying to avoid them before.... but most drivers just keep going and dont think about what they just did (perhaps i am just speaking from the poeple i have met) . putting it into an art shows what they did.. makes them think about it.
i think putting them in a pot is a little strange, i dont get the message.. or putting a remote control in them..
hell... its not going to make them think more.. the poeple who are already worried about what they are killing would go.
the ones that dont care wouldnt go and see what damage it does, oh well.. guess i proved myself wrong :)

LadyMedusa
06-12-2005, 02:06 PM
It's too bad animals can't make art from the remains of people that came to a sticky end based off of their own self absorbed technologies.
We got that Gunter guy doing it for them. Alltho' he doesnt kill humans and he doesnt just take them.
I would not consider this art.

slaughters
06-13-2005, 03:40 AM
...is it really more offensive to kill a rabbit for making a piece of art than for making a cool looking jacket?Yes, of course it is. She's killing it to get her jollies. Where I come from that is all kinds of sick.

Kargokultti
06-13-2005, 01:26 PM
Yes, of course it is. She's killing it to get her jollies. Where I come from that is all kinds of sick.

Ok. So you live in some part of the world where "Gore-tex" is just a meaningless jumble of syllables? And I gather that you must also know the artist in in question quite well, as you're so knowledgeable of her "jollies".

StephanD
06-13-2005, 02:08 PM
Well my reaction is that which they want...I'm disgusted.

CArnold03
06-13-2005, 02:28 PM
I don't know. When I see roadkill, I'm thinkin' about dinner, but seeing any animal carcass does that for me. And Jet fuel makes me hungry too, I'll have to figure the connection sometime. That said, there's no way I could consider it even remotely close to art. Besides there's nothing violent or sexy about it either, it's just meat for eating that's being wasted on display. Sad thing is, it says alot about the artist if the only way they can get any attention for their work is to try and offend the viewers sensibilities.

plastic
06-13-2005, 03:07 PM
every meat going to mcdonalds is a waste of animal life, at least as decadent as any art-project involving the killing of animals.

StephanD
06-13-2005, 03:11 PM
McDonald's?...Meat? :D

slaughters
06-13-2005, 04:03 PM
...I gather that you must also know the artist in in question quite well, as you're so knowledgeable of her "jollies".Do people get a special "licence" for brutality, just because they are "artistic"?

P.S. I suggest that you do some research on Natalia Edenmont

plastic
06-13-2005, 04:14 PM
there is a difference between killing and tortouring animals.
i think everywhere in the world it's totally legal to kill animals without a reason.
you can kill your pet because you don't want it any longer. you can kill your pet because you want to eat it. you can kill your pets offspring. etc.
what's against the law is unnessecary cruelty towards animals (torture).

slaughters,
i hope you don't eat meat, otherwise i'd have to see you as a double moral standard person.
i can hardly imagine anything more cruel than animal slaughter houses and "meat farms".
the road kill did suffer for a few seconds, not for it's entire life.
there is no single rational reason for humans to eat animals. it's just a form of self-indulgence.

dbclemons
06-13-2005, 04:43 PM
It's all in the skid marks. Road kill without skid marks would be artless. ;)


-David

ashakarc
06-13-2005, 05:17 PM
there is no single rational reason for humans to eat animals. it's just a form of self-indulgence.
As much as I would like to see the whole world abandon eating meat including myself, but it is more complicated than that. Survival does not rely on rational reasoning. There are hundreds of millions of people who are starving around the world, and many many children who die from starvation as we speak. If you have a full stomach you have the option not to eat meat, good for you; honestly, but do not generalize your ideals to 'humans', it's just incomplete!

plastic
06-13-2005, 05:29 PM
As much as I would like to see the whole world abandon eating meat including myself, but it is more complicated than that. Survival does not rely on rational reasoning. There are hundreds of millions of people who are starving around the world, and many many children who die from starvation as we speak. If you have a full stomach you have the option not to eat meat, good for you; honestly, but do not generalize your ideals to 'humans', it's just incomplete!

honestly, i doubt that the starving people in the 3rd world can afford meat. it's a luxury good.
i know that one reason why people of my regional culture (center europe) eat too much meat, is because not long ago only the prosperous could afford eating meat more often than once a week.

of course there are situations where it can be nessecary to eat animals.
so yes, my statement was incomplete.
but it does apply for everyone posting here.

but this is getting very off topic.
i'm no animal activist, i eat meat myself sometimes.
all i tried to say is that there is nothing cruel about doing stuff with animal corpses. or even, killing animals for art. it's as cruel as eating a big mac from mcdonalds.

Trojan123
06-13-2005, 05:58 PM
LONDON - A rabbit becomes a pot plant and a beheaded owl is turned into a desk tidy: by the alchemy of art, British university student Ebony Andrews is turning dead animals — including pieces of roadkill — into provoking artworks...

>>>> Link <<<< (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050610/ap_on_fe_st/britain_roadkill_art;_ylt=AjNPyfJDQwgr0stR3j2Ft0jtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

Ah, yes- the continued downward spiral ofthe human mind.

Normally, I couldn't find this as "art", but these days people will stick a crucifix in a jar of urine, paint the Virgin Mary with elephant poop... some guy in (London?) makes cadavre art.

At the end of the day, I just shrug my shoulders and say "whatever, folks".

SB

SpeccySteve
06-13-2005, 06:44 PM
At the end of the day, I just shrug my shoulders and say "whatever, folks".


My feelings exactly.

slaughters
06-13-2005, 07:22 PM
...slaughters,
i hope you don't eat meat, otherwise i'd have to see you as a double moral standard person.Just label me as a wacky kind of guy, who eats meat, but dislikes hearing of people who kill animals for pleasure and personal advancement.

Question to all:

If this is OK, then is taxidermy an "art"? What's the difference? Doesn't that make hunters who kill animals for the sole purpose of mounting their heads on a wall just as cool and "in the right" as an artist who does it for the same reasons?

nineinchneil
06-13-2005, 07:46 PM
slaughters, what i don't get is why you feel that using animals for clothing isn't as cruel as using animals for art, since that is obviously what you meant in a previous post. sure the artist is using dead animals for her 'jollies', but who are all these leather jackets and fur coats being made for? consumers. it's made to appease the 'jollies' of consumers. how is it any different?

i strongly believe that art is EVERYWHERE. one can see art in anything they wish to percieve. good and bad doesn't come into the picture. it isn't limited by morality. yes, what these people are doing is an artform. you don't have to agree with it (i'm very against mindless animal slaughter), but i do see art in it. how can you afford not to? how can one limit themselves to selectively deciding what's art and what's not? aren't we all trying to find progression in art? even people who don't consider themselves artists, who work white-collar/blue-collar jobs are living in art. it's all around us, and ignoring it is only degenerative to humanity.

i'm not saying support dead animal art; merely to acknowledge that it is art, no matter how vile, and ugly.

slaughters
06-13-2005, 08:44 PM
...what i don't get is why you feel that using animals for clothing isn't as cruel as using animals for art...Then I simply can not explain it, even though it is not a hard concept and I think you are being disingenuous.

nineinchneil
06-13-2005, 09:35 PM
Then I simply can not explain it

that's it? that's your answer? care to explain how i'm being disingenuous, or is that something you can't explain either?

think about it for a second. people wear the skin of another living being on their bodies. the only reason you feel okay with it, is because it's been ingrained into you that it's acceptable. society sees nothing wrong with gutting animals for floormats and carseats, but once the word 'art' is inserted, then all hell breaks loose. this sort of hypocritical garbage is rampant in our society, and all you can say to defend it is 'i simply cannot explain it'?

Do people get a special "licence" for brutality, just because they are "artistic"?
then explain why people get a special "licence" for brutality, just because they like the way it looks, showcasing decapitations on their walls.

JamesMK
06-13-2005, 09:44 PM
Interesting topic... I'm certain that this is one tough nut to crack, considering there are HEAPS of double standards and hypocrisy involved when dealing with how humans handle animals in general.

IMHO, using them if they were already dead - no big deal. Cool idea.

Killing them for the sole purpose of arranging them into works of art would be really sick. Isn't that what a lot of famous serial killers used to do when they were kids?

On the other hand, killing cows to make boots, jackets or hamburgers is pretty nasty as well, still I'm weak and consume such products myself. I really wish I was a straight edge vegan, but alas, I'm not disciplined enough.

ashakarc
06-13-2005, 09:48 PM
I am not a biologist, but as far as I know, no other animal kill for the shear pleasure of "art".

Again, it is not as simple as some are portraying it. When both products (leather jackets + roadkill art) involve the killing of the animal, there are other things to look at before you evaluate the process. Man is NOT the centre of the universe! neither his rules are the laws of nature, nor his ideals are primal survival kit.

JamesMK
06-13-2005, 09:49 PM
Killing them for the sole purpose of arranging them into works of art would be really sick. Isn't that what a lot of famous serial killers used to do when they were kids?
Oh, um, my apologies... that's a rather lame guilt-by-association type of statement.

plastic
06-13-2005, 10:59 PM
I am not a biologist, but as far as I know, no other animal kill for the shear pleasure of "art".


you haven't seen my cat :D

ashakarc
06-13-2005, 11:43 PM
you haven't seen my cat :D
Hahaha.. I actually had a catfriend sometime ago, and he did the same chasing sparrows, catching it, seemingly playing with it until killing it. I think it's called animal instinct, as hunting for a domesticated cat is just spontaneous act, no art in there, especially CG ;)

http://www.thecatgallery.com/images/cat-kitten-mouse-bounce.gif

Em2
06-14-2005, 12:04 AM
Art is basicly what you think is art huh :thumbsup: so if any1 thinks a dead rabbit is art then let it be, caus of his/her point of view it is.

But its a bit weird aint it

Kargokultti
06-14-2005, 10:08 AM
P.S. I suggest that you do some research on Natalia Edenmont
Did that. Though "jollies" is hardly a very exact term, I gathered that you used it to mean something more than a satisfaction on a job well done. I couldn't find anything pointing to that direction.

Thing is, the artist's job is doing art. Perversions are a hobby. You might enjoy your job, but I've yet to meet anyone with a job he or she loves and enjoys as much as they do their hobbies. Or perversions. If you make a profession out of your beloved hobby, you'll pretty soon notice the romance wearing quite thin. So, in my mind, someone who gets "jollies" out of killing and mutilating animals would most probably do it on their free time.

What's interesting is that Edenmont seems to have created quite serious ripples with photographs, not actual animal remains. Here's Begemot:

http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/artists/nathaliaedenmont/04_nathaliaedenmont/1_stor.jpg

There were images of other animals in vases as well. Maybe the point is that you could do this stuff with Photoshop and not kill the animals. If the artist would be quite smart, she would Photoshop them and then claim that she killed them. Instant controversy without all the gruesome bits, really avant garde too.

But that's probably not to be.

This is a quote from a deviantart forum I found while googling:

There's an artist, Nathalia Edenmont, who kills cats, mice, doves, RABBITS, and other animals, mutilates their bodies, and then takes their photographs.
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't such an apt example of the prevailing double standards. Go ahead, kill cats, mice, doves and other animals, just make sure you don't touch the RABBITS!

slaughters
06-14-2005, 01:13 PM
that's it? that's your answer? care to explain how i'm being disingenuous, or is that something you can't explain either?You did understand what I was saying, you just disagreed with it. You used the very old debate technique of attacking the views of the presenter and ignoring what was presented.
blah blah blah blah... this sort of hypocritical garbage is rampant in our society, and all you can say to defend it is 'i simply cannot explain it'?I'm confused? You hate eveyone who eats meat and wears cloithes?

I have explained my view point multiple times in this thread. You have either not read, or refused to listen to it. I dislike brutality to animals solely for personal recognition and advancement. I don't care it is an "artist", taxidermist, or hunter doing this. While on the other hand it seems like you are willing to damn everyone, but excuse the artist.

I find it very strange that so many people seem to want to attack me for NOT wanting animals hurt, but are ready to leap to the defense of any "artist" who does it for "art".

P.S. Read my sig.

Enayla
06-14-2005, 01:29 PM
Well...

Art is whatever you make of it. If these people think it is art, I suppose it is. It's nothing I'll ever learn to appreciate, though. Then, I've always found it distasteful to display carcasses in such a degrading manner. The dead should be treated with some kind of respect, at least, whether they're animals or humans.

Kargokultti
06-14-2005, 01:50 PM
I dislike brutality to animals solely for personal recognition and advancement.
Again, leather jackets. Coming from the opposite point of view, it seems very much like a double standard to abhor art made from animals, while not giving a toss about accessories made from animals.

Yeah, I'm a vegetarian, but if I'd start having seizures every time I hear of this kind of stuff, I'd also have to puke every time I put on my suede sneakers. Objecting to one but not the other just doesn't seem very logical. I don't object to my nifty sneakers, so I haven't the right to object to this artist's choice of material.

nineinchneil
06-15-2005, 07:43 AM
I'm confused?
then let me explain one more time for you. you don't seem to have a problem with animals being killed for clothing as much as animals being killed for art. i never once said i was defending the artist. i was just curious about the double standard you're presenting. if you're so adamantly against killing animals for art, then why are you not as outraged with animals being killed for other forms of aesthetic value? read the posts before you put your foot in your mouth.
i don't hate people who eat meat or wear animal skin. i hate people who eat meat or wear animal skin, and then get riled up when an animal is killed for 'art'. once again, i'm not defending the artist. i'll say it again for you slaughters, i'm not defending the artist. i just think that the hypocrisy is pretty blatant.

Kargokultti
06-15-2005, 03:56 PM
I think it's a brick wall we're facing here.

mlaoxve
06-15-2005, 07:40 PM
Lets say nothing is art, because art is just a word. Now lets look at it and see what it is:

#1 A dead rabbit as a pot plant, okay i think that is messed up.
#2 A painting of a dead animal, okay
#3 A painting of a big mechanical robot harvesting humans, cool that sounds great.
#4 A 3d model of 3 bananas with legs, cute.
#5 A man dropped food on his floor and left it there for a couple of days. It got all crusty and smelled really bad. now he calls it art. Haha oh god what is that guys disorder

Hmm, art? what is art? nothing is art. Its just a stupid word of something you think is cool or special, and everyone got diffrent opinion. So dont even try saying someone elses stuff isn't art, you could say they are ****ed up but you shouldn't say it aint art.

slaughters
06-15-2005, 08:04 PM
... i hate people who eat meat or wear animal skin, and then get riled up when an animal is killed for 'art'....Let me get this straight. Because I agree with you that killing animals for art is bad BUT because I don't fully agree with you (I enjoy a good steak now and then) ... you hate me.

Weird. Weird. Weird, and very intolerant.

I keep trying to talk about the artist. You seem more interested in attacking me. I think this has gone on too long.

I agree with Kargokultt when he said, "I think it's a brick wall we're facing here", so this is my last post in this thread.

ashakarc
06-16-2005, 02:21 AM
Difference of opinions is not a good reason for hate, especially people !!

nineinchneil
06-16-2005, 07:16 PM
Let me get this straight. Because I agree with you that killing animals for art is bad BUT because I don't fully agree with you (I enjoy a good steak now and then) ... you hate me.
i never agreed with you that killing animals for art is bad, because as meat eaters, we don't have the right to judge how other people use dead animals. i had a problem with the fact that you feel you can judge killing animals for one sort of pleasure as good, and killing animals for another sort of pleasure as bad. that's hypocrisy. that i hate. that is something everyone should hate.

I keep trying to talk about the artist. You seem more interested in attacking me.
again, you're judging the artist very subjectively, and i'm questioning how you can place that sort of absolute judgement on the artwork.

and if you read kargokultti's previous post, i don't think i'm the brick wall he was talking about. . .

JPGargoyle
06-16-2005, 07:47 PM
But both use roadkill. How is it cruel to use roadkill in art?

from http://www.customcreaturetaxidermy.com/specimens/specimens.html
Shark Head
$42

Where was she driving to? :shrug:

Marc-OlivierBouchard
06-17-2005, 12:04 AM
Aren't most roadkills going to waste anyway.
Isn't the animal getting killed by a car a bigger problem than whatever someone does with the carcass? It's not like the world has a shortage of decaying organic matter...

I think it's tasteless. But I don't think it's wrong.

For the leather, I might not be informed properly but I believe the cow skin comes animal raised for meat. The more parts we use the better.


(as for the shark head, It could have washed ashore. With so many sharks caught, fins sliced off and thown back in, I could see that happening)

Kargokultti
06-17-2005, 11:39 AM
from http://www.customcreaturetaxidermy.com/specimens/specimens.html
Shark Head
$42

Where was she driving to? :shrug:
Ever heard of rains of fish? Stranger things have occurred ;)

You got a point right there. Seems like I ought to have checked the site a bit more carefully.

I agree with Kargokultt when he said, "I think it's a brick wall we're facing here", so this is my last post in this thread.

Sorry, didn't mean to be a party pooper. I must say I've enjoyed this discussion immensely. The more people's views differ, the better the argument.

And yeah, hate's not the answer. Mild resentment sustains bickering much longer.

But I would like to point out that it seems to me that the don't-kill-animals-for-art party hasn't really backed their opinions with much else than, "Well, it's not a nice thing to do", "I don't like it" and "It's immoral". Repeating an opinion does nothing to explain it.

(By the by guys, I'd prefer "she".)

jmBoekestein
06-17-2005, 12:02 PM
I think it's a brick wall we're facing here.

I think that applies as soon as you get to the point of turning living beings into an object. There's no discussion then because the respect has left imho.

Kargokultti
06-17-2005, 01:47 PM
There's no discussion then because the respect has left imho.
Curiouser and curiouser :curious:. Ah, respect towards the animals, right?

But wouldn't you admit that it can be discussed whether or not respect takes her leave also when you put a pig's butt thorugh a meat grinder, or only when you create art using questionable materials. The topic is of course art, but in this case, it is not easily separated from life.

JPGargoyle
06-17-2005, 03:04 PM
Some peole have argued something like "we kill animals to eat, why not kill them to make art?"

For example, quoting nineinchneil:

"i never agreed with you that killing animals for art is bad, because as meat eaters, we don't have the right to judge how other people use dead animals. i had a problem with the fact that you feel you can judge killing animals for one sort of pleasure as good, and killing animals for another sort of pleasure as bad. that's hypocrisy. that i hate. that is something everyone should hate."

That IS hypocrisy.
We, as meat eaters, and long before we got our "inteligence", always killed animals for food, and later for clothing. NOT as "one sort of pleasure". Those are basic needs we have and need to fulfill. So we must kill animals to eat, to make clothes (using leather for coats, shoes, belts etc).
When we start killing animals for vanity (fur clothes, trophys, for fun), that IMHO is WRONG, and should not be accepted.
So, killing animals for art is not what I think of as something we REALLY NEED, or how can I put it another way, is something we can live without.
What if some crazy guy one day thinks something like: "I'm going to create the ULTIMATE art masterpiece. I'm going to extinct a specie. So he goes after the last examples of some endangered species, kills them all, documenting in some way the moment he kills the last one. Wow. That sure must be ART! :P".

So for what you say, you find that acceptable no?


Best regards

nineinchneil
06-17-2005, 05:58 PM
as a meat-eater myself, i empathize with you, jpgargoyle. but let's get one thing straight; we DON'T NEED TO EAT MEAT TO SURVIVE. yes, primitive man used to eat meat and wear animal skin, but we aren't a primitive species anymore. the point of evolution is to progress to the point where we are living with each other, not feeding on each other. and don't even try and tell me that leather coats, leather shoes, and leather belts, is a necessity to survive! that's ridiculous.

What if some crazy guy one day thinks something like: "I'm going to create the ULTIMATE art masterpiece. I'm going to extinct a specie. So he goes after the last examples of some endangered species, kills them all, documenting in some way the moment he kills the last one. Wow. That sure must be ART! :P".
So for what you say, you find that acceptable no?

no it's not acceptable. it's not acceptable at all. because that would be horrible to me. but that DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE ART. do you know how many paintings there are of massacres on battlefields? or the portraits of mass murderers like hitler? or of hunters shooting animals? or of people/animals being killed or tortured in some way or another? they're all pretty gruesome, and hard to look at ('guernica' is an especially hard one for me to look at, because of the raw emotion in that piece), but they're also works of art. who's to say what's art or not? just because the content is evil, and distasteful doesn't take away it's artistic merit. why is this so hard to understand?

[edit] here's a great example: http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=250357 it's pretty f***ed up, but performance art in any manner is still an artform.

JPGargoyle
06-17-2005, 07:30 PM
Well.

All I can say is that you haven't read my last post.

When you say such things as this:

"but that DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE ART. do you know how many paintings there are of massacres on battlefields? or the portraits of mass murderers like hitler? or of hunters shooting animals? or of people/animals being killed or tortured in some way or another? they're all pretty gruesome, and hard to look at ('guernica' is an especially hard one for me to look at, because of the raw emotion in that piece), but they're also works of art. who's to say what's art or not? just because the content is evil, and distasteful doesn't take away it's artistic merit. why is this so hard to understand?
"
you sure make me think that you don't know nothing about art.
All those paintings about massacres on battlefields were not caused by the artist that painted the paint. That's different from killing animals to make "art"(or just making money with dead animals from weird people willing to buy dead animals)

nineinchneil
06-17-2005, 07:42 PM
you're missing the point. the point is that no matter how you look at it, we're killing animals when we don't really need to. we're eating their meat when we don't really need to; it's only because we're used to the taste and texture of flesh. so when we exploit animals in this way, what right do we have to judge how someone else exploits them?

i've been trying to stay away from using this saying, but i'm left with no choice:

"let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." - somewhere in the bible.

that is pretty much the summary of what i've been trying to say from the beginning of this retarded argument.

Kargokultti
06-17-2005, 11:24 PM
You nailed it there, nineinchneil. I just want to hit my head against the wall a few more times.

JPGargoyle, this is repetition, I know, but consider this: I stopped eating meat over seven years ago. I'm still very much alive. I think I can safely assume that I'm included into 'people'. If I don't need meat, then I'd gather it'd be also safe to assume that 'people' don't need meat. Not if they don't live in Greenland a hundred years ago, with only seals to sustain them. You an inuit, JPGargoyle?

There's people and there's people. Some people see the word 'art' as an adjective, intrinsically linked with other adjectives of certain kind: 'good', 'beautiful', 'valuable' and so on. To others, it is a roof term that bunches together all kinds of activities that would be inexplicable without the connection. Making art from animal remains would fit this bill splendidly.

Needless to say, I'm a fervent follower of the roof party. As far as I know, 'art' still is a pretty clear cut noun, though the modern kind has expanded into other materials.

JPGargoyle
06-18-2005, 01:25 AM
JPGargoyle, this is repetition, I know, but consider this: I stopped eating meat over seven years ago. I'm still very much alive. I think I can safely assume that I'm included into 'people'. If I don't need meat, then I'd gather it'd be also safe to assume that 'people' don't need meat. Not if they don't live in Greenland a hundred years ago, with only seals to sustain them. You an inuit, JPGargoyle?


Ah come on. You are an exception to the rule. Of course you are still alive. Even someone who is in coma and is fed by a tube is alive although he doesn't eat anithing. A tiger eating vegetables is still a tiger, but is an exception, not "the rule". Of course you are into 'people'. Even those who feed o other humans are people. What you can't deny is that we allways ate animals, and only after we got "inteligent", we started to worry about what those animals we eat might feel. As we also started to make such things as making "art" out of those animals.

The main point to me is (and allways will be) about what art is and what shoul and should not be considered art.
To me art is something that is pleasent, not offensive, that only a few can do, and that make you say WOW!.
Not YUCK!
I know that lots of people might look at Mona Lisa and say YUCK, but they are a few among millions.
So, I don't consider art something that as ment to shock, just be different, and something alike, just because they make me feel emotional. As someone said, art is supposed to make us have an emotional response, but everithing that make us haver an emotional response IS NOT art.
For example (very extreme) if my mother was run over by a car, that would surely make me VERY emotional, but I wouldn't consider the car that killed her with lots of blood and all wrecked up ART!
People have to stop calling every piece of shit someone does art, just because he was the first to think about that and some well known asshole that knows him just said that was ART.
Like something I saw about a jerk who made an exposition with big photos of close ups of assholes!!!
Come on; how much of you think that is art?

barcode
06-18-2005, 03:16 AM
Materials that come from dead animals have been used in art through out history. A few examples: Gelatin in photographic paper comes from boiled skins, tendons and bones of dead animals like cows and pigs. Gesso which is used as a ground for oil paintings has animal glue in it (similar to gelatin) which comes from boiled skins like rabbit skins. Animal hides have also been used to make paintings before paper and canvas existed and even after they were available. Sculptures have been carved out of animal horns, bones and tusks.

ashakarc
06-18-2005, 03:33 AM
Speaking of Roadkill !! (http://eul0000562.eu.verio.net/boreme/media-movies/m_sportska.mpg) mpeg file ahead

lordmachuca
06-18-2005, 09:30 AM
barcode- well said man

Kargokultti
06-18-2005, 10:16 AM
Yes indeed.

From JPGargoyle: "we always ate animals".

This is of course true, but I'd say a more exact statement would be "we used to eat anything we could digest and then live to tell the tale". Nowadays we don't. Take horseflesh for instance. People who are perfectly happy eating cows will shudder at the though of a horse steak. This naturally varies from place to place.

And that's culture for you. You can explain actions by refering to their cultural background, but you can hardly defend them. A cheap example of this would be the Nazis, yet again. Or Polynesian headhunters. Or the serfdom in Czarist Russia. Or the oppression of the rural populace in feudal Japan. The list is endless.

It's all in the culture.

jbo
06-18-2005, 11:19 AM
Yes indeed.
And that's culture for you. You can explain actions by refering to their cultural background, but you can hardly defend them. A cheap example of this would be the Nazis, yet again. Or Polynesian headhunters. Or the serfdom in Czarist Russia. Or the oppression of the rural populace in feudal Japan. The list is endless.

It's all in the culture.

I don't think that's a fair comparison... I don't see how cultural differences allowing someone to eat a horse is indefensible. i think most of us would still be eating horse if we didn't view a horse as a "pet". if a horse was still a wild beast or a tool to us, we wouldn't think twice about it. I would say that some actions are indefensible, but some CAN be defended by citing cultural differences. Besides, the examples you gave are not really cultural differences with he exception on polynesian headhunters. i mean the nazis had a lot less to do with culture and a lot more to do with germany being left in a state that made it easy for a lunatic to gain power.

but anyway, why is it wrong to eat a horse and not wrong to eat a cow? a horse isn't much smarter than a cow. sure it can carry you places, but a cow can give you milk. really, i don't see any difference. the only reason is because of OUR culture. we have developed in a way that makes us see horses a cute now that new no longer need them, and have somewhat domesticated them. I mean really it's more humane to eat a horse that's had to be put down when you think about, i mean that's one less cow you have to kill right? so maybe we're the barbarians for allowing an animal to be slaughtered when there was already a perfectly good horse there for the eating that we decided to bury instead. anyway, i doubt horse tastes any good with how muscular they are and all, but hey, i'll try anything once.

i can't believe i just wrote something that long about eating horse.

Kargokultti
06-18-2005, 12:44 PM
Please understand that my use of the word 'culture' in my previous post is not synonymous with 'art', or 'good and ethical things'. 'The way people do things' would be much closer.

Solarix
06-18-2005, 02:56 PM
i never agreed with you that killing animals for art is bad, because as meat eaters, we don't have the right to judge how other people use dead animals.
And why not? Eating meat is a part of living. Killing animals/using dead ones as art is not.

Personally, I don't agree with using dead animals for anything, be is art or accessory. However, saying that 'as meat eaters' we can't judge what others do is ridiculous.

Whilst from your last post I can understand where you're coming from, I feel there is no need to display the dead in such a manner. Eating is for living, even if it isn't essential. We consume it not to show it off, but for health, for life. Making 'art' out if it, on the other hand, is revolting.

"HEY GUYS! Look at this animal i found dead! Doesn't it look GREAT!"....ugh. Look at those links to her work, I find it revolting she has the guts to display them in such a manner.



.....Despite this, art is art, unrestricted by ethics or morals. It is merely the creator or viewers' opinion. Which, especially in this case, I find disgusting and disappointing. Because I am one of the viewers in this case, and this viewer right here does not consider it art.

nineinchneil
06-18-2005, 05:29 PM
I don't think that's a fair comparison... I don't see how cultural differences allowing someone to eat a horse is indefensible. i think most of us would still be eating horse if we didn't view a horse as a "pet".
isn't that view of a horse a product of a culture? instead of the days when horses were used to ride warriors into battle, or tug wagons, western culture has since used horses for luxury. the idea of owning a pony and riding it whenever you want, is a product of culture.

i mean the nazis had a lot less to do with culture and a lot more to do with germany being left in a state that made it easy for a lunatic to gain power.
true, but it was more or less a culture. a culture doesn't necessarily take centuries to build upon. here you have an entire nation that was swayed by the charisma of one madman. an entire country conforming to a new way of life. i would call that culture, no matter how ludicrous of a culture it was.

And why not? Eating meat is a part of living. Killing animals/using dead ones as art is not.

Personally, I don't agree with using dead animals for anything, be is art or accessory. However, saying that 'as meat eaters' we can't judge what others do is ridiculous.

Whilst from your last post I can understand where you're coming from, I feel there is no need to display the dead in such a manner. Eating is for living, even if it isn't essential. We consume it not to show it off, but for health, for life. Making 'art' out if it, on the other hand, is revolting.

"HEY GUYS! Look at this animal i found dead! Doesn't it look GREAT!"....ugh. Look at those links to her work, I find it revolting she has the guts to display them in such a manner.
i do agree that eating meat is a part of living. it's what we are. but i don't believe it's a part of survival.
but see, the point is that it's okay to differ on this. you can have different opinions. because in the end you said this:
.....Despite this, art is art, unrestricted by ethics or morals. It is merely the creator or viewers' opinion. Which, especially in this case, I find disgusting and disappointing. Because I am one of the viewers in this case, and this viewer right here does not consider it art.
and that's all i was asking for. whether you found the art good, bad, or downright despicable (which by the way, i agree with you solaris. it is revolting, i can't stand watching her work), you still acknowledged that it is art to a degree.
once i find a smilie to show 'throwing-your-hands-up-in-relief', i'll post it.:)

jbo
06-18-2005, 09:35 PM
isn't that view of a horse a product of a culture? instead of the days when horses were used to ride warriors into battle, or tug wagons, western culture has since used horses for luxury. the idea of owning a pony and riding it whenever you want, is a product of culture.

absolutely. i wasn't trying to say it wasn't part of culture, but that one shouldn't be so quick to judge another culture and say that you can't defend it.


true, but it was more or less a culture. a culture doesn't necessarily take centuries to build upon. here you have an entire nation that was swayed by the charisma of one madman. an entire country conforming to a new way of life. i would call that culture, no matter how ludicrous of a culture it was.


I suppose if you want to get technical you can say that anything is because of culture, but what i'm talking about is things that one culture doesn't bat an eyelid over because they have been conditioned to accept it, whereas another culture finds it morally reprehensible because of their conditioning. I don't think the actions of a country that is in a state of chaos/extreme change/war are not what most people would consider cultural differences... you could argue that the nazis were only able to gain power because of german culture, but i don't agree with that. i think the same situation could have easily happened in a different country had it been left in such a state.

KayosIII
06-22-2005, 04:09 AM
From www.dictionary.com
full definition here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art

art1 Pronunciation Key (ärt)
n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.


I don't think you could argue that the mentioned artwork does not meet this definition.

The question that is being debated here is it moral... argument being if it is not moral then it is not art. I can't find anything in this definition or any of the others that says anything about morality. Therefore it can be immoral and still be art.

Is it moral? Morality is personal or culture based not absolute. For me personally it is immoral - I believe that killing should only ever be done out of neccesity and since it clearly is not necessary, wrong. But im a stinking vegetarian so what would I know :p

plastic
06-22-2005, 09:22 AM
From www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/)
full definition here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art
Quote:

art1 Pronunciation Key (ärt)
n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.



man that's just nonsense...that's the worst definition of art i've ever seen.
i had many lectures at uni about that topic, how to define art, etc.
if it just was that simple.
this one is like the kindergarden version.
"affects the sense of beauty" bleh.
:rolleyes:

KayosIII
06-22-2005, 09:41 AM
Please share a more appropriate definition then...

Kargokultti
06-22-2005, 08:10 PM
What is beautiful? Is there a standard of beauty?

The definition of art quoted above may seem waterproof at first glance, but it's not, considering there are as many definitions of beauty as there are those attempting to define it.

jbo
06-22-2005, 08:25 PM
yeah, i agree with that definition up until the point where they use the word beautiful. not only is that word extremely subjective, but i don't think art has to strive for beauty anyway. perhaps a better definition would be...

"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that attempts to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."

I just rearranged and got rid of parts of it. not perfect, but i think it's better. maybe the word "conscious" should be the next to go.

SimonGibson
06-22-2005, 09:23 PM
Stupid artists have been trying to "shock" us all for god knows how long, why don't they shock us by doing something that doesn't involve dead animals for once?

gmask
06-22-2005, 09:39 PM
Stupid artists have been trying to "shock" us all for god knows how long, why don't they shock us by doing something that doesn't involve dead animals for once?

Because most people are stupid. Maybe the artist should have a made a tv remote in the shape of a large breasted woman.. because that obviously would be art.

Is there anything really shocking anymore?

Personally i don't think that this was an attempt at shocking the viewer.. it may be morbid and some people may find that weird but is it really any more weird than people who kill animals and mount them as trophies or have their departed pets freeze dried?

Now if doign such a thing became as popular as Britney Spears that might be shocking.

PerfectBlue
06-22-2005, 10:30 PM
Interesting. I doubt i could personally work with corpses.. but power to those who do.

nineinchneil
06-22-2005, 10:59 PM
the majority has pretty much concluded here that this is art, regardless of how sickening it is. i think the main difference between people seeing this as art or not is dependent on what the individual holds sacred. most religions (that i know of) insist on reverence of the dead (i'll keep my opinions on this to myself, for fear of starting another 40 pages of circular arguments). that is where most of the anger in this thread is coming from.

but i agree with lord blue; don't really have the stomach to do stuff like this myself, but i don't disrespect or disregard people who can.

kargokultti, give it up girl :P this brick wall ain't budging.

Kargokultti
06-22-2005, 11:11 PM
What can I say? My life is empty. I have nothing better to do.

gmask
06-22-2005, 11:35 PM
Interesting. I doubt i could personally work with corpses.. but power to those who do.

Check out the work of Joel Peter Witkin .. a million music videos and beyond owe everything to him. Marilyn Manson should be paying this guy royalties.

I don't know why people would even cosider judging wether or not work like this is art based on wether or not they would make work using the same methods, subjects and materials.

ashakarc
06-22-2005, 11:37 PM
that is where most of the anger in this thread is coming from

It is not only this thread. People here use stronger more confrontational language due; in my opinion; to 2 main reasons, annonymity, and non-physical presence (absence of body language).

We have to remember that showing anger is a deception practiced by people to show that his/her argument is stronger and hold more truth mixed with false intimidation.

Kargokultti
06-22-2005, 11:47 PM
Might not some people appear angry simply because they are?

PerfectBlue
06-23-2005, 12:27 AM
Check out the work of Joel Peter Witkin .. a million music videos and beyond owe everything to him. Marilyn Manson should be paying this guy royalties.

I've never heard of the name before.. i think i'll look him up. Always good to be 'in the know'. :D


Might not some people appear angry simply because they are?
That could be a fun philosophical debate. :)

Solarix
06-23-2005, 01:27 PM
We have to remember that showing anger is a deception practiced by people to show that his/her argument is stronger and hold more truth mixed with false intimidation.
So true....

In my opinion, art just can't be defined. Beauty to one person may be repulsive to another. Most things in this world, by now, are subjective anyway. Everything you may hate, someone may embrace, and see no wrong in it. Art, music, war, human rights, social issues, etc.- all of these things can be subjective. And especially art...there's no way you can simply define art as 'Art is beautiful'.

Why? Because, 'beautiful' to whom? Unless there's a long, specific definition on it most current definitions like the one posted are moot.

(Still, while I wouldn't want to consider this as art, I agree with both Lord Blue and nineinchneil. I wouldn't openly disrepect the person, even though I'm personally appalled at what they do)

digdenton
06-24-2005, 01:16 PM
Roadkill has been the subject of some of the best photos I have ever seen. My Photography professor in college used to go around and collect any kind of roadkill, or he especially liked birds that had flown into windows and died, and throw them on a flatbed scanner. The result was some amazing photos. The result is a little less shocking and wierd, but yes in my opinion, roadkill can be art. Here's the only example of his work that I could find.
Dead Owl (http://www.wesleyan.edu/dac/jpgs/ndac/sing/linke.jpg)

CGTalk Moderation
06-24-2005, 01:16 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.