|
|
Post by Still Hate Thatcher on Sept 29, 2017 16:03:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by adman on Sept 29, 2017 17:37:02 GMT
I'm surprised the Guggenheim were surprised by 'the thunderclap of outrage' (their words not mine). The Guggenheim haven't offered any artistic defence of the work – they're 'simply shocked by the response'. This artwork is provocative and cruel – and the artists involved have plenty of previous. Here's a good example: 'Sun and Peng’s early works mark the same extremes. Infamously, Peng’s installation Curtain (1999) saw her go to a Chinese wholesale fresh animal market, purchasing an immense quantity of lobsters, eels, snakes, and frogs. Her 10 assistants speared them alive on metal wires to create a dense, writhing, four-by-six tapestry that thrashed out its death throes over the course of the installation'. I've seen a film of that exhibit, it turned my stomach. Perhaps I'm overly sentimental, but I believe you can tell something about a person by the way they treat animals. |
|
|
|
Post by Still Hate Thatcher on Sept 29, 2017 18:49:38 GMT
I'm surprised the Guggenheim were surprised by 'the thunderclap of outrage' (their words not mine). The Guggenheim haven't offered any artistic defence of the work – they're 'simply shocked by the response'. This artwork is provocative and cruel – and the artists involved have plenty of previous. Here's a good example: 'Sun and Peng’s early works mark the same extremes. Infamously, Peng’s installation Curtain (1999) saw her go to a Chinese wholesale fresh animal market, purchasing an immense quantity of lobsters, eels, snakes, and frogs. Her 10 assistants speared them alive on metal wires to create a dense, writhing, four-by-six tapestry that thrashed out its death throes over the course of the installation'. I've seen a film of that exhibit, it turned my stomach. Perhaps I'm overly sentimental, but I believe you can tell something about a person by the way they treat animals. That's what I meant about the philosophical/behavioural/intellectual problems. Peng said of the Curtain 'they were going to be eaten anyway'. This is why I have real problem telling the Japanese they can't eat whales, Koreans they can't eat dog, Hindus they should eat cows, Jews they should eat pigs.'You can judge people by how they treat animals.' 99% of us treat 99% of animals like shit. But, to be fair most wild animals are eaten alive by other animals. We ARE different. That's what I mean! It has made me think, hard... |
|
|
|
Post by chainsaw on Sept 29, 2017 19:15:11 GMT
Would the live slaughter of a food animal and the butchering and arrangement of its constituent parts be considered art? or performance art? Or just distasteful?
If it was not done with due processes to minimise distress and cruelty to the animal, it would be considered illegal in the UK, wouldn't it?
The racing of dogs (mainly greyhounds) is often believed to be acceptable in the UK. I have seen the use of treadmills to exercise dogs on the TV. So the reality of pit-bulls on treadmills running should not be seen as wrong.
However the act of fighting dogs is seen as being wrong, so the arrangement of treadmills to make it appear the dogs are running at each other to attack and fight could be seen as endorsing dog fighting, which combined with the fact that they really are fighting dogs, I don't appreciate.
In the UK the endorsement of dog fighting would be wrong... but is there art in suggesting it and it never happening, like some continuing loop?
If there is, its not art I appreciate... perhaps just two dogs ... arranged in front of a background skilfully filmed.. perhaps two large screens next to each other .. perhaps even the same dog from two different angles?
As it is.. a roomful of fighting dogs on treadmills, endorses and encourages animal cruelty.... thats no more art that the butcher at Tescos band-sawing a frozen carcass, and throwing bits in a mincer.
Perhaps one of the artists can perform a blood-eagle on the other for their next show.
|
|
|
|
Post by adman on Sept 29, 2017 19:17:51 GMT
I'm surprised the Guggenheim were surprised by 'the thunderclap of outrage' (their words not mine). The Guggenheim haven't offered any artistic defence of the work – they're 'simply shocked by the response'. This artwork is provocative and cruel – and the artists involved have plenty of previous. Here's a good example: 'Sun and Peng’s early works mark the same extremes. Infamously, Peng’s installation Curtain (1999) saw her go to a Chinese wholesale fresh animal market, purchasing an immense quantity of lobsters, eels, snakes, and frogs. Her 10 assistants speared them alive on metal wires to create a dense, writhing, four-by-six tapestry that thrashed out its death throes over the course of the installation'. I've seen a film of that exhibit, it turned my stomach. Perhaps I'm overly sentimental, but I believe you can tell something about a person by the way they treat animals. That's what I meant about the philosophical/behavioural/intellectual problems. Peng said of the Curtain 'they were going to be eaten anyway'. This is why I have real problem telling the Japanese they can't eat whales, Koreans they can't eat dog, Hindus they should eat cows, Jews they should eat pigs.'You can judge people by how they treat animals.' 99% of us treat 99% of animals like shit. But, to be fair most wild animals are eaten alive by other animals. We ARE different. That's what I mean! It has made me think, hard... Agreed. It is a difficult subject. I've been veg for 30 odd years and have no problem at all with anyone eating meat. Being cruel to animals is a different thing all together – for whatever purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by adman on Sept 29, 2017 19:30:33 GMT
Would the live slaughter of a food animal and the butchering and arrangement of its constituent parts be considered art? or performance art? Or just distasteful? If it was not done with due processes to minimise distress and cruelty to the animal, it would be considered illegal in the UK, wouldn't it? The racing of dogs (mainly greyhounds) is often believed to be acceptable in the UK. I have seen the use of treadmills to exercise dogs on the TV. So the reality of pit-bulls on treadmills running should not be seen as wrong. However the act of fighting dogs is seen as being wrong, so the arrangement of treadmills to make it appear the dogs are running at each other to attack and fight could be seen as endorsing dog fighting, which combined with the fact that they really are fighting dogs, I don't appreciate. In the UK the endorsement of dog fighting would be wrong... but is there art in suggesting it and it never happening, like some continuing loop? If there is, its not art I appreciate... perhaps just two dogs ... arranged in front of a background skilfully filmed.. perhaps two large screens next to each other .. perhaps even the same dog from two different angles? As it is.. a roomful of fighting dogs on treadmills, endorses and encourages animal cruelty.... thats no more art that the butcher at Tescos band-sawing a frozen carcass, and throwing bits in a mincer. Perhaps one of the artists can perform a blood-eagle on the other for their next show. Hi Chainsaw, It's not just two dogs running on treadmills that i have an issue with. It's the fact that they're running at each other which becomes aggressive for dogs. They're Pitbulls, not poodles (or greyhounds) – and the aesthetic is pending violence, very real if the get at each other. Your last line would be an interesting idea! |
|
|
|
Post by IggyWiggy on Sept 29, 2017 19:30:57 GMT
Fine if you want to nail your own scrotum to the floor or whatever but don't fuck around with animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by adman on Sept 29, 2017 19:33:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Still Hate Thatcher on Sept 29, 2017 20:03:54 GMT
Chris Burden nailed himself to a car back in 1974. Shit he did blows my mind.
Life is pain. Trite, but true. The kitten beaten to death would have killed 1,000 mice. is its passing a tragedy? It was strangled, not ripped apart by a dog. If we didn't eat cows, why would they exist? If we didn't eat the dodo, would it still exist? Do we use wheat, or does it use us? How much fun is it to be a 200 year old tortoise?
|
|
|
|
Post by Still Hate Thatcher on Sept 29, 2017 20:28:50 GMT
Chris Burden nailed himself to a car back in 1974. Shit he did blows my mind. Life is pain. Trite, but true. The kitten beaten to death would have killed 1,000 mice. is its passing a tragedy? It was strangled, not ripped apart by a dog. If we didn't eat cows, why would they exist? If we didn't eat the dodo, would it still exist? Do we use wheat, or does it use us? How much fun is it to be a 200 year old tortoise? I saw Chris Burden's 'Urban Light' in LA. I didn't mean to. I didn't seek it out. I didn't know his background. It was pretty. It wasn't a patch on a man nailed to a car, or being shot, or white light/White Heat. Some would say, no, these only hurt the artist. I would say, they hurt the viewer as well. But, they say, the artist had a choice! Did he? Did he...? |
|
|
|
Post by yobaby on Sept 29, 2017 21:24:07 GMT
Fine if you want to nail your own scrotum to the floor or whatever but don't fuck around with animals. In a nutshell. (Pun actually not intended). If pain and suffering is your intended vehicle of discourse then make it your own. As far as I'm concerned the final analysis is that it's animal abuse and there's enough of that happening on a daily basis with the food I eat... chicken sandwich anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by chainsaw on Sept 29, 2017 22:52:16 GMT
Hi Chainsaw, It's not just two dogs running on treadmills that i have an issue with. It's the fact that they're running at each other which becomes aggressive for dogs. They're Pitbulls, not poodles (or greyhounds) – and the aesthetic is pending violence, very real if the get at each other. Your last line would be an interesting idea! Yep. If they had got one pit bull on a treadmill and filmed it, running for food off camera or something. Then filmed another dog running the opposite direction, and just displayed the two on two screens next to each other, they would have got the same "message" across. But no cruelty to the animals. Lots of art suggests violence, eg Stubbs  or Bosch  Its not the depiction of violence that I object to, its the cruelty to animals and the potential for real injury that dog fighting has, and its glorification. The article is on about the dogs being treated like athletes..... so its like human cage fighting.... with the possibility of it being to the death.. again something I would not enjoy watching. But its not about the dogs fighting, just forcibly restrained aggression. I think we both feel the same way about it. I dislike the way it has been executed... I dislike the message behind it because of the context it has used. Greyhounds running on a treadmill side by side in a static race? Being treated like athletes between races may be acceptable to my British upbringing, but not cruel dog fighting. then again i am a big softy where dogs are concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by Still Hate Thatcher on Sept 30, 2017 7:34:37 GMT
These things happen in nature everyday. When I was a child Attenborough always gave you the money shot. You always saw the lion catching the gazelle, claret all over its mouth. We're so far removed from our cruelty to animals now, in food production, for entertainment, that we deny it is exists. Extrapolate this to people - food banks, fuel poverty, child abuse. We're like three monkeys. We deride a man for shooting a lion in Africa, yet his equivalents (white, rich, elderly men) cage and kill African Americans.
I saw an exhibition in Vigo that featured an exhibit of a man being stoned to death. Another time, at the Baltic, a room full of hanging body bags, the air thick with the smell of rubber.
Suffering should continue to assail us, particulary those of us in the privileged positions of not having to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by IggyWiggy on Sept 30, 2017 7:50:48 GMT
These things happen in nature everyday. When I was a child Attenborough always gave you the money shot. You always saw the lion catching the gazelle, claret all over its mouth. We're so far removed from our cruelty to animals now, in food production, for entertainment, that we deny it is exists. Extrapolate this to people - food banks, fuel poverty, child abuse. We're like three monkeys. We deride a man for shooting a lion in Africa, yet his equivalents (white, rich, elderly men) cage and kill African Americans. I saw an exhibition in Vigo that featured an exhibit of a man being stoned to death. Another time, at the Baltic, a room full of hanging body bags, the air thick with the smell of rubber. Suffering should continue to assail us, particulary those of us in the privileged positions of not having to see it. It should assail us for a purpose and have at least some context. Otherwise it serves only to normalise. 'To comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.' |
|
|
|
Post by chainsaw on Sept 30, 2017 8:46:01 GMT
Looks like the art has generated discussion, and emotions.
That would make it a success in many artists eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by yobaby on Sept 30, 2017 11:04:27 GMT
Looks like the art has generated discussion, and emotions. That would make it a success in many artists eyes. Yes, but by the use of controversial methods which is a cheap trick IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by Still Hate Thatcher on Sept 30, 2017 11:09:14 GMT
Looks like the art has generated discussion, and emotions. That would make it a success in many artists eyes. Yes, but by the use of controversial methods which is a cheap trick IMHO. Surely much of what we consider great uses controversial methods? |
|
|
|
Post by yobaby on Sept 30, 2017 16:05:55 GMT
Yes, but by the use of controversial methods which is a cheap trick IMHO. Surely much of what we consider great uses controversial methods? Not sure I follow? I don't equate being controversial as being great with regards to art. Appreciate it's not a hard and fast rule but I tend to require a level of emotional investment in a work as opposed to pure conceptual. |
|
|
|
Post by Still Hate Thatcher on Sept 30, 2017 18:03:40 GMT
Surely much of what we consider great uses controversial methods? Not sure I follow? I don't equate being controversial as being great with regards to art. Appreciate it's not a hard and fast rule but I tend to require a level of emotional investment in a work as opposed to pure conceptual. Cai Guo Qiang. Mapplethorpe. Hirst. Quinn. Harvey. Serrano. Mach. All very invested. All very controversial. All fêted. Hirst has killed a shit load of animals. Is it only the cuddly ones we should feel for? (That is a proper, open query, not an arsehole hectoring. I'm genuinely interested .) |
|
|
|
Post by IggyWiggy on Sept 30, 2017 19:03:02 GMT
Not sure I follow? I don't equate being controversial as being great with regards to art. Appreciate it's not a hard and fast rule but I tend to require a level of emotional investment in a work as opposed to pure conceptual. Cai Guo Qiang. Mapplethorpe. Hirst. Quinn. Harvey. Serrano. Mach. All very invested. All very controversial. All fêted. Hirst has killed a shit load of animals. Is it only the cuddly ones we should feel for? (That is a proper, open query, not an arsehole hectoring. I'm genuinely interested .) No, it is not. Don't fuck around with animals. |
|
|
|
Post by chainsaw on Sept 30, 2017 19:18:53 GMT
how about those plastination exhibitions?  |
|
|
|
Post by Still Hate Thatcher on Oct 1, 2017 15:55:43 GMT
Cai Guo Qiang. Mapplethorpe. Hirst. Quinn. Harvey. Serrano. Mach. All very invested. All very controversial. All fêted. Hirst has killed a shit load of animals. Is it only the cuddly ones we should feel for? (That is a proper, open query, not an arsehole hectoring. I'm genuinely interested .) No, it is not. Don't fuck around with animals. I'm fond of this photo by Ulrike Ottinger  |
|
|
|
Post by IggyWiggy on Oct 1, 2017 16:26:01 GMT
how about those plastination exhibitions? I visited Gunther von Hagens's 'Bodies' whilst in Amsterdam. Absolutely fascinating and enlightening. It seems the controversy really started when the bodies started turning up from source with bullet wounds through the head. A large proportion of his 'exhibits' are sourced from China. Viewing victims of human rights abuses becomes a different kettle of fish. |
|
|
|
Post by chainsaw on Oct 1, 2017 17:18:21 GMT
I visited Gunther von Hagens's 'Bodies' whilst in Amsterdam. Absolutely fascinating and enlightening. It seems the controversy really started when the bodies started turning up from source with bullet wounds through the head. A large proportion of his 'exhibits' are sourced from China. Viewing victims of human rights abuses becomes a different kettle of fish. What!!?? I thought they were donated to science or something..... I used to find them an interesting source for anatomy.... |
|
|
|
Post by yobaby on Oct 2, 2017 10:06:22 GMT
Not sure I follow? I don't equate being controversial as being great with regards to art. Appreciate it's not a hard and fast rule but I tend to require a level of emotional investment in a work as opposed to pure conceptual. Cai Guo Qiang. Mapplethorpe. Hirst. Quinn. Harvey. Serrano. Mach. All very invested. All very controversial. All fêted. Hirst has killed a shit load of animals. Is it only the cuddly ones we should feel for? (That is a proper, open query, not an arsehole hectoring. I'm genuinely interested .) Right yes, point taken. My comment still stands, with regards to those you mention, killing animals to further your own artistic agenda is a strict no-no for me, whether cuddly or non cuddly. I'm not exactly a bleeding heart liberal or squeamish but I do feel there are lines that shouldn't be crossed in the name of art although I understand that this is the very reason why some artists choose to cross them. It still boils down to invoking a response through controversy using what i maintain is a fail proof method of animal cruelty. |
|
