What is 'Art'?
Art is a term that describes a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities, but is most often understood to refer to painting, film, photography, sculpture, and other visual media. Music, theatre, dance, literature, and interactive media are included in a broader definition of art or the arts. Until the 17th century, art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts or sciences, but in modern usage the fine arts are distinguished from acquired skills in general.
Many definitions of art have been proposed by philosophers and others who have characterized art in terms of mimesis, expression, communication of emotion, or other values. During the Romantic period, art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".
The nature of art, and related concepts such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.
Many definitions of art have been proposed by philosophers and others who have characterized art in terms of mimesis, expression, communication of emotion, or other values. During the Romantic period, art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".
The nature of art, and related concepts such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.
There is a growing, disturbing trend in the art world to use dead animals, or parts of dead animals, in art works.
A short film called "Don't Trust Me" by an artist named Adel Abdessemed, depicted horses and other animals being bludgeoned to death; in another short film, titled "Usine" the same artist trapped animals in a pen, including pit bulls and roosters, and causes them to rip each other apart.
The Costa Rican artist Guillermo Habacuc Vargas starved a dog to death as “art;” the animal was tied up at the exhibit and left there with no food or water until he perished.
An art project in Florida involved dipping live mice into resin, then cutting them into cubes.
Every time Russian photographer Nathalia Edenmont feels like replacing the stamen of a flower with an eyeball, an animal dies. She is noted for killing and stuffing mice, rabbits and cats, among other animals, for the purpose of photographing them adorned with aristocratic collars, mounted perfectly on angelic pedestals or worn as finger puppets. Her "kiwi-mouse" is a combination of dead mouse AND Photoshop manipulation.
Iris Schieferstein, a German "artist" from Berlin, collects carcasses from her local butcher which are discarded after the meat is used for sausages and the like... Some of the most controversial pieces include a pair of sandals sporting stuffed doves with their wings spread wide and a collection of heels fashioned from hollow horse hooves. For her famous "horse-shoes" she spends a week stripping out any remaining meat and bones from the animal's feet and the skin is sent to a tanner to be treated for preservation.
Katinka Simons, aka Tinkebell, broke the neck of her cat Pinkeltje and turned her into a purse. Pinkeltje was a 'depressed cat' who couldn't be left at home alone. By killing her and making her into a purse, Tinkebell could carry her always with her. Other animals that she uses come from shelters or vets and had been "humanely" euthanized.
These are only a few examples - the list goes on.
A short film called "Don't Trust Me" by an artist named Adel Abdessemed, depicted horses and other animals being bludgeoned to death; in another short film, titled "Usine" the same artist trapped animals in a pen, including pit bulls and roosters, and causes them to rip each other apart.
The Costa Rican artist Guillermo Habacuc Vargas starved a dog to death as “art;” the animal was tied up at the exhibit and left there with no food or water until he perished.
An art project in Florida involved dipping live mice into resin, then cutting them into cubes.
Every time Russian photographer Nathalia Edenmont feels like replacing the stamen of a flower with an eyeball, an animal dies. She is noted for killing and stuffing mice, rabbits and cats, among other animals, for the purpose of photographing them adorned with aristocratic collars, mounted perfectly on angelic pedestals or worn as finger puppets. Her "kiwi-mouse" is a combination of dead mouse AND Photoshop manipulation.
Iris Schieferstein, a German "artist" from Berlin, collects carcasses from her local butcher which are discarded after the meat is used for sausages and the like... Some of the most controversial pieces include a pair of sandals sporting stuffed doves with their wings spread wide and a collection of heels fashioned from hollow horse hooves. For her famous "horse-shoes" she spends a week stripping out any remaining meat and bones from the animal's feet and the skin is sent to a tanner to be treated for preservation.
Katinka Simons, aka Tinkebell, broke the neck of her cat Pinkeltje and turned her into a purse. Pinkeltje was a 'depressed cat' who couldn't be left at home alone. By killing her and making her into a purse, Tinkebell could carry her always with her. Other animals that she uses come from shelters or vets and had been "humanely" euthanized.
These are only a few examples - the list goes on.
Snuffed Animals
The Ethics of Working With Living Animals in Contemporary Art
"artwork" by Tinkebell
The following article was originally published at 'United Academics', and was written by Rianne Groen MA
In 2008 the San Francisco Art Institute closed an exhibition earlier than planned. On display was a video piece by Adel Abdessemed, that showed six animals being brutally killed with a large hammer. Protests against the work were so vast that the exhibition was stopped after a week. Even staff members of the San Francisco Art Institute were threatened by animal rights organizations. Although the artist had just filmed the atrocities at a Mexican farm, viewers of the video questioned what his role was in the violence against animals.
Artists working with living animals often arouse great outrage from organizations that defend animal rights. Despite protests and media attention, it seems that artists are still allowed to go a little bit further than other people in society. This is comes from the idea that art has some autonomy; we assume the artist has an artistic intention. This gives art a special place within society. However, artists who use living animals in their artistic practice are often regarded as immoral. Is this immoral aspect used by the artist with an ethical goal or is it just provocation?
Goldfish puree
That works of art making use of living animals are provocative has been proven again and again. Hermann Nitsch risked prison with his bloody rituals; Eduardo Kac bred a green glowing rabbit and Damien Hirst ordered a rare shark for his widely known work ‘The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living’. One of the most infamous examples is the piece entitled: Helena, made by Marco Evaristti. For his exposition, Evarissti put several goldfish in food processors, which were then plugged in. Just one push on the yellow button would create goldfish soup. Within the next few days, about 16 goldfish were crushed. The protests by animal rights organizations were large, they included a few surviving goldfish being stolen from the blenders. After two days the museum decided to pull the plug on the exhibit.
The moral dilemma Evaristti questioned here is clear. We, the audience, have power over the lives of a few goldfish. Do we let them live, or reduce them to goldfish puree? Do we need to make use of all the possibilities we have? Usually, when being in a museum, we are not even allowed to touch the artwork. Evaristti did not aim to encourage the useless killing of goldfish. He aimed to pose a moral dilemma; an experiment involving human nature. Evaristti and the museum director were summoned to pay a fine, but were eventually acquitted.
Save the Pets
However, complaints about immoral artwork can get more serious. Recently Dutch artist Tinkebell, known around the world for once having had her cat made into a handbag, had to appear in court to defend one of her works of art. In her work Save the Pets (2008), hundreds of hamsters were put in transparent plastic balls, which are produced by the pet industry. In a living room setting, she let the hamsters roll around in the gallery for three weeks. She based her work on short films she had seen on YouTube of pet owners using the plastic balls to watch their hamsters rolling around in their house. Formally accused of animal abuse, she was called to appear in court.
Tinkebell, using her provocative work to raise attention for animal welfare, won the case. However, the same animal rights organizations she aimed to support are the ones that sued her. This is one of the difficulties of trying to raise attention for a case through provocative art. Many people have problems with the viewing of art as something else than just real life; artists such as Tinkebell are therefore often dismissed as sensational and attention seeking people.
Tattooed pigs
Most people tend to care about animal welfare. However, throughout Western history animals have always been regarded as subordinate to humans. Only in the last century, philosophers like Levinas and Derrida started thinking about the relations between humans and animals in different ways. Today our ethics have changed in favor of animals, but deciding where to draw the line when it comes to animal cruelty remains difficult. One such reason could be because we do not value each animal equally. Belgian artist Jan Fabre didn’t encounter much resistance while using millions of shiny beetles for his art, whereas Wim Delvoye’s tattooing of pigs was met with disdain. Most of us simply do not grant a spider and a cow the same amount of respect.
Despite this complicated relationship between humans and animals, we tend to feel aversion to artwork that shows us cruelty towards animals, whether this is implicit or explicit. Should we accept an work of art that contradicts our moral? Art is made from an artistic intention and therefore also requires an artistic attitude from the spectator. Because of the autonomy of art, moral borders are stretched; when we as spectators see an art performance, we know we do not have to intervene, because it is art we are seeing, and not a scene in the street. But it is only natural that provocative art generates an inner resistance.
A good immoral work is not one that is just shocking; the shock effect rarely lasts. A good immoral work provides ongoing food for thought. By confronting us with topics we would rather avoid or ignore, artists encourage us to think about these uncomfortable subjects. Through our own morality we can recognize the artwork as immoral and gather knowledge from it. But despite the autonomy of art, moral borders do not cease to exist. It is the responsibility of the artist to decide how far he or she can go in using animals. At the same time, the spectator also has a responsibility; when we watch a goldfish swim around in a food processor, it does not mean we have to push the button.
About the author, Rianne Groen MA
Rianne Groen is an art historian and independent curator. After receiving her BA in Art History, she finished her MA in Modern and Contemporary Art at Utrecht University in April 2010. Currently she lives and works in London, where she is studying as part of the professional MA course Curating the Contemporary at London Metropolitan University in collaboration with the Whitechapel Gallery.
Source
The Belgian artist Wim Delvoye has been tattooing pigs since the 1990s. In the early 21st century a tattooed pigs project was set up in the Art Farm in China, where there are fewer strictures regarding animal welfare than in most parts of the Western world.
Despite the autonomy of art, moral borders do not cease to exist.
Or should we accept a work of art that contradicts our moral?
Is what you will see on the next pages acceptable
because the artists claim it is art?
We let you be the judge!
Please click on the pictures to go to the pages!
Katinka Simons, aka TINKEBELL
Ondrej Brody and Kristofer Paetau
Iman Rezai & Rouven Materne
Adel Abdessemed
|
Guillermo Habacuc Vargas
Iris Schieferstein
Damien Hirst
Nathalia Edenmont
|
July 2012 - For the past few years, PETA has been working with the College Art Association (CAA)—a national art organization whose membership includes more than 2,000 departments of art and art history in colleges, universities, and other institutions and more than 12,000 art professionals—pushing for the implementation of clear policies regarding the use of animals in art. In an important victory for animals, the CAA Board of Directors approved the publication of a statement of principles regarding animals in art that will help guide the practices of artists and curators. The principles state, in part, "No work of art should, in the course of its creation, cause physical or psychological pain, suffering, or distress to an animal."
It's unfortunate that these guidelines are even necessary, but certain intellectually and morally bankrupt "artists" turn to animal exploitation since they know that it will cause a cheap sensation and generate buzz. Their dubious number includes Tom Otterness, who shot a dog for an "art" film; Nathalia Edenmont, who kills and stuffs mice, rabbits, and cats for her work; and Marco Evaristti, one of whose installations involved putting goldfish into blenders, all but daring jaded thrill seekers to turn them on and shred the living animals—and some did.
The new CAA statement will encourage the creation of truly imaginative work that will offer new ways of looking at our fellow beings—without causing them harm in the process.
Source: PETA
It's unfortunate that these guidelines are even necessary, but certain intellectually and morally bankrupt "artists" turn to animal exploitation since they know that it will cause a cheap sensation and generate buzz. Their dubious number includes Tom Otterness, who shot a dog for an "art" film; Nathalia Edenmont, who kills and stuffs mice, rabbits, and cats for her work; and Marco Evaristti, one of whose installations involved putting goldfish into blenders, all but daring jaded thrill seekers to turn them on and shred the living animals—and some did.
The new CAA statement will encourage the creation of truly imaginative work that will offer new ways of looking at our fellow beings—without causing them harm in the process.
Source: PETA
What you can do
Please check with the art department at your college or university to make sure that it's aware of these guidelines and will be adhering to them, and be sure to alert PETA (or any other important animal rights organisation) if you ever see live animals used in an art installation or discover that any animals are being killed for art.
Please note also that, in certain US-cities and in some countries (Italy is one such example) it is not allowed to exhibit art works when the artist/creator has caused or created or contributed to the crime of Animal Abuse to take place for the purposes of his or her creation of the media or exhibit.
Please note also that, in certain US-cities and in some countries (Italy is one such example) it is not allowed to exhibit art works when the artist/creator has caused or created or contributed to the crime of Animal Abuse to take place for the purposes of his or her creation of the media or exhibit.
An email received from a reader of our website...
I just found your website today while investigating the work/slaughter of Damien Hirst. While I took the time to look at all of the supposed artists featured (I did not watch any of the videos) I ended up with a headache.
I thank you for the headache and for exposing these people who kill animals and call it art. I think I have a new term 'fraudart'.
I wish I wasn't a starving artist myself and could donate to your cause. Hirst, Tinkelle and others who make fortune and fame at the cost of our earthly companions certainly should be contributing!
- Linda B. -
I thank you for the headache and for exposing these people who kill animals and call it art. I think I have a new term 'fraudart'.
I wish I wasn't a starving artist myself and could donate to your cause. Hirst, Tinkelle and others who make fortune and fame at the cost of our earthly companions certainly should be contributing!
- Linda B. -
