http://courttv.com/news/2004/0909/catkiller_ctv.html

I certainly don't think it is. And I also don't think it sends out any messages to people who eat meat either. If you want people to see what animals in slaughterhouses go through, then by all means show that. This though, is not the same, and I just find it despicable myself. Disagree with me if you want, but you'll never change my mind on this one, ever.

I'm a hundred percent with you ladyzeke,! even though i don't like cats that much, i don't think that they or any other animals should be...you know....killed like that.. Blegh... and i'm insulted BIG Time.. do you really think some ppl around the world consider <big> ART </big>

well i don't and that's that XD

:( I can not comment to much, or else I will go into a long speach about cruelty to animals and sufferings.... [img]graemlins/crying.gif[/img]

Agreed SpiritsForever.

It's not art.

It does not in any way correspond with what goes on in slaughterhouses. I'm sure it's gruesome, but the things they did to the cat was not realistic re slaughterhouses, i.e. torture. I'm assuming slaughterhouses quickly kill most animals like cows, etc. And if I'm wrong, and there is something going on that is not humane, then fine, show film footage to the public showing that, so that people can at least put a stop to it. Again though, their cat representation was totally not even in the same ballfield, just some sickos IMO trying to make a buck being "overly outrageous".

And lastly, if indeed it was their way to protest against animal cruelty, they did the same thing. I personally could never participate in that sort of thing, and the fact that they could, shows they are irrelevant to their own "cause". Again, just some sickos trying to cash in.

Not to mention that was a pretty fat, healthy cat to be a "stray". I wish I could run into them in a dark alley, with a sharp sword....

Art, IMO, is by definition peaceful. It can challenge, shock, or disgust by its exploration of certain themes, but I certainly draw the line at inflicting permanent injury or death. Bleah.

Despite any "artistic" motivations the perpetrators may have had, this classifies as brutality, cruelty, sadism, whatever you want to call it.

It's not art it's terrible sjeeezh :(

For me, the more an image or series of images stirs people (to either pleasure or pain) the more artful it is. The muses care not for delicate moral sensibilities, but revel in the raw expression of emotion.

I agree with Mr. Power (an apt name, I find), Western 'pity culture' is subject to all manner of hypocrisy and double-standard. Better to accept the savagery of life in its totality than to sugar-coat our existence by pretending we are anything other than predators and parasites. At least that's how I see things.

[ 09-15-2004, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

I agree with Aaron. Art is completely subjective, regardless of what the masses think. It is inherently personal, and while I don't endorse what is going on in that article, if those people want to carry out what they consider to be art, who are we to stop it? Of course it doesn't appeal to me or anything, but as I say, it's whatever tickles your proverbial pickle, I guess.

Well, that brings us back to the thread on goldfish in a blender that we had a few months back.

I agree with you on an abstract level, Hierophant, but (re: the hypocrisy comment) it's just as easy to say that brutality and gratuitous torture are hypocritically masquerading as art.

Furthermore, even if we accept the savagery of life in its totality and accept our role as predators and world-dominators at the top of the food chain, that doesn't mean we have to explicitly or implicitly support inhumane behavior against "lower creatures."

I'm well aware that the previous statement is somewhat ironic considering that hundreds of animals are put to sleep every week because no one wants to adopt them, and that we humans as a group of societies seem to be incapable of living our lives without killing each other. However, it is still reprehensible to torture and kill something just because we can, and often do. I won't call it Art.

Edit: To expand - I will agree that it has a measure of "artistic worth" or value (quite a small amount, mind you). However, I choose to define Art as something which meaningfully reflects on a society, whether it is an ideal or a criticism. This cat murder doesn't work for me. IMO, a small range of activities should be prohibited on humanitarian bases, pseudo-artistic or not; gratuitous killing is one of them. Therefore, I refuse to call it Art. Does it potentially have artistic merit, depending on the society and what aspects of the torture/murder are emphasized, yes. Is it worthy of being called Art in my eyes, no. Is it acceptable, no. I recognize that artists push the envelope and are not necessarily expected to conform to society norms, but some limitations are desirable.

[ 09-15-2004, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Aerich ]

911 stired lots of people, was it art?

[ 09-15-2004, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]