|
I think most of you have trouble distinguishing between "morally reprehensible/perverted/disturbing" and "non-artistic".
Just because it's WRONG doesn't mean it's not art. Just because you don't like it, or it bothers you, doesn't mean it's not art.
One possible definition of art is that it makes people examine their own worldview, their beliefs, that it makes them think, makes them discourse.
If your only reaction to this art is "eww", obviously you have not understood the art.
Disclaimer for the slower-witted: I am NOT endorsing killing the fish. Personally I couldn't hurt a fly, and the thought of those cute little fishies in their blenders makes my heart break. I'm a sucker for little animals. But I also eat meat (albeit more and more rarely) and fish. That's pure hypocrisy and I know it is. An exhibition like this opens one's eyes to the fact that while we obviously consider ourselves far too ethically advanced to kill these cute little fishes, or have others kill them, most of us do actively support far more brutal, wide-spread killing and close our eyes to it because we don't like the way it mars our good opinion of our own morals.
And for the umpteenth time, I don't like this art myself, BECAUSE cute little fishies are killed for it. But I also recognise and applaud the intention behind it, although like I said before, I agree with Aerich that it would have been much better to use non-working blenders: the mind-f*** effect and poignancy would have been just the same (well, until the word got out, of course, and visitors came to the exhibition aware of the fact that they couldn't really kill the fish. Maybe the best solution would be to tell the public that *some* blenders were connected, others were not, and secretly disconnect all of them)
[ 06-22-2004, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Melusine ]
|