|
I don't consider this to be 'art'. Not because it is moraly repugnent (which it is) or even because it is completely trivial (which it is), but because it is not static. A work of art is an object, not an activity*. The question has to be asked why present this as a work of art, and not as an obscene film or a political protest? The reason is that a lot of pretentious people consider art to be anything that is shocking.
The statement it claims to make about our attitudes to the treatment of animals is no justification. Art should express something which can't be expressed verbally. If all you are doing is making an obvious social/political/moral statement, just say it.
*I am refering to art in the way sculpture and painting is art not in the context of an 'art form'. Music is an art form, but if you asked a musician what they do, they would say 'musician', not 'artist'.
__________________
A stitch in time is worth two in the bush.
|