disturbing art 2

[Blind_Prophet]

I just dont' get the logic that some how people find it cruel and wasteful but don't give a damn about the gold fish so they say. So saying hey its cruel but screw the fish i don't care. So what your saying is if they had insects in the blender it would make you what think its less cruel cause you hold insects on a lower reguard. Don't get me wrong i'm not trying to save the gold fish.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Blind_Prophet: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Because i think it's sadistic. Sorry, can't help how i feel.

What I don't understand is if you don't care about the fish being killed then where does the sadistic part come into play the people that hit the button just don't care about the fish either mabey they think hey its just a fish fish die everyday what do i care. [/QUOTE]I was talking about fish being caught for consumption, there are people outthere who catch fish to survive. I also meant fish eating other fish, that's just nature's cause. Why would i make a fuss about that ?

But people who throw a goldfish in a blender and call it art, that's what i have a problem with. why is that so hard to understand ?

[Blind_Prophet]

Originally posted by johnny:

I was talking about fish being caught for consumption, there are people outthere who catch fish to survive. I also meant fish eating other fish, that's just nature's cause. Why would i make a fuss about that ?

But people who throw a goldfish in a blender and call it art, that's what i have a problem with. why is that so hard to understand ? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Go back and read my first post again. If you would.

[johnny]

Never mind, i'm getting tired of this, i'm outtahere. I'm way too happy and excited right now to waste any more time on this.

[Aerich]

Not sure I fully understand your post at the top of the page, BP. Here's a summary of my position.

1) Killing anything in a blender for no particular purpose but "art" is not acceptable to me.

2) Killing without a purpose is also not palatable to me.

3) Insect-killing can have a purpose. To me, it requires less justification than killing a goldfish.

4) The death of a goldfish in the above situation is less significant to me (if not the goldfish) for the death itself, than for the fact that it was caused by a person for no reason and probably with no thought or guilt.

5) That's enough out of me for today!

[Dirty Meg]

What gets me about this is that it expemplifies the view that art is above morality. We are debating whether it is acceptable to kill needlessly for 'art'. If this were called popular entertainment rather than art no one would defend it.
We take it for granted in our society that art has inherent value. As the definition of art is pretty vague, people can do things which they would never get away with under any other circumstance and use 'art' as a defence. Bollocks to art I say. We should judge everything on its own merits and not apply different standards to things based on abstract concepts.

[Oblivion437]

I'm going to inject a little bit of humor into this thread, post mortem, by quoting George Carlin, a news article he read while doing a show at Carnegie Hall:

"The ASPCA has arrested a man for keeping tropical fish in a moving blender. The man admitted that he did, but he never had it above mix, the ASPCA claims he's had it set to whip and puree several times!"

Careful on that last statement Meg, you don't want to mutate into a Randian

[Link]

I was in Stockholm with a couple of friends after I had graduated from High School. We went to the zoo one afternoon because there was nothing else left to do (we had already been to the more casual places), and at the end of some sort of wildlife tour, you could pet a snake and a tarantula. While I'm slightly arachnaphobic, I did touch both creatures. Now I'm practically ashamed of myself doing such a thing; both creatures were hiding themselves as much as possible, probably so afraid of all the visitors coming and poking and touching that it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they both died the same evening from the traumatic experiences.

Somehow people don't realize that we are just a bunch of apes as well, and we wouldn't like it one bit if we were put in a cage and were constantly petted. We scream our hearts out if we hear about cruelty to humans (go Amnesty International ), but somehow the same doesn't apply to other animals.
Same goes for the goldfish; if that was a human in that blender, or a cat, something else, we wouldn't find it funny or artistic at all.

I have to admit I was a vegetarian for six years because I thought eating meat and fish (I can't believe how some people can tell me with a straight face that they are vegetarian, but do eat fish ) was unnecessarily cruel to animals. After six years I started wondering why I was vegetarian after all, and I quit being it altogether, simply because I didn't believe in my original protest anymore. Eat or be eaten, so to say.
Doesn't mean I applaud animal cruelty altogether. You won't see me kill animals unnecessarily, even bugs. I will rather catch a wasp/spider/ant and release it outside than kill it. I actually loathe people who disrespectfully kill these creatures without considering how fragile and beautiful life actually is. Exploiting your own strength to the extremes is actually a weakness IMHO.

Ipse dixit.

[Ilander]

I honestly don't know, people...It doesn't seem too much weirder than a Frida Kahlo (sp?) painting...but that's just me...

I honestly think, however, that WE, the people of Ironworks Forum are putting more thought into this guy's art than he did. I might be able to consider what the guy did art, but I can't call it good art. It lacks quality, it lacks originality (hello, ahd anyone seen the "gerbil in a blender" stuff at JoeCartoon.com?), and it really probably didn't have a message in the first place, at least from him.

I like goldfish.

[Aerich]

Good point about the amount of thought we, as opposed to he, put into it, Ilander. I'd bet you're correct. I agree that it lacks quality, but I'm a little less sure that it lacks originality and a purposeful message from the artist - not that I think that it necessarily has either, I just don't know. He could have intended something deep, or he could have just said to himself, "Duh, wouldn't it be funny to put goldfish in a blender?"

I'm sure the artist would be gratified to know that he sparked a discussion like ours, even if it is less-than-complimentary to him.