disturbing art 2

[Stormymystic]

Originally posted by TyranyuZ: First of all: that was no art. Second of all: the picture wasnt distubing, hence the fish was ok, for which Im glad about.

no, if you look at the back part of the picture, you will see on was used it is sick, I am not much for killing animals at all, and even fish deserve as much rights as other captive animals

Ouch, grows, didnt see it
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Well that sux. Here in Norway, an ''artwoman'' killed a cat she saw outside with a shovel, then she cut off cats head and put it out as a form of art for other people to look at. The animal organisation group went through court to try and nail that bitch, but she was let go off with it and didnt had to pain anything.

[Raistlin Majere]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: A goldfish in a blender isn't art. Now, slurping down 12 goldfish after doing 4 beer bongs whilst having your fraternity brothers smack your naked body with rubber snakes -- THAT'S ART. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

...I really dont know which is the more disturbing "Art" form [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Melusine]

Why isn't it art? Because it's sick and disturbing? Cannot art be sick and disturbing?
It gets you all talking, doesn't it? Gets you examining your morals, exposes hypocrisy (eating salmon is fine, killing goldfish isn't -why?).
The POINT of the exhibition is not that the goldfish are put in blenders and then killed. They are happily swimming about in their tanks, unharmed by the artist, and the VISITORS, the public, i.e. US, get to decide whether we are sadistic bastards or not. The visitors decide to push the button or not. It's very possible that if the IW reaction reflects the opinions of the general public, not a single goldfish was harmed during the exhibition. But the possibility is there, dangled before your eyes, forcing you to think about it. How many of us have neglected fish we kept as pets, causing them to die way before their normal life expectancy? How many of us eat fish on a regular basis, enjoy angling? What's the difference between a "cuddly" pet and a fish on your plate? Where is the line drawn? Who gets upset when I smash a bug on the window?

Personally it's not to my taste, this art; I'm a self-confessed conservative at least in this respect. But I really felt I had to play devil's advocate just a little because I think most people miss the point of this exhibition.

[ 06-22-2004, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

Good point Melusine.

[johnny]

It's still sick though, as if the artist in question is studying the public. Who will push the button and kill the fish.... who will walk away... who will react disgusted.... will someone who just killed the fish get into an arguement with another bystander.... etc..

I mean where do you get off ? The whole idea behind it is perverted.

[Melusine]

It's only as perverted as we all are.

[Stormymystic]

never said it was not art, just said it was sick I still stand by my statement [img]smile.gif[/img] I have a hard enough time killing a mouse. so I would just have walked away from the exhibit.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Melusine: It's only as perverted as we all are.

But also totally unnecessary, isn't there any other way for him to express his artistic talents ? If someone would press the button when i'm around, i'd break his face. I would have less problems with that than watching something press that button just out of curiosity.

[Aerich]

I take your point, Melusine. Art CAN be sick and disturbing, if you define Art as something that that is done for no more *practical* purpose than to amuse, provoke, cause aesthetic enjoyment, etc.

If you will allow me to nitpick for a moment, [img]smile.gif[/img] the difference between killing the goldfish and killing a salmon is arguably "necessity"; I know that any vegetarians on the forum will have a problem with this statement. If not necessity, at least killing and eating a salmon serves the purpose of being food. It is not "wasted."

I won't even touch the topic of commercial food production, as their practices are inhumane and indefensible.

Getting back to the "Art" in question, I have rethought my position a little. I think it *was* Art, and much less offensive than some other exhibits I've seen, up until someone pushed the button.

That said, once someone pushes the button, it becomes gratuitous killing. I think that this would be more palatable as Art if none of the blenders worked.