disturbing art 2

[Stormymystic]

perhaps he should have just used the goldfish brand snack food?

[Aerich]

But ze Art, ze poetic move-ment of ze living fish iz everyting! Ze animal crackers are zo wrong!

(Imagine a french artist in a beret with a palette, pointing at the exhibit) [img]smile.gif[/img]

{apologies for the slight ethnic tone - I could not resist the image}

Excellent point Melusine. The choice of whether or not to push the button is the point of the exhibit, and a sharp point it is.
Everyone would like to think that they are compassionate and moral, but I wonder how many people have a little twinge when faced with such a choice, a little voice whispering "what if...?"
I can appreciate the point of the exhibit, but I don't condone or support the killing of the fish. I believe causing suffering to another living being is very wrong, and I think it's shameful that people have taken to calling various questionable activities 'art' in order to keep from being censored.

[Aerich]

That's why I like the idea of unplugging all the blenders, but allowing people to think they work. It gives people the same moral dilemma without having the possible consequences of their desire for titillation visited on innocent creatures.

If you take out the possibility of death, the exhibit does become art, in the same way a fishtank can be art.

Besides (*tongue firmly in cheek to make an utterly tasteless comment), you could save money by using the same goldfish in the next exhibition.

[Har'oloth]

and the so called artist got a deal with a lokal petshop to deliver him fresh goldfish every day because the visitors are allowed to "use" the blenders and to sent the fishies to kingdom come.

[ 06-22-2004, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Har'oloth ]

[Aerich]

Har'oloth - please tell me that's speculation and not the truth. If that's for real, somebody needs to have a serious talk with the petshop owner...

[Link]

IIRC this 'artform' was exhibited in the Netherlands some time back (multiple years). It was taken out as well when the museum had lost 6 sets of goldfish in one day already and because the Animal Rights agencies were complaining, of course.

[Link]

And Melusine: as Johnny stated; why exhibit your artistic talent (if you want it to call it that way) to people in such a way? Isn't art something in which the artist presents himself, and presents what his feelings/motives are?

In this case I'd say the artist isn't providing the visitors with the opportunity or the choice to kill the goldfish or let him live (self-reflection) but he leaves the visitors with the thought WHO would come up with such a thing. It much more reflects the artist and his ideas that the pervertedness (? is that a word?) of human kind itself.

[johnny]

That's what i meant, as if he's studying the guests' behaviour.... in a Hannibal Lecter-ish kind of way.

[Link]

While art should provide the visitor a trip in the artist's mind, IMHO. Or is art so controversial that there are no set lines?