Is it Art or Animal Cruelty?
This is the question I find myself asking recently as more and more curators and gallery directors are choosing to exhibit controversial and shocking art that involves the death of living beings at the hands of the artists they represent.
Let me be clear, I do believe that the artist has a role to play in holding up a mirror for society to study their own, often hypocritical and cynical, behavior in relationship to the darker sides of humanity. I also acknowledge that artists have a long history of using dead animals in their work. However, I draw the line when artists and curators exploit the killing and torture of animals for the publics’ entertainment and for their own profit and fame.
An internet search on Guillermo “Habacuc” Vargus is a perfect example of how the artist and the galleries who represent him have had more than their 15 minutes of fame at the expense of an unfortunate dog. While the facts in the story seem to shift and change depending on who’s speaking, one fact is that the dog in question was used for public entertainment and exploitation. Now the Biennial Centroamericana Honduras 2008 wants a piece of the action and has invited Vargus to represent his home country of Costa Rica by recreating the “performance” there.
Earlier this year, the video work of Paris artist Adel Abdessemed’s was pulled from the San Francisco Art Institutes Walter and McBean Gallery after public outcry. Abdessemed’s videos show six animals, a sheep, an ox, a horse, a pig, a goat, and a fawn being bludgeoned to death. Is this art?
Then there is Russian born artist Nathalia Edenmont’s who’s recent C-prints feature animals that she killed herself. In her defense, the Wetterling Gallery who represents her in Stockholm explains that “she has killed the animals in as humane a way as possible,” and that they think the work is of “vital importance.” Really?
And while Chilean-born Danish artist Marco Evaristti didn’t kill the fish himself in his exhibit of goldfish swimming in a blender at Trapholt Art Museum in Kolding, Denmark, he instead offered the viewing public the choice of pushing the “on” button. The museum director Peter Meyer told the court “It’s a question of principle. An artist has the right to create works which defy our concept of what is right and what is wrong.”
While it may be hard to swallow, it’s no surprise that shock sells and that artists and art venues are looking to create a buzz around their offerings, but the killing of animals for the sake of the art itself crosses a line for me.
But what exactly are the boundaries of this line? It’s easy for the topic to become confusing.
Why is Vargus’ art so revolting to me, while Rauschenberg’s Monogram brilliant. I suppose I am reacting to an artists own choice of killing a living, breathing, being for the sake of art. While Rauschenberg’s Monogram is built around a taxidermy goat the artist found at a used furniture store, this new generation of artists perform (directly or indirectly) the killing themselves, and are rewarded with both publicity and profit in the process.
Do you consider it art? Share your comments here.
Tags: animal cruelty, animals, Art, dogs, goldfish
May 24th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I guess I am old-fashioned in some sense. If you have to make “shocking” art, you must be lacking in some way. It has become trite now, because so many artists feel this is the only way to recognition. I feel it is the responsibility of the artist to LIFT our spirits out of the pain and suffering of this world. For me, that takes more courage, a stronger spirit, and true skill. Why do I want art (movies, paintings, plays, etc.) to remind me over and over again of the depravity human beings are capable of? No thanks. I think art can be created that finds balance between death and life, while still providing us with beauty. Perhaps if I see some of this widely publicized shock art in person, I would feel differently. Art in person always has a different effect of me. Until then, I’m with you.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Starving animals “for art’s sake” is distasteful indeed. Being controversial shouldn’t be confused with being artful. Wasn’t art a confirmation of being alive? Maybe this wave of artists who perform or stage the killing of animals reflects the deteriorating respect towards all life forms in the age of genetic manipulation?
May 25th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I cannot find it within myself to see how any of these examples are “art”. Shocking, controversial, disgusting displays of a living creatures life being taken is cruelty in it’s lowest form. To hold a mirror up to society’s woes does not give an artist the right to harm a living creature. Draw a picture, paint a painting, make a sculpture, write a poem, but don’t use ART as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. Art can portray some of mankind’s ugliest moments (Picasso’s painting of war comes to mind) but to say a living creature experiencing pain is their canvas is a sham and is shameful behavior. The example of the goldfish in a blender where the audience could press the button is exactly the kind of thing we need to not be doing. Why seek out the lowest common denominator? Man is cruel, we have all of our history to prove that capability. Why encourage voyeurism at its worse? If someone in the audience had actually pushed the button would we as a people be enlightened by that act? The artist, the gallery owner and the museum as well as the audience are all culpable and responsible for the painful death of the fish and the encouragement of cruel behavior. Is it censorship to say hurting a living creature for art is not OK? I don’t believe it is.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:35 am
I treasure a world where we are free to make our art and our statements and also where we are free to let folks know if we find their statements repulsive. I agree with and admire your calling our attention to this as an example of base impulses and behaviors.
Does anyone think that Vargus had some lofty and beneficial idea about which he was commenting and making “art”? I doubt that and am pretty cynical about the exhibit; I am inclined to label it a coarse PR stunt meant to get attention/fame/money for the artist and the gallery.
I do think that this kind of exploitive behavior reflects an aspect of our society but I also think that we can do better and reach for enlightenment by labeling that work “unacceptable junk” that is not worthy of being thought of as art.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I find there in no acceptable answer to the age old question (is it ART?). You can always debate art vs. censorship (when something is not considered art, removing it is censorship) till you are blue in the face. When you try to fight something you believe is wrong, you actual give more (negative) energy to that cause.
Today, we vote with our money, our art purchases and by supporting galleries. After all, galleries are business-driven and follow the money. Far better to say…I choose not to spend my money at a gallery that carries or supports such behavior…and educate people who are spending money there. Do they realize what they are supporting with their money? Chances are, some do, but most don’t.
Seems like the Humane Society would have a say on the commercialization of such behavior, as well.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I have to agree with what appears to be a consensus in the comments thus far, though I would go a step further and say that the discussion of whether these stunts represent art is moot. First and foremost, this is animal cruelty, both immoral and illegal in most jurisdictions. I don’t feel compelled to grace it with a discussion of whether it is art. There is much too small a step from this repulsive behavior to slaughtering humans for some purported “aesthetic” effect.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I appreciate all the thoughtful comments I’ve received on this topic, both here and in email.
I still can’t understand why a biennale event as important for cultural relations as well as for the arts would invite an artist to do such a thing. It sure is beyond me.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:57 am
I never realized this type of art existed until I read this post, Lyn. I cannot understand why someone would kill a living creature for the sake of art. It definitely has been pointed out over and over that people who kill animals often become killers of people…what can be said of those voyeurs who “enjoy” looking at this form of art. Have we all become so insensitve to levels of violence that people do not see this as a form of violence. Is this the result of the media “fight” to become numero uno?
Violence can be depicted in art…but violence should not make art.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:39 am
It is not fine art.
It is not craft.
It is killing.
It is immoral and illegal and or should be.
To call it art is to imply that free expression justifies killing.
The people who publish and promote the “killing” as art are the worst offenders- by giving the work visibilty and validity as art.
Last I looked they don’t teach killing in art school.
Someone who kills and tortures animals is part of a mass murderer profile as well.
The biennale wants publicity like any other buisness.
Shock art has been big since the 70’s- since Chris Burden had himself shot with a rifle.
he unfortunately has encouraged others- see this blog for morehttp://ishotchrisburden.blogspot.com/2005/02/real-guns-killing-real-artists.html