April 28, 2005
I was paging through the last issue of Black Book the other day and came across an incredibly striking image: a human hand, with five dead mice worn on each finger - like finger puppets. The lower half of the mice had been cut off, and they appeared to be bleeding slightly where the fingers entered their torso.
It was an evocative and disturbing photograph, and it was the frontpiece of an article on Nathalia Edenmont, a Russian artist who has inspired much ire lately for her artwork, most of which involves animals, all of which Edenmont has slaughtered for the sole purpose of making art out of them. She claims that the killing is done humanely (I love that oxymoron), but that's irrelevant to the questions her work raise: is it ethical to kill animals for artistic purpose? It's the same predicament one finds when viewing the work of someone like Damien Hirst, whose art is undeniably powerful - undeniably artistic - but which is too troubling in its implications to wholeheartedly accept (if one can accept it at all). Marco Evaristti's infamous fish-in-a-blender exhibition falls somewhere within the same realm, although its intent is far more pointed and hence more valuable, (i.e. Evaristti's intent could have been to make martyrs of the fish), if not necessarily excusable.
There's also the interesting matter of degrees: Example A is acceptable, but Example B is not, and so forth. One can't condemn, say, Francis Ford Coppola in the same manner as Hirst because the slaughter of the oxen he depicted (in one of the grandest examples of juxtaposition in the history of cinema, no less) in Apocalypse Now was the byproduct of a native ritual that would have taken place had the cameras been there to capture it or not. Or Lars Von Trier, who purportedly found a donkey that was already going to be put down (by a vet) to provide a carcass fit for mastication in his upcoming Manderlay (the scene has been removed from the film, due to Von Trier's wariness over animal rights protests overshadowing the themes of the film - this, after John C. Reilly left the cast of the film over that issue). Where does one draw the line?
In my case - taking into account the fact that, as a vegan, my own opinion might be considered weighted - I cannot approve of Edmonton or Hirst's artwork, or the killing of an animal for the sole and explicit purpose of creating art, on a very basic moral level. But I also cannot dismiss it as art, and I cannot say I don't appreciate the aesthetics and underlying intent of the images. There was a quote in Black Book (I have to paraphrase, as I don't have the issue in front of me) that decried Edmonton's photography as "beautiful, but fascist," and I can think of no better way to describe it myself. Or consider Hirst's statement, that "you kill things to look at them." That's a cringe-worthy quote, but of course, we keep looking, and cringing, and looking.
PETA has waged protests against all of these artists, and rightly so. Edmonton has been fined and faced with other legal issues over her work; so was the curator who displayed the blender exhibit, although the charges were dropped; again, rightly so, at least by societal standards. There are those who would invoke censorship over exhibitions such as these, but I think the ethics of the matter are too grey (not on a personal level, of course, but overall) to venture into the troubing waters of censorship, or indeed to even make any sort of decree on the subject at all; the lack of respect shown towards animals in our culture is so overwhelming that one can't make any sort of ultimatum in just one category without risking hypocrisy in others.
I think death is a powerful, pertinent and important subject, and it can and should be utilized by artists - but this can be done without impatiently jumping to the killing floor. I've depicted 'found death' - animal cadavers I've just happened to come across - in both my films and photography; as long as one does this in a respectful manner, I see no real moral perplexitude in it. An ultimate example would be the work of Jeffrey Silverthorne, who takes literal 'still life' photographs - posing human bodies post mortem. His art is haunting, unsettling, beautiful. It is also - most importantly - respectful.
For your consideration:
View Nathalia Edmonton's most recent gallery exhibition; other work can be found through a Google search.
Damien Hirst's artwork can be found at his unofficial website.
View Jeffrey Silverthorne's Woman Who Died In Her Sleep here.
Examples of my own related work (relatively mild in comparison), as mentioned above, can be seen here, photographically, and here, cinematically.
Posted by David Lowery at April 28, 2005 02:36 PM
Comments
Yeah, stuff like this is a big gray mess of moral dilemma. I definitely agree that censorship in any form is never the answer. Although one could ask, is applying animal cruelty laws a matter of censorship or just a legal matter? For instance if a person wanted to make an art exibit out of torturing a cat, well obviously they could be charged with animal cruelty. Justly so. However, graffiti art is illegal as well yet I don't have that big of a problem with it. To me it's pretty obvious that there is a lot more at stake in torturing or killing an animal than painting the side of a building. If we as a society allow torturing and killing animals as an accepted form of art then where do we go next. Where does moral outrage and the law meet?
I think in the end artist have to understand that just because it can be done doesn't mean it should. Sometimes self-censorship is the greatest creative achievement one can gain. Unfortunately, short of applying animal cruelty laws there isn't anything that can really be done to stop this sort of art. It doesn't really seem like fascism to me. I think it is better characterized as psychopathic behavior. Killing something for no other purpose than to use it's corpse for display can't be right, no matter how you look at it.
Posted by: jmj at April 29, 2005 01:06 AM
I think the fascist element comes out of depriving the animals of their right to life. I hope whoever originally said that about the artwork is vegetarian...
Goodf point about animal cruelty laws infringing on the 1st amendment. There's a lot of room for error there.
Our friend Ravi said something very astute about this subject: something along the lines of how, while the art may be making a statement of value, the life of the animals is not worth the artist's need to express his or herself. This goes along with what Amy was saying the other night: that you can get more pleasure out of watching an animal in its sustained natural state than you ever could out of its role in a work of art, a coat or a meal.
Posted by: Ghostboy at April 29, 2005 04:26 AM
lots of food for thought here.
I recently took part of an interesting discussion on graffiti by local DC artists- it got a bit long, but raised a number of points on both sides of the arguement.
if interested, you can check it out here:
http://thinkingaboutart.blogs.com/art/2005/04/borf.html
I also saw Born Into Brothels recently and that sparked a few ethical questions for me as well. In photographing/shooting/documenting etc. any sort of abuse for your sake of art, at what point do you have an moral obligation to intervene. For example, if I was doing a documentary project on urban violence and at one particular moment in time, the violence escaletes. When do I put down my camera and intervene? Or for the sake of my art, do I keep shooting? There's a lot more to this, but I would love to be part of a discussion about it.
Thanks,
Alexandra
Posted by: AAS at May 4, 2005 02:49 PM
Alexandra,
Thanks for posting your thoughts. I read your comments on the graffiti issue, and agree with your stance completely. And yet, I can't honestly say I think the opposing opinions are wrong. Everything is so subjective when it comes to art - a fact that validates these discussions while simultaneously almost predetermining their outcome!
I know exactly what you mean, too, about Born Into Brothels, and I touched upon the conflict of moral obligation in my review of the film a few months ago - which is viewable here:
http://www.road-dog-productions.com/reviews/archives/2005/02/born_into_broth.html#more
Does morality have a place in art? Does art exist in a series of strictly first impressions, or can a work's integrity and implications change with one's growing perception? Ah, it's all a matter of so many degrees...
Posted by: Ghostboy at May 4, 2005 04:51 PM
That was what made the discussion/debate so interesting was that I clearly felt strongly about what I was saying, but I found nothing wrong with his side as well. I'll have to check out your review of Born Into Brothels. I wrote a very brief one on my blog, but didn't get into it too much (http://solarizethis.blogspot.com/2005/05/born-into-brothels.html)...perhaps more after I read your review.
I think morality does have a place in art, but perhaps it's up to each artist to decide where morality goes. As for first impressions, those are there for sure, but- at least with art- your thoughts can grow over time. I'll have to think more about this before writing more in depth about it, but these are my initial reactions.
Again, thanks for the food for thought.
Alexandra
Posted by: AAS at May 4, 2005 05:40 PM