Stavros Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I put this thread in "General Chat" because I think it gets viewed more. The attachment contains sensitive material about artist Nathalia Edenmont who kills animals for the purpose of her art. There is also information on what you can do if you want to express your concerns about this and sample letters for your convenience. Warning: You may find the photos in the link below disturbing, and the facts are also disturbing. In Stockholm, Sweden, the Wetterling Gallery has held an exhibit of work by Nathalia Edenmont. In case you prefer not to look at the photos of her work, a domestic cat, a domestic dove and domestic white mice were killed in order to be incorporated into photos that were then put on exhibit at the gallery and then on the gallery’s web site. Although they are not graphic slaughter photos, they are all the more grotesque, when you realise, after a second, that the animals are dead and that they were killed for this purpose. Below is the link to the Wetterling Gallery web site where you may see the work in question by clicking on “The Archive,” then clicking on Nathalia Edenmont. By clicking on the third link, you may read what they have to say about it. Link: Wetterling Gallery Link: CAUTION: Straight to the Pictures by Natalia Edenmont Link: Wetterling Gallery Newsletter Stav. Killing_of_Animals_for_Art.doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 That is not art. That person is seriously mentally deranged as are those in the gallery who supported what has been done. They just have to be and I'm not sure which is worst. If the animal had died as a result of an accident, or even if bought from a slaughterhouse then maybe, just maybe there might be some excuse, but to deliberatly set out to kill for no other reason than to exhibit what you had done is wrong in the worst possible way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I'm not really an animal lover, but even I can see this is pretty gratuitious and unneccesary. Considering the 'art' isn't even displayed in a physical form, only as pictures, there's no reason you wouldn't be able to produce the same result artificially with a bit of patience and a copy of Photoshop. If I have a chance over the next couple of days, I might even do a couple of mockups to show how easily that could be achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 That is more or less exactly what I thought Ans - the same pictures could be easily produced by other means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hostmaster Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Now that's what I call OTT. It's sick but bet he ends up making a load of cash out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Last night as I settled infront of the TV a moth flew in through my slightly ajar window and started circling the living room light. Harmless as it was in it's own right, the moth annoyed me constantly flying around and into the bulb. Rather than sit there and try to ignore this irritation I stood on the arm of my chair and on my first attempt captured the moth in my right hand. As I walked to the back door I tightened my grip ensuring that when I threw the pest out into the darkness that it would never return to bother me again. The coals in the fire were blazing and a log was thrown in. As I sat there admiring the flames and warming from the heat I noticed a woodlouse crawling along the bark soon to be engulfed by the flames. I reached forward and carefully flicked the animal off the log and into my awaiting spare hand. I walked the 20 foot to the door and carefully placed the grateful insect at the foot of the hedge bordering mine and my neighbours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Is that really for real? How does she not get into trouble for doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 The Swedes are strange people, that's why. Ok, I sat down at 12:23 and knocked together this. This 25 minutes included finding source images, cropping, resizing, lighting and retouching where the fork goes through. Oh, and I was eating my lunch too. The lighting is wrong on the hamster but I have to get back to work now. Edit: I removed the image because basically I didn't realise how badly my monitors needed calibrating and the colours, brightness and contrasts looked awful. I hope you can see that if given a few hours, even Photoshop hacks like me could get something pretty similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I guess it's down to shock value though, she wouldn't (nor would the gallery) get half as much publicity if she'd used techniques like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tee Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I thought the one with the mouse was kinda funny sorry /me going into hiding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Art is always subjective. What is/isn't art....Who's to say? If the animals have been killed in a humane manner, I fail to see the problem. Animals have always been raised, killed and exploited for the pleasure of people. Why should it make a difference if this time just because the animals have been exploited for the sake of art, instead of the usual things, food, clothing etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Probably because food and clothing would generally be considered as practical application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stryder Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 That is sick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Probably because food and clothing would generally be considered as practical application. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree that using dead animals to eat their flesh and to wear their skins is a practical application, but it is unnecessary. The artist in question here has discovered another practical application for using dead animals, to create an artwork. Unnecessary too I agree. But it's just another way of utilising something which we have done for a long, long, time. Personally, I find one or two of her works quite interesting, although I must say they would look out of place somewhat on my mantlepiece! Vegans aside, I think it rather two faced for the rest of us meat eaters to howl in outrage just because of a handfull of pictures. (IMO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.