Most people who see Nathalia's pictures for the first time are impressed by how beautiful they are. It takes a few seconds before you start to wonder how they have been made. A photo-montage? Some kind of digital manipulation? When you look closer, there is something slightly distorted in the rabbit's expression. Something slightly abnormal about the face of the cat. Slowly you realise that the animal is dead, that the animal has died for the sake of the picture. Is this acceptable?

http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/archive/nathalia/nathalia_main.htm

[ 10-26-2004: Message edited by: Cacophonous ]

--------------------

I don't mind when animals are killed for food.

I don't mind when animals are killed for clothes.

Some may see that as being hypocritical, so be it.

Edit: I think if it's OK to kill animals for art then it should be OK to kill humans for art also. Some peoples already kill humans for food, not so sure about clothing though.

[ 10-26-2004: Message edited by: Mad Max ]

--------------------

It's almost as bad as the hypoallergenic cats. That just makes me so fucking mad.

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

--------------------

--------------------

Secondly, it is art but it being good art is another question entirely.

quote:

---

The animals that were used for the installations were bred to be snakefood, or simply "put away" as they were not wanted anymore by the petowners.

---

These animals were dead anyways, those mice would be in the stomach of some snake right now or the cat would be getting the needle. It does have shock-value and I think that might cheapen it some but I still think its art.

Aesthetically I like some of it, the composition is interesting enough. I think its funny though, that in the middle was an egg, even though people will get mad at the kittens and mice it sure won't stop them from shoveling eggs down their mouths.

This is sort of like the guy that dumped 300lbs of ham on a bed, can you call that art...yeah probably, but is it good art? Now thats an entirely different question.

quote:

---

I have a question though for the people who are disguted by this, how many pairs of leather shoes do you have? How many Big Macs and Chicken Nuggets do you eat?

---

In my opinion, no, it is not.

Using dead animals for the purposes of art. That's different. There's also that guy Xan, that digs up corpses of animals and turns them into sculpture.

As for my comment about being pissed off, I was refering more to the GMO Hypoallergenic Cats.

Now excuse me, I have a cobbled together person to reanimate, and the thunderstorm is starting to get close.

[ 10-27-2004: Message edited by: AcidWarp ]

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

quote:

---

I think its funny though, that in the middle was an egg, even though people will get mad at the kittens and mice it sure won't stop them from shoveling eggs down their mouths.

---

Life eats life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by outrider:
Life eats life.

But I'd wager the most hypocritical person here is the artist in question. She's trying to "make a point". What? You don't think she uses animals in some fashion other than in her "art"?

---

I don't think shes "making" a "point" really, I just pointed out something I noticed and I think you missed it. You don't have to like her "art" but just because it may be "offensive" to some doesn't not make it "art".

If you look above I already said that it might cheapen it because it does have a shock element to it. Life eats life, "someones" probably eating cats and mice "right" now. So its ok, right? ^__^

note to self - use more quotations to look "cool".

quote:

---

If that woman gets murdered one day I will be happy.

---

I like you Outtie! Always have always will, we can agree to disagree

Indeed.

This would be like a pro-life puppeteer fashioning marionettes from aborted fetuses, putting on a pro-life puppet show, and charging a buck to get in (assuming this woman sells her "art"). I've heard of using fire to fight fire, but I don't think fighting hypocrisy with hypocrisy works in quite the same way.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wintermute:
[b]This would be like a pro-life puppeteer fashioning marionettes from aborted fetuses, putting on a pro-life puppet show, and charging a buck to get in (assuming this woman sells her "art"). I've heard of using fire to fight fire, but I don't think fighting hypocrisy with hypocrisy works in quite the same way.

---

quote:

---

This would be like a pro-life puppeteer fashioning marionettes from aborted fetuses, putting on a pro-life puppet show, and charging a buck to get in (assuming this woman sells her "art"). I've heard of using fire to fight fire, but I don't think fighting hypocrisy with hypocrisy works in quite the same way.

---

Woah...

Ok, mute, we've been one to argue from time to time, but check this out for irony: I borrowed cac's fine topic and posted it elsewhere and (witthout knowing) used your very same secenario as analogy by chance:

http://www.rackat.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=000193

Without sounding smug, great minds do think a...like from time to time...

--------------------

It's about as open-minded as my asshole is.*

I agree, of course you are.

quotation marks x 1000