http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/archive/n...thalia_main.htm
http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/newsletter/newsletter.htm

do you think it's okay to kill animals for art?

i do not support it, but it's not different than what society already does. people kill animals for fashion. shoes, belts, coats, ect. people kill animals for meat. these things are 'okay'. not only okay, but something people want. people hunt for sport then go stuffing the bodies and heads of animals to hang them on a wall.

we don't need meat to live. we don't have to wear real fur, you could wear faux fur...none of them are necessary. you could live without meat. art isn't necessary to live. however, she could of used a different way to get her point across, such as painting,

if she killed any animal but 'cute fluffy things' would anyone even care? if she used spiders, ants, roaches, i doubt anyone would think there was even an issue.

i know its wrong but probably in the future they will have something to produce w/o killing animals..... Its just too late now ... so many people are used to everything and if we did change it there would be choas cause there are more meat eaters than vegetarians and also there are rich people who buy those wearable animals lol.... and they also would get mad if they couldnt buy those clothes anymore......

its wrong ... but for me i like meat... and i think it is alittle too late to stop this from happening, but in its own ways it helps people survive.

But that cat in the vase is nasty i dont think that is right casue its just sick..... but if the cat was dead or hit by a car i guess it wouldnt be that bad. but that vase is disgusting ..... i wonder who would buy it.

i dont think its okay to kill animals for whatever purpose be it fashion, entertainment (the bloody bonsai kitten?? inhumane!), art, experimentation etc but hell its been happening for centuries.

my point now is that we can all find substitutes for these like faux fur and all.

one day all the animals are gonna get extinct if we continue to kill them.

im not that against killing for food but i agree we can do with the vegetarian diet. its also more healthy for the human body.

for those erm, art thingy, its okay if the animal's already dead but you DONT kill it just to make art outta it.

and i will just barf if i look long enough at those pictures supposedly to be art.
so am i supposed to kill my hamsters, gucci and prada, and take a picture of it, frame it and call it art?

baaah the mention of a moral crime. i wonder if its acceptable if i kill that woman in a MOST HUMANELY way possible to take a photo of her and call it art?

it bothers me to see animals sacrificed in a most needless manner to please the human's need for "art".

as for using roaches and stuff, its okay (to me at least) cuz its considered pests. but now why would anyone wanna hang a picture of a few cockroaches in their room??? baffles me.

woah i just showed my friends and i didnt know you scroll to the right but i saw the hand with the little mice on it ..... thats disgusting really repulsive.

ohh and your name airam does that stand for maria backwards lol just wondering cause thats my moms nickname also lol.

According to the newsletter, it is shallow for people to eat meat in order to live a healthy life...

"Art is of vital importance", but obviously to them, life isn't.

(Sarcasm) You know, someone can just kill a baby and display it as art. After all, we go to wars and have capital punishment, abortions, and those are considered as double standards. Why not just kill humans and use them for art, too? (/Sarcasm).

yeah, my name is maria.


it's the bunny or cute factor. cockroaches, ants and other 'pests' are living things too, no?

Hmm isn't it illegal? well i dont think its right because its just like saying ur killing humans for art..no ORGANISM should be killed for any art..i suggest people to ILLUSTRATE the animal their own. not kill the real ones. >_<

It's not illegal, because killing animals for fashion purposes isn't and fashion is consider a form of artistic expression.

I do enjoy wearing fur and I find it attractive, but only faux fur. I think it's totally wrong to kill innocent animals for artistic purposes.

omg thats so wrong

could i ask all you who think we can live without meat to look at thier teeth? what are those sharp teeth at the very front for? in case you didn't know, there are essensial amino acids that you get from meat, and although other types of protien can supplament, it requires a RIGID diet to get adequete nutrition, sans meat.

ohh god thats horrible. animals should not be sacrificed for "art" or for fashion. its just wrong...and reall gross

Hmm... *thinks* I think killing animals for art purposes is pretty inhumane. It's just.... wrong. I mean, I myself do not particularly like animals, but I find that just awful, if not a bit sickening. As for animal meat, its fine, as long as we do not consume too much, and we do not waste it at all. Taking away its own life just to be in some art museum, or to be worn by some old lady who wears tons of perfume... how sad.

If they really want to be artistic, why don't they make the head out of... plaster or clay w.e, attach faux fur, add eyes, and -BAM!- an exact replica of a cat or some other furry animal! whoo...! um... >.>

haha *feels stupid for saying above* but my point is, don't kill the animal (unless you're going to eat it, and use ALL of the body parts, not just the furs/meats) >_>

could i ask you if you have any idea what you are talking about? Oh wait i already did. Being a vegan for 2 years, i know what I am talking about. It does not require a rigid diet to eliminate meat, actually its much healthier. OK stopping my rant now..

anyway, as for the using animals for art, I am completely against it. Like someone said above (i forgot who sorry) it is the same concept as killing a baby or a human and using it for art. Our society would consider that immoral and horribly indecent. The same should apply to animals. They are the same thing as us! (Acctually the difference between us and animals is only a few chromosomes, but lets not get into that)

That is the most sickening, repulsive, disgusting, repugnant, horrible, hideous, terrible thing I have ever heard of. At least one of them.

How can someone even THINK of destroying a living creature's life just to "brighten" up their living room or to use as decor?!! If I took a woman, shot her, then hung her up in my kitchen, would most people approve!? I think not! Whoever had the nerve to consider this vomit-inducing idea deserves to be euthanized and propped up on my coffee table as decor, the sick bastard. I agree that it should be okay to use dead animals in art if they were already dead in the first place, but taking a living animal and killing it for this "art" is just wrong. I didn't even know about this.

art can (GASP) can be made and used for other things besides making a room look 'pretty'.

That was (GASP) sarcasm. -.-''

Meat does contain amino acids that we cannot get anywhere else. I believe that all of the arts should not be censored at all.

oh. it's hard to (GASP) show emotion over the internet.

Sorry if it's (GASP) too much information for your brain to handle.

||edit||

Okay, I don't want to get into an enormous fight or anything. I really did mean it as sarcasm, though. ._.

How beautiful!

This should be allowed though. We wouldn't want to infringe on the artist's freedom of expression, now would we?

and if the artist chooses to kill some random human being based on the reason art, we should then not infringe on the artist's freedom of expression?

It's not illegal to kill animals is it?

I don't think killing animal is right...but it is extremely hard to turn into a vegetarian just like that but then again...we should try.

and its okay to take a life just because its not illegal?

i think it completely wrong. I dont wanna sound like a tree hugger or anything, but you know, animals feel things too. what if it was the other way around, where the animals were killing us?? and people should learn to use faux fur. it feels the same, and it looks the same, so why should people kill an innocent animal if your getting the samething with faux fur?

Then it would be hunting season all year round we'd make them extinct.

Actually no it's not. I became one in like two weeks and I eat delicious healthy meat-free meals everyday.

Well I'm a vegetarian so I obviously don't support killing animals. I believe it is wrong to kill animals, especially for art. There is nothing to justify this sadistic crap. How the hell can "artistic expression" be a reason to KILL LIVING THINGS? My opinion is she should be thrown in jail. I don't know why she isn't already.

are these deaths really that much of a waste if it's cleary making us think that much? it obviously provoked this topic. it's making us think about animal cruelty for the people who wear real fur and skin. what she did was no different than eating a whopper.
remember the bonazi kitten? when people found out it was fake, no one cared. imagine what it be like if it was true and what an impact it would have on people. she'sdoind a better job at killing then meat/leather producers.


what would this world be like if more than half of the people were vegan/vegetarians, there would be a surplus amout of animals that no one could handle, so we would end up killing them anyway. but instend of doing that, we could eat them. meat may not be need to live in america, but what about people across the world when it's the only thing they can eat.

thats a good point ... i think if there was more animals more people would be wearing it rather than eating it and sales in animal clothes shoes etc.. would go up.

Eating meat and displaying dead animals are quite different, in my opinion.

Sure, there are people who wear real fur and animal skin, but I do not speak for them. They are, most likely, the ones who would purchase her art.

I eat meat because it's part of my regular diet, however, the type of meats I consume is limited and do not extend to cats/dogs/snakes... etc.

Eating livestock isn't the same as killing a cat and displaying it. I'm sure to many of you, there isn't much of a difference, but to me, flaunting that as art is inhumane.

its art...thats what its supose to do...catalyse an emotion

If art were that simple, displaying a dead baby for show can be called art, too. It depends on taste, then, I suppose? Kind of morbid if you ask me.

my my... where to start.

1- just because there is no law that says you can't kill animals is excatly why this shouldn't be stopped.

2. on the topic of vegitarianism-
- yes, eating a completely vegan diet can be healthy, if done right
- this requires eating a lot of various plants, which is where the rigid diet comes in. you could eat multivitamins for some vitamins, but for others and for certain amino acids, you have to eat a lot of certain plants.
- this should not be done for moral reasons, as the morality of killing animals is that they are animals and not HUMANS so they don't have HUMAN rights.

3. on the art-

art should not be censored. this is art. taxadermists stuff animals all the time. mice and cats are quite common... they'll be killed anyways in shelters. (don't mention no-kill shelters, those are terrible. they're streched too thin and all the animals suffer... )

Art should not be censored? What about the case of displaying dead babies?

yes anything can be art...a museam in australia showed a rotting cow cut in half... in germany there are preseved humans with their internal organs spilling out of their abdomen... and then art can be simple like a can of soup or abstract

So, you can go ahead and call it art, I'll call it morbid.

1. on dead babys

don't they sometimes leave the coffins open at a funeral home so you can look at the deceaced? i know it's not the same, but you still can't ban it. if the mother decided to show her dead baby, you can't stop it. and although it should be stopped, to stop this would be to stop other art and too much... it is the sacrafice.


2. on animal rights

animals have animal rights.... they should be treated well, but not equal to humans. we should still use them for labaratory animals, we should still keep pets, eat them, use them for labor, etc.

however, thier treatment should be in a HUMANE maner- which means the person should act human.

"Look"/Marvel/Criticize (as you do art) at the dead, or pay respect to them? The two are different.

Art is open for criticism. There are people who views "art" differently than others. In our case with killing animals to display them, that's not art in my opinion.

When you die, you don't really want someone to display your head on top of a vase and your butt at the bottom of the vase do you? I don't know, I wouldn't even want to look at it. Once again, it depends on taste. Hey, if people are into that kind of thing then fine, but I'm just not feeling it.





Here's something to chew on. Remember to note the man I'm quoting.



And as for animals not having the same rights as humans, sure:



By the way, I think animal rights and animal welfare are two different things. We should really be talking about animal welfare.

That's pretty gross. Killing animals for clothes, I can understand. Maybe even just for fashion. But for art? Well, that doesn't serve much of a purpose other than decoration. Food and clothes are necessary. Cat heads on pedestals are not.

^ do you have leather shoes?!?!... well wow! killing animals for clothing!

^ I do have leather shoes and I love them.

What's wrong with killing animals for clothing? Leather keeps you warm. Granted, I wouldn't wear bunny skin, but all the same, animal hide is useful in clothing.

very bad
totally no NO
the picture look so cruel!

that site is bs... i dont think its real

and why were you arguing before that its gross to kill animals for art ????

in art you are only critizing and looking at but clothes you have the dead animals on you ... i dont see how you see it as "gross" if your wearing the same animals on your feet.

animals should be treated with respect, etc. etc.

but my gripe is with people (namely PETA) who belive that pets are immoral, NO laboratory animals should be used, and who belive that fish should be anethietized before they are gutted on fishing ships. (new PETA campaign)

there are limits, and i belive certain animal activist groups are crossing them, and that's my gripe.


as for the art:

i don't like it either. cat and mouse heads? it's not what i would want to see. but you can't censor it without censoring other stuff, and then you'd censor too much. so you must live with the bad ideas of the 'artist' in a sacrafice for the freedom of expresson. because to censor this would be violation of fundamental rights.

" we can live without meat "

ARE YOU FUKin Crazy?

Sure, I think PETA is crazy sometimes, but it's because of their efforts that a lot of things the average person wouldn't know about are brought to the surface. They're like the third party candidates in presidential elections. Third party let people know what are things that the major party have conveniently forgetten to mention or have not made note to speak about. Similarly, PETA let people know things that people have forgotten about or do not know about.

I do believe that there are limits and that survival of the fittest demands that we must use whatever means possible to keep our kind on top of the food chain, in good health.. etc, but people like Nathalia Edenmont and those who support her "art" do not seem to care much for anything else but their own pleasures.




We censor music, those played on most stations, and public television (not cable), so why not art?

Self-expression is one thing, but killing an animal for the purpose of expressing oneself is sickening.

Lest we forget our place in this world, humans are considered to be animals. If we can kill an animal for the pleasure of gazing at it, calling it art, what is there to say that we can't stop someone from getting an aborted fetus (something killed) and displaying it as art. Next thing we know, people will be killing, murdering, raping other people and calling those acts "art".

There are limits set by the law and there are limits set by the human heart. Like in homosexuality, the law says it's illegal for them to marry, but in some of our hearts, we feel compassion towards their cause and want it to be legalized. So why would wanting the killing of animals for the sake of "art" to cease because our compassion ask so of us be any different?

It's gross because it's obviously an animal. But that's not why I'm AGAINST it.

I'm against it because killing animals for art serves no purpose, other than decoration. Clothes and food are NECESSARY. Art is not.

^ is it necessary to have 5 pairs of shoes?

ART is definately NOT a "DECORATION"

art is self expression.

let me ask you this why did you buy those leather boots?
........ its because you like them right?.. its because they look pretty right? its because it fits your style right?....

you express yourself in clothes so what you wear can also can be considered art. So the point is you bought those leather boots because they express what "you" like and who you are and those boots make "you" who you are, they make "you" unique .

so you also express art.

so that person who made those peices of art may not have done the right thing by killing those animals but they were expressing themselves.....