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.

but it does exist... and we must live with it. because that is the price we pay for freedom.

So because it's the fault of brainless, unfeeling fools that animals suffer, thus I hold true that killing animals for "art" is immoral, and wrong.

yes, it is immoral, and wrong. it just simply cannot be banned.

No, but it can be boycotted, protested, spoken against. If the world would think that such an act is immoral, then no one would purchase that art. It's because people are immoral that such a thing exist.

we feel pain..therefore we feel pain when being killed. simple as that.

no it's not.

what happens before death we know is painful, if you were shot for instance.

but is the actual dying painful?
can anyone tell?

so when does after dyeing tie into this? yes i know, the process of being slaughtered is painful. i never said anything about after death.

Killing animals for art is f**kin Evil. Anymals are innnocent and only react on instinct. Killing pedophiles or Bourgoeis Oppressors for art would be better

thank you for your well thought out contribution to this thread. It adds to the debate so well.

omg.. that is sickening.. the pictures themselves.. they dont even look nice.. i mean.. if ppl wanted to use animals for art why not just paint i mean you wouldnt want humans to be killed and displayed just to show the art side of things..

HUUU!

Excuse me?

I'm not quite sure what you meant so I'm just going to assume the following by your short comment. You are:

1) Spamming
2) Not reading the sticky forum rules like you're supposed to
3) A new member at cB

Please, please remember to read the rules. They are pretty detailed as to how you can contribute positively to discussions in this forum. Thank you.

killing animals is wrong! i mean they're living breathing creatures just like us their life shouldn't be taken away just to AMUSE people.

thank you for your wonderful contribution to the debate. it adds to the debate soo well.

I don't disagree with your stand, but I do disagree with your argument. If your argument is simply to say any living creature's life is worth just as much as a human, then killing insects would be just as wrong as killing humans. In my opinion, such measure of worth cannot be justified.

why would anyone kill a animal or art? animals have lives also; they're just like us. we could use watercolour paint and all thos other stuff; but why an animal?

animals have lives and family's and stuff just like us; how would people feel if you were killed for some panting?

Uh oh, here comes the hippie-boy-vegetarian chiming in with his two cents!!

If an animal can be killed in vain for the sake of art, then let me dismember your body, put your scattered pieces in liquid chrome, let them dry and then use it all for decoration in my house.

Is art not created by humans to have aesthetic value or express symbolic meaning?
This is not only a disgrace to animals but a disgrace to art.

I'm kinda partial on the fur and meat thing. Well, I eat meat all the time. But think of it this way...

Just because we're the most advanced speices doesn't mean we're not animals. We're still considered animals today and all animals (except herbavores) eat meat. It's part of nature. I don't find anything wrong with it. I mean, it's the best and most natural way for any animal to get protein.

Same with the fur thing. I mean, it's not necissary or anything, but it's been done since the dawn of time. That's just how things work.

But killing animals for art, such as stuffed heads and things, is just bull shit.

Why are you for killing animals for fur and not for art? That makes no sense. Animals are horribly killed in both situations, so I don't see how anyone can be for fur or killilng animals for art.

right... so would you like to define killing horribly?

would that be with or without the tourture?

you see, when animals are killed, there are certain regulations. no animals are killed violently now a days. a bullet through the brain, a heart stopping injection, these are not horribly killings. these are not scaldings, nor are they 'let's just cut the throat and let it bleed out' killings.

where you see horriblly murdered animals, i see nature at work.

you might say, no other animal kills another for it's skin. this is where you are wrong.

wasps of a sort will lay thier eggs on tarantulas. the babies hatch, and eat into the tarantula, eating it alive. they eat unnecissary organs first, so their host will live longer.

you see, all the beasts and creatures of the world were given gifts. strenght. speed, fur, etc. the only two gifts afforded to man are the ability to walk upright, and the ability to use the other beasts and creatures.

and in this spirit, fur and animals for art is completely humane. it's human nature.

Because humans are gifted with the ability to walk upright, we suddenly have the right to kill lesser creatures, and in many a time torture them, for simple pleasures? Might is right? If you believe we have evolved physically, Mr. Acid, have the courage to believe that we, or a handful of us, have evolved mentally as well. What about humans who lack the ability to walk? To think for themselves? Would you say that those humans should be used by those who are perfectly healthy, or would you say that their death for the sake of art is justifiable?

There are animals bred with the sole intent to be killed for their fur and skin... etc. It's not as if some farmer dashes into my living room, steal my (imaginary) sheep and shears it. Sheeps are raised to be sheared. Livestock is raised to be food. Cats are raised to be house friends, not to be killed for "art"!



http://www.wag.co.za/special_reports/inside_china.html
Not ALL horribly murdered animals are works of Nature.

The lady "artist" was reported to the Swedish Veterinary Association because she failed to have a veterinarian present while killing the animals in 2003. How can anyone be sure that they died a humane death except to to take her word for it?

well u eat meat dont u?

I don't eat cats.

If anyone wants to argue that it's a double standard to eat cows and not cats, then I'll say that it is just as guilty if a person watches Family Guy but not the Simpsons.