killing animals for art Options

[ghjgfkgfk]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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. 

"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.

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.

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

The philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other animals "in degree," not in kind." Questions of line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science.

                "There is no fundamental difference between humans and the higher mammals in their mental faculties"

-- Charles Darwin

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

We are not saying that humans and other animals always have the same rights. Not even all human beings have the same rights. For example, people with serious mental disadvantages do not have a right to higher education. What we are saying is that these and other humans share a basic moral right with other animals -- namely, the right to be treated with respect. 

  "It is the fate of every truth to be an object of ridicule when it is first acclaimed."

-- Albert Schweitzer

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