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]

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.

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.

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 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?