killing animals for art Options

[*kryogenix*]

what if it was the other way around, where the animals were killing us??

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

[mysticbreeze]

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.

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.

[ghjgfkgfk]

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.

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.

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.

[pandamonium]

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.

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

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.

[*wind&fire*]

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

[Spirited Away]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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... )

[Spirited Away]

- 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.

"Justice is the highest principle of ethics. We are not to commit or permit injustice so that good may come, not to violate the rights of the few so that the many might benefit. Slavery allowed this. Child labor allowed this. Most examples of social injustice allow this. But not the philosophy of animal rights, whose highest principle is that of justice: No one has a right to benefit as a result of violating another's rights, whether that "other" is a human being or some other animal."

"The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves -- the (other) animals"

- John Stuart Mill

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way its animals are treated."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals."

-- Peter Singer

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?

[*wind&fire*]

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.

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

[Spirited Away]

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

It depends on taste, then, I suppose?  Kind of morbid if you ask me. 

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

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[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.

[sporadic]

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.

[*wind&fire*]

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

[sporadic]

^ 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.

[mysticalazxn]

very bad
totally no NO
the picture look so cruel!

[*wind&fire*]

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

[pandamonium]

^ 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.

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[karrar]

" we can live without meat "

ARE YOU FUKin Crazy?

[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?

[sporadic]

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.

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.

[*wind&fire*]

^ is it necessary to have 5 pairs of shoes?

[pandamonium]

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.

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.....