*

Recent

3 Guests, 0 Users

Author Topic: Decoration  (Read 7474 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TCU

  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
    • The Wit and Wisdom of Cancer by Nina Paley
Decoration
« on: December 15, 2012, 02:26:45 PM »
Decoration

Dress made from 3,000 cow and yak nipples

Quote
'I create fashion using material that would otherwise end up on the scrap heap.

'What I am doing is recycling. The people criticising are clearly clueless about the amount of leather wasted on a daily basis.'
...Only One Solution {"MAN" by Steve Cutts}

Please feel free to send along editorial suggestions or report broken links. We're about success.

Offline TCU

  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
    • The Wit and Wisdom of Cancer by Nina Paley
Re: Decoration
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2012, 03:26:09 PM »
Vengeful Tiger, Glowing Rabbit
https://chronicle.com/article/Vengeful-Tiger-Glowing-Rabbit/132951

Americans do weird things with animals.

Perhaps our imperious stance toward other species and the rest of the living world grows out of the same sensibility embodied in the 19th-century ideology of Manifest Destiny, invoked to justify unbounded American expansionism.

Today, with our having achieved geopolitical dominance, the ethos persists in our drive to conquer nature. More habitats must be bulldozed, more wetlands repurposed, more wilderness plundered in the name of American progress.

We have a dysfunctional and sometimes paranoid compulsion to disarm the threat we see emanating from nature as other. Consciously or subconsciously, our cultural exploitation of animals often facilitates this agenda of disempowering the nonhuman realm. We seem to embrace Freud's expression that a civilized society is one in which "wild and dangerous animals have been exterminated."

When we encounter other animals, we often selfishly abuse and manipulate them. When a person and an animal meet, the animal generally ends up somehow the worse for it. We simply do not understand them, and we are poorer for that.

Our cultural interactions and visual representations are ecologically significant. The way we relate to animals in culture affects how we relate to them in nature. The imaginative exploitation of animals foreshadows more-literal and destructive incursions into their world.

People's weird constructions of other animals are ways of figuratively exterminating them: defusing their wildness and "danger," transforming their powers into harmless, clownish impotence. Eduardo Kac, for instance, created what he calls a GFP Bunny (transgenically modifying a rabbit with green fluorescent protein produced by jellyfish) that glows in the dark. Such ecological irreverence typifies the conceit that we can do what we want with animals, because ... we can do what we want with animals.

What might the world look like if we could transcend the demeaning, received ideas about other animals and try seeing them in ethically and ecologically reasonable ways? "What is at stake ultimately," Erica Fudge writes in Animal (Reaktion, 2002), "is our own ability to think beyond ourselves."

My premise is that it is morally, intellectually, and ecologically preferable not to do weird things with animals. By "weird," I mean silly, irrational, counterproductive, and retrograde, in contrast to the relationship that people could have with animals,, which would be more fulfilling and better suited to our role as one species among many in a complex ecosystem.

Weirdly, the Brooklyn artist Pinar Yolacan has produced a series of photographs of women wearing blouses made out of dead chickens. For the series, "Perishables," Yolacan sewed these blouses out of raw intestines, skin, and other assorted pieces of the birds.

People do wear dead animals in socially and fashionably acceptable ways—leather, fur, down—so why not chicken? These images are meant to disgust us on some level—but why? Certainly the ways in which people use animals are arbitrarily culturally conditioned, and Yolacan might have thought it would be interesting to make viewers reflect on why people regard certain exploitative uses as beautiful and valuable while we respond viscerally to others as disgusting. Perhaps we are meant to wonder what it would feel like, and smell like, to be these women wearing these chickens.

Maybe Yolacan is inviting us to think about our sensory relationship to animals. Their smells float through our world in ways that may be culturally eloquent—perfumes made out of secretions harvested from deer (musk) and whales (ambergris); charred flesh wafting through a restaurant, if that's your fancy—or may be putrid. Presumably "Perishables" means to evoke the putrid end of the scale, yet the women who are the human subjects of these photographs actually do look dignified and seem as if they fit at least somewhat in these skins. There is even a certain beauty about the forms, the clothes, which are not unlike some styles of haute couture.

What boundaries, then, mediate what we do with animals?

I think the answer is, few to none. Yolacan's photos pretty clearly cross the line, but that line is already far afield. There are few rules about what we cannot do with animals, and that facilitates and legitimates weirdness. Any extant guidelines are cultural conventions, and artists like Yolacan show these to be malleable, dispensable in the cause of art (as they are dispensable also in the causes of commerce or human convenience).

Yolacan's photography strikes me as weird in a self-conscious, showy way. Other weird things that people do with chickens—bizarrely sadistic factory-farm practices like debeaking, for example, as Peter Singer describes in Animal Liberation—are more covert, things we would not want to think about while nibbling on wings. But they are fundamentally of a kind with Yolacan's public artistic tableau. They all contribute to the human-centered chauvinism (or "speciesism," as animal-rights advocates describe it) that keeps animals subordinate.

I wonder, as I look through Yolacan's lens at a woman and a chicken, a woman in a chicken: Where's the chicken? Yes, the animal is there, but there's no there there. The only chickenness in these images is negative: the absence of a chicken, the mockery of a chicken, the destruction of a chicken, the perverse human transformation of a chicken.

I am not suggesting that it is the burden of every artwork to interrogate the chickenness of the chicken, but I am ecologically offended by the pervasive failure of human culture—and Yolacan's work exemplifies this failure—to acknowledge seriously the integrity, the consciousness, the real presence, of other animals in our world. In interviews, Yolacan represents "Perishables" as sarcastically chic and playfully inventive, sidestepping the ethical questions that these disturbing photographs evoke.

Cassius Coolidge's famous painting of dogs playing poker, "A Friend in Need" (circa 1903 and still going strong), typifies the retrograde consciousness that a more enlightened cultural public will, perhaps, someday transcend.

Coolidge's weird image has been reproduced endlessly in cigar ads, on calendars, on throw rugs, and in velvet. Dogs cannot sit on chairs around a card table in the way that Coolidge depicts; they would not want to. But Coolidge has made them.

The punch line of this painting, and the ethical harm of it, is the disjunction between what is depicted and our realization that dogs do not smoke cigars or gamble. Dumb dogs. But we have made them do so. Clever us. It reminds me of the Web site that suggests that if a cat could talk, what she would say is, "I can has cheezburger?" (LOL!) Coolidge reifies the fantasy that ours is the best of all possible worlds, and that other species could do no better than to emulate humans, however ridiculous they might seem in so doing, and however foreign our humanity may be to their animality.

I would be less offended by Coolidge if he, or other artists, also created art that involved human animals in the guise and context of nonhuman animals (and did so without casting aspersion on the "swinish," "beastly" humans so represented)—that is, if there were a reciprocity that bespoke a sincere desire to broach the species barrier and see how the other half lives. But that wouldn't sell many cigars.

Siegfried & Roy (born German but naturalized Americans) do weird things with animals. They are animal "trainers," showmen, illusionists, who ran a show on the Las Vegas Strip for three decades featuring a kitschy melange of flamboyance, magic, and animals. The keynote animals in their act are "royal" white tigers. According to the act's Web site, there were only 200 of them extant in the world in 1998, and "58 are Siegfried & Roy's White Tigers of Nevada."

White tigers are rare—they are, in a sense, freaks. It is counterprotective for a tiger to be white, both in the jungle and in a culture that fetishizes the fashion of exotic whiteness. The tigers have been poached for their pelts and body parts, which command exorbitant prices on the black market. (The black market for white tigers: Think about the interesting semiotics lurking there.)

The nomenclature, White Tigers of Nevada, suggests proprietary control (all of Nevada owns them), a fantastic geographical reconfiguration. They are not "of Nevada" ... except that they are now. Siegfried & Roy have made them "of Nevada," and where else but on the strip would White Tigers of Nevada belong?

In October 2003, a White Tiger of Nevada named Montecore lunged at Roy during a show, dragging him offstage. The tiger closed his jaws on Roy's neck, restricting the oxygen flow to his brain and leading to a near-fatal stroke. (Montecore was not killed, as would normally happen when an animal mauls a person. Roy himself commanded that the animal's life be spared, in a display of magnanimous love for the tiger despite his beastly behavior.) During the attack, most of the audience thought that this was all part of the performance—part of the illusion.

A mauling, or at least the possibility of a mauling, is in the subtext of every carnival show. That is what people pay to see: a non-mauling, on most nights, though they know, deep down, that there might be, or even should be, a mauling. So the people in the audience finally got what they expected, what they knew and perhaps on some level even hoped would happen someday, but at the same time, spectators responded as if this were simply part of the act.

This illustrates our conflicted behavior as a cultural audience, our head-in-the-sand, willful self-deception with regard to animals and what we do with them. We are flirting with danger, thrilled by the spectacle of human mastery (Siegfried & Roy's slogan is "Masters of the Impossible"). When the animal attack comes, the audience does not acknowledge that one might reasonably have expected such a revolt.

The comedian Chris Rock offered this commentary on the encounter: "Everybody's mad at the tiger. 'Oh, the tiger went crazy.' No, he didn't. That tiger went tiger. You know when that tiger was crazy? When he was riding on a little bike with a Hitler helmet on. That's when the tiger was thinking, 'I can't wait to bite somebody.'"

Right. The tiger may have hated being a White Tiger of Nevada and performing twice a night at the Mirage Casino, and maybe this was how he manifested his feelings. (Roy suggested that Montecore bit him because the tiger was trying to rescue him from a perceived threat during the show—dragging him to safety—but I think there's an element of rationalization and denial in that scenario.) It might seem inhuman (a word that probably needs to be revisited as we re-evaluate the nature of humanism) to say this, but I believe it is fitting to cheer the tiger who becomes a tiger, the animal who fights back against his cultural oppressors, as Montecore did.

A year after the attack, Maria Shriver interviewed Roy on a television newsmagazine show that offered "an intimate look into his harrowing experience ... chronicling Roy's journey, including never-before-seen footage and new details about his against-all-odds recovery." Roy's narrative is, loosely, in the mode of the great-white-hunter tales of African adventure. The wily, persevering hero is threatened but not overcome by the wild animals' brute force.

In the 1930s, Frank Buck was the most prominent adventurer in this genre. But today the narrative setting has shifted to Las Vegas instead of the "dark continent," into a flashy indoor arena instead of the jungle, and the tigers are white instead of the usual camouflage variegation. It is all very precious and tame instead of wild and woodsy, and displacing macho, khaki-attired he-man Frank Buck, the heroes wear sequins.

This is the setting for the contemporary version of the conflict between man and nature. Having driven the real animals in the real jungle to the brink of extinction, we breed them and hoard them in Nevada and then play out our perverse contests with them in these extravagantly tacky, culturally mongrelized Las Vegas sets. The icon of Las Vegas is its pastiche of skyline, bricolage gone berserk, with the Brooklyn Bridge replica next to the Eiffel Tower replica next to the Empire State Building replica—all of which serves to reinforce the kind of cultural dislocation that results in White Tigers of Nevada.

As people misconstrue animals with increasing audacity, we should not be surprised when these animals strike back. I collect news stories in a file I call "revenge of the animals": "Man accidentally stabbed to death by cockfighting bird"; "Horses Kill 1 and Injure 23 at Iowa Parade"; "Bull Leaps Into Crowd at Spanish Ring"; "Zoo chimp plots stone throwing attacks: New study found his cleverly orchestrated attacks were premeditated."

A few acts of animal vengeance garner significant media attention, and are at least momentarily troubling to the public, though they rarely generate any fundamental reconsiderations of how we conceptualize these animals. Think of the orca who lethally attacked his trainer at Sea World in 2010, the Siberian tiger who escaped her cage and killed a spectator at the San Francisco Zoo in 2007, the "pet" chimpanzee in Connecticut who tore a woman's face off in 2009.

We are overrun with animals weirdly framed by our odd cultural proclivities—dancing bears, trained seals, dogs and cats who perform "stupid pet tricks"—overwriting any reflective empathy we might conceive for normal animals, real animals. Little space remains in our minds to consider any animals besides these weird ones foregrounded in our cultural frames.

They feature in "crush videos" and animal porn. An elephant hovers weirdly in a commercial for a respiratory drug; an alligator advertises a salve for scaly (human) skin. The animal kingdom, as we see it, is populated by elephants featured in a fashion-magazine spread dressed in Chanel suits and high heels (as seen in W magazine, January 2005); and kidnapped giraffes locked in cages to teach the importance of valuing those habitats from which they have been removed (as seen in zoos). We invoke their past glory when we name sports teams and cars after them. But the Atlanta Falcons and the Chicago Bears, the VW Rabbits and the Chevy Impalas, are only disembodied reminders of the forces and freedoms that animals can no longer enjoy.


Randy Malamud is chair of the English department at Georgia State University. This essay is adapted from his new book, An Introduction to Animals and Visual Culture (Palgrave Macmillan).

Randy Malamud

https://drstevebest.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/vengeful-tiger-glowing-rabbit.jpg
...Only One Solution {"MAN" by Steve Cutts}

Please feel free to send along editorial suggestions or report broken links. We're about success.

Offline TCU

  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
    • The Wit and Wisdom of Cancer by Nina Paley
Re: Decoration
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2012, 08:21:48 PM »
Artist Mutilates, Kills Animals For Exhibitions
http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/02/supernatural-strange-ufo-news/artist-mutilates-kills-animals-for-exhibitions/

Quote
Dutch artist Katinka Simonse is known for killing and brutalizing animals for her performance art. Simonse, 31, goes by the name “Tinkerbell” and gives live presentations of animal abuse and mutilation. She claims she is drawing awareness to animal abuse and rejects the idea that her work is repulsive.

During one exhibition, she made 100 hamsters roll about in little balls around the gallery. She has also mutilated and dismembered dogs, put day-old baby chicks in a shredder, and has killed chicks and put hooks through their bodies, so she could hang them up. Simonse has said that she does this “to use an animal that is close to you in order to show what we do with the ones that are far from sight. I wanted people to think about that.”
Quote
Not only has Simonse abused animals in her performance art, she also brutalized her own pet cat, Pinkeltjie. When it became sick, she was not interested in paying for a veterinarian, so she broke her pet’s neck. Simonse then had the cat skinned and used its skin for a handbag.
Quote
In a joint project with artist Coralie Vogelaar, Simonse published a book in 2009 of all the hate mail that people have sent her. It is entitled “Dearest Tinkerbell”. Not only was the actual hate mail included in the books, but also the names, addresses, and other personal information (like what is on their Amazon wishlists) of the people who sent the hate mail, a very controversial move on behalf of the artist and her publicist.
...Only One Solution {"MAN" by Steve Cutts}

Please feel free to send along editorial suggestions or report broken links. We're about success.

Offline TCU

  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
    • The Wit and Wisdom of Cancer by Nina Paley
Re: Decoration
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2013, 08:09:59 PM »
Ars Animalis | Die Guillotine
https://drstevebest.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/sadists-are-scientists-hunters-are-environmentalists-and-now-assholes-are-artists/ | http://www.13point7billion.org/2012/04/ars-animalis-die-guillotine.html

Quote

Two students from the Berlin University of the Arts are crowdsourcing the conclusion of a performance piece entitled Die Guillotine (The Guillotine) that features said guillotine and (at least for now) a live sheep.

On their website, the artists, Iman Rezai and Rouven Materne, ask visitors a single question: "Soll dieses Schaf getötet werden?" ("Should this sheep be killed?")

"The guillotine is the most compact reflection of our society," says Materne in the German-only video, adding that the intentionally provocative work is a "criticism of current morality."

As of this writing, the online poll has 147,473 respondents answering yes and 289,0463 voting no. Voters have the next 21 days to decide the fate of the helpless sheep.

Animal cruelty in art and culture is not new. One could point to a wide array of cultural events connected to the torture of animals. Bullfighting comes to mind, or any of a number of culture-specific rituals throughout history involving the death of animals, even human sacrifice.

More recently, at the Trapholt Art Museum in Kolding, Denmark, in 2003, the artist Marco Evaristti put live goldfish in blenders, inviting visitors to press the "on" button to kill the fish.

This theme, in fact, was an early one on 13.7 Billion Years. On March 14, 2008, just a few days after this blog was launched, the post was about the artist Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, who supposedly captured an abandoned street dog, tied him up in an art gallery and left him there to die of hunger and thirst while visitors watched his slow death.

Is this art?
Should live animals be used in art?
Does Die Guillotine make a point? If so, what is it?
Will the fate of the sheep say something about society?

As opposed to a poll, the antithesis should have been : "Millions of innocent lives will be murdered in the time it takes you to save this one innocent life. Would you pledge to become Vegan to save this one life and by therefore doing save a collective million lives?".

A counter could be created on the poll that calculates an approximate figure with regards to the annual cumulative lives saved by each pledge.

While "Die Guillotine" sparked some fairly angry responses I imagine the venom would soon run dry if human beings were asked to adopt the plant based diet in order to save one or a million lives. That would be too much like hard work for God's on Earth.
...Only One Solution {"MAN" by Steve Cutts}

Please feel free to send along editorial suggestions or report broken links. We're about success.

Offline TCU

  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
    • The Wit and Wisdom of Cancer by Nina Paley
Re: Decoration
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2013, 04:08:04 PM »
Poodle doodles: Dogs are transformed into pandas, horses and even snails in a barking mad grooming craze
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208913/The-poodles-transformed-pandas-horses-snails-creative-grooming-dog-shows.html
Quote
They may resemble pandas, buffalos and camels - but these animals are actually poodles, all competing for the title of top dog at 'creative grooming' shows across the U.S.

Something of a canine fancy dress contest, it takes just two hours for owners to transform their pets, which are sheared and coloured to achieve each look.

The incredible transformations were captured by photographer Ren Netherland, who travels thousands of miles each year to attend each competition.
Quote
'The transformation they go through is simply spectacular. There's no other word for it. It's amazing what they can do in so little time.'

But it is not just the owners who enjoy the grooming shows.

'The dogs seem to love the whole experience,' added Mr Netherland. 'One of the reasons I love my job is because I love animals so much. I much prefer working with them than people.

'By the time the dogs get to me after they have been through the tournament they are bounding around and very happy.

'I think all the attention that gets bestowed upon them through the whole process must be nice for them.'
...Only One Solution {"MAN" by Steve Cutts}

Please feel free to send along editorial suggestions or report broken links. We're about success.

Offline Deadly virus

  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Decoration
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2013, 04:35:15 AM »
I’ve gone through the Dress made from 3,000 cow and yak nipples comments and apparently many of this article’s commenters critically wonder what's the difference between nipples use and the use of any other body part? They actually agreed with the dress’ designer claims: "The people criticising are clearly clueless about the amount of leather wasted on a daily basis". generally speaking, animal liberation people are not as shocked by a story such as this as we are aware of the amount of leather wasted on a daily basis. more importantly we focus on the living and not on the dead. Those 3,000 cows probably couldn't care less what humans do with their bodies. In fact after they die they no longer care about anything,. Corpse sanctification is a human thing only.
animal rights activists I know don’t geography morality, they don’t divide body parts into holy vs. usable bits. They care about whole creatures. If the animals don’t care what happens after they die, neither should we.

For this story to mean something to us, the use of nipples specifically needs not only to be somehow worse than the use of any other body part but also that the use of their body parts, any body part, after they are dead, somehow hurts them at all.
But we're far more rational about it (and in general) than the average meat eater. Activists fail to see the harm in the specific use of nipples and in the use of body parts of animals after they are dead, in itself. they not only see the harm in the wider context- they live it every day. Our perception is much more mature and rational.
we dignify cows while they're still alive and not only when they're corpses and couldn’t care less.  bunch of weirdoes, eh?  
« Last Edit: April 28, 2013, 04:39:04 AM by Deadly virus »

Offline desistence

  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Decoration
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2013, 01:21:26 AM »
Maybe many carnivores feel the need to be shocked at this kind of stories every now and then to keep organizing their distorted feelings and speciesist creeds facing criticism from vegetarians and their own little sense of guilt.

Offline Deadly virus

  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Decoration
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2013, 12:51:50 AM »
If you're right and these kinds of random shocks every now and then are enough for carnivores to keep their set of moral principles and ease the diminutive amount of guilt regarding the tormenting lives they maintain, then…

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
Re: Decoration
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2013, 03:25:49 AM »
I  don’t think that this dress could be considered neither as a natural sequence of the decoration slideshow nor as a decoration at all in the sense of the slideshow’s meaning. This dress tries to make an artistic point and makes a very speciesist one on the way. But the whole point of the dress was to shock, that’s exactly why cows’ nipples were used. It is not a new trend that the designer wanted to create which then made the cow’s nipples use a decoration but it was an artistic declaration. We can argue what’s artistic about it or what is artistic at all? But that’s making the wrong discussion over this issue. Because what’s relevant here I think, is what the dress reflects and it is not cows’ nipples as a dress decoration and not humans’ ability to use everything out of animals’ bodies. It is a speciesist gimmick mainly made to draw attention to the designer.

This dress indicates mostly on the people who are involved with making and presenting it and very little on society as a whole. That as opposed to the shock reaction to the dress while wearing other body parts which passes by in a silent violence and moral indifference.

The problem is not a dress made out of 3,000 cows’ nipples but the fact that millions of people buy leather products made out of everything but nipples. It is the fact that it is a billions of dollars per year industry that is our problem. This is our everyday reality, not one agitating dress made by spotlight seeker designer which no one will buy, but hundreds of billions of products made by millions of workers and bought by millions of people around the world.

Same goes for the dog show post and Don't Feed the Artists! 10 Contemporary Artworks That Outraged Animal Lovers article which don’t reflect reality and in a way even camouflage dogs’ daily hell by defining for the public cruelty towards animals as presented in those cases, cases that are easy to condemn and by condemning them, people clean their conscience regarding the real problems of millions of dogs including the ones living with them.
Obviously whether they are set as an artistic object or decorative object, the animals are still objects. So in that sense I don’t think that the examples in the thread are significantly different from the point we tried to make in the slideshow. The significant difference is in the realism.

The thing is that animal use in art is relatively rare, the use is deliberate and planned and done because they are animals and in many cases to say something regarding animals or regarding humans’ relationships with animals. Obviously it is a cynical and abusive use which in itself can set as an example for the way humans abuse animals but I think it took the sting out since in these artistic shows the animal is much less of an absent referent than each cow is in the leather industry, or each exploited, abused or neglected dog is.
This is clinging on to cases which are not extreme (because breaking off someone from his natural environment, family and the species members, climate, natural food and etc, is by itself extreme no matter how this creature will be treated by his human capturers) but are quantitatively marginal and don’t tell the real story.  
For example two brother dogs can reach two different houses, one to the starving artist and the other to a ‘regular” home where he will be starved and neglected. So from their perspective it is the same hell, however these two abusive cases are indicative of different problems in society. The artistic case is the rare case of objectification done by marginal group in society using immoral means for totally different aims and which most of the public condemn.
The family case indicates on what happens in millions of houses around the world every single day. That is the routine. This difference between the conventionality and the marginal cases, the indifferent element in the violence and neglect, the obvious and plain abuse that isn’t even seized as one, is what we tried to say in our slideshow.

Usually the objection to the use of extreme cases is because they tend to be manipulative since reality is less horrible than the picture they draw. But I think that in this case it is the opposite. To demonstrate a dog show as the extreme of dog treatment is to miss the horrible truth happening in every second house around the world.

The slideshow tries to show how arbitrary and conventional the oppression is, to what extent animals are absent referent, merely a decorative object. To show how individuality is being erased, how easily and to what extent. The signification of these "decorations" to the speciesist ideology is much stronger than some exploitative "works of art" which don’t reflect the norm. Starving a dog to death doesn’t reflect the norms, but a leash does. Most people don’t turn their dogs to look like a camel, pandas or buffalos, they "just" neglect them. Tying them up on short leashes, leaving them outside in the freezing cold or boiling heat, leaving them alone, beating them, shouting at them or simply not giving them the attention and love they need.
Killing a fish in a blender  like the "artist" Marco Evaristti offered in 2000 doesn’t represent goldfish lives among humans, but imprisoning fish in a tiny glass tank for the rest of their lives is the everyday reality of millions of poor fish.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 03:37:05 AM by O.O.S »

Offline desistence

  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Decoration
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2013, 07:28:51 AM »
Yeah, I agree. The oppressive routine is animals greatest enemy, not those anecdotal incidents that actually shock the public (most of it at least). The problem is that the same people shocked by the nipples dress, wear the rest of these cows skin. 

What frightens me most is people's capability to make a ridiculous boundary between what they're almost totally indifferent to and what they’re utterly shocked by. The fact that one dress appalls and a whole industry doesn’t cause any serious reaction among most people, indicates where humanity is and how far it can go.
Humanity is also reflected in the reactions to the other mentioned artistic shows as the dog show or the guillotine which almost every human will oppose, most while wearing leather at the very same moment or eating sheep meat at the same day they are demonizing the guillotine representors. 

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
Re: Decoration
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2013, 04:58:57 AM »
The  daily reality in this world, which most people tend to overlook, is much more frightening. "Regular" people are much scarier than the guillotine "monsters".
The decoration slideshow is more on the banality of the oppression since the imprisoned individuals are no more than a dynamic vase, merely part of the room’s substance. In both cases it is an absolute objectification but in the decoration examples the animals almost literally become objects.

What frightens me most is people's capability to make a ridiculous boundary between what they're almost totally indifferent to and what they’re utterly shocked by.

This whole discussion is another proof that to be human from a moral perspective, is by many means, to arbitrary decide what is wrong and what is right and on that random basis be more or less consecutive. Humans are arbitrarily consecutive. They arbitrarily choose something to cling on to and then cling on to it. What is considered to be violent is a function of what is accepted by society and that is as you all know very random.
That’s what we need to worry about and not a dress that doesn’t really affect world suffering. The problem is that world suffering doesn’t really affect people. 

The cruelty in our world is so obvious and banal that sometimes the attempt to describe the world as a very cruel place, in a way, hides a crueler world.
The fact that most humans are taking an active part in the greatest oppression in history with no proportions to anything else in history is a much scarier thought than what some marginal part of it can do.


 

TinyPortal © 2005-2015