Mood:  irritated

nathalia edenmont of sweden: an artist. her art: she decapitates animals she's euthanized and sticks their heads on other sculptures then takes photos of them. apparently, she does nothing to preserve the body parts, so the photos are taken within fifteen minutes of the death, thus her having to kill the animals herself rather than getting a professional involved (this lack of professional involvement here being the one possible crime in the situation). wanna see? or read an explanation or read an interview (the latter, quite simplistic and brief)?

so, the big debate: is it okay to kill animals for art? we kill them for food, and most folks dont' mind that, though even some meat eaters don't like how the slaughterhouse works, nevermind that they don't tend to do anything to change that situation (talking the majority of folks, here, not the people who throw blood and say meat is murder and all that, or, of course, any of the peaceful hippy vegans or vegetarians, and don't even get me started on the harm we bring upon vegetables and plants each and every day). we kill animals for sport (though we DO tend to complain when that doesn't also involve use for food. we kill animals for protection (that is, to stop an animal from attacking a human). and, we kill animals for clothes, leather skirts and jackets and boots and pants and whatnot. the thing is, is there a moral line to be drawn at the purpose behind the killing? or, is it the method that dictates the morality? and, if it is the method, would edenmont's humane killing of pets that have reportedly been intended for consumption by large snakes anyway (can't find that article, but i've heard the reference a couple times now*) be better or worse than cows lined up to have bolts fired into their skulls, their throats cut, oftentimes then hung up while still alive and kicking (just this month, peta got some tape of steers staggering around and bellowing in pain after their throats were cut, not that i like peta but it's hard to fault video evidence), nevermind the screaming of the cows in line waiting to die? and, what about lobsters, refrigerated or boiled to death, or sometimes cut up while still alive, for a nice, high-class meal?

is art too high class to involve death? and, is it only bad if the corpse is actually in the piece of art? or should we discount all the depictions of death? that last question jumped into the realm of silliness for most of you, i'm sure. but, seriously, is that any different than any of the rest of it. isn't the whole thing silly? we kill animals every day. sometimes we kill them just cause they were wandering around the city unattended and no one bothered to come take them from the pound. "the humane society" euthanizes animals all the time. and, whether we like to think we mind, we obviously don't or we'd do something about it, wouldn't we?

and, surely the answer to people's hypocrisy about killing animals shouldn't be answered by killing a few more and photographing their heads on scultpures, right? isn't that just another layer of hypocrisy? i mean, you sink to the level of those you're protesting, you're as bad as them, right? except, if you kill people to stop them from killing other people, you're a hero, you get reelected. shouldn't edenmont be revered for standing up and killing animals for the sake of not killing animals? aren't those particular animals martyrs to the cause?

next time you're eating a good steak or hamburger, imagine mr cow, his throat gushing blood, bellowing in pain, trying desperately to stay standing, to stay alive, even as the life drains out of him. next time you eat chicken, picture mrs chicken hung upsidedown by her feet, her wings flapping desperately, as if she could fly under regular circumstances, let alone when she's about to be killed and her feet are stuck in those little clamps. next time you eat fish, imagine that hook piercing the fish's lip, the fishing line dragging it up out of its watery home. now, think of the dogs and cats put down every day for the sake of not having to deal with stray animals about your hometown. think of your leather shoes, that leather miniskirt or leather jacket you wear cause it makes you look hot, art to make your ass look good... but at least it doesn't involve a scuplture

or is the problem here that she's making people look at the dead animal, at the face of it (and, i'll contend here, that the art would work better if she preserved them and used the resulting sculpture as the piece rather than the photo). i'm sure she doesn't want us all to join the "can't eat anything that had a face" camp, but you gotta wonder, is it the rabbit's little eyes, the cat's vacant stare, that's getting to us? if she used a cow's head, what would the reaction be? if she mounted a deer head on a block of wood... oh wait, folks do that all the time, and it's called a trophy

personally, i think the finger puppet mice and the real rabbit head on the plush toy rabbit body and the mouse head on the silly little angel figuring are kinda cool looking. but, maybe that's just me. maybe i'm as much a psychopath as people are making edenmont out to be, nevermind the sociopaths and future serial killers torture animals; they don't euthanize them humanely. and, for the record to the nonartists out there, she's got to care for the animals to use them as materiel in her art. you don't produce art in support of things you hate and you don't use materials you don't like. if you have an abhorrence to paint, you don't paint. if you don't like animals, you don't take the time to acquire them and kill them nicely and use them in your art. she's not a hater of animals kicking a puppy or tying a bunch of cats in a bag and tossing them in a river, or some heartless child trying to make a rat king by tying some tails together. she's an artist, clearly of some intelligence and with a point to make

is her point that we shouldn't kill animals? is her point that killing animals is perfectly fine and there's no difference between doing so for art and doing so for food or clothing? what if it's both? contradictory? maybe. hypocritical? maybe. but, not to be childish, but, "made ya look" didn't it?

* since i'm mentioning the hearsay**, i should also mention a report that she beats the animals to death with a stick. of course, that one sounds unlikely. how would she be sure to have a usable body if she inflicts such physical damage on it?

** looked again, after writing on and found a link that mentions that the animals were intended to be eaten by snakes here. "The animals that were used for the installations were bred to be snakefood, or simply "put away" as they were not wanted anymore by the petowners."