Museum pulls controversial animal art due to threats

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

eye.. of.. the.. beholder

Yep. And some see it as abuse. If that's the intent of the artist then so be it. I'm sure he expected the hatred against him.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

In my mind being an artist requires first being talented and showing that talent via their art. In cases like this no talent is needed, just a desire to shock people and try and pass that off as the work of an artist. Just calling themselves artists does not make it so.

Putting dogs on treadmills or showcasing pigs having sex is hardly something that requires actual talent in that it's something not everyone could do. To put that in such an incredible building, designed by a real artist is a slap in the face to genuinely talented people.

I cringe when I think something like this shares space with the work of real artists.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Sadly, that's most of modern art though.

a reply to: ketsuko

It has an audience, but I don't think they are really art patrons. The incredible amounts of money people have lost investing in the latest fads in art should speak volumes as to it's real value as art. Real artists struggle to be seen, while these so-called artists rely on shock and no talent.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Real artists struggle to be seen, while these so-called artists rely on shock and no talent.

Like Kathy Griffin?

a reply to: Blaine91555

I agree for the most part. I think beyond having just talent, the artist themselves plays a pretty significant role too. There was this artist (I forget his name), but he pretty much splattered white paint on a white canvas and it was regarded as one of his greatest pieces ever, because of who he was and his interpretation of it.

Having said that, I know nothing about the artist that did this show, so I can't really speak on his behalf. Is it art? Debatable sure, but the fact he made it into this building i think says something. I don't think they would just give anyone a space to exhibit dogs on chains, for nothing more than a visceral reaction.

But who knows.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

I see it as marketing a curiosity and not showcasing art. It's akin to the mermaids created from monkeys joined to a fish in carnival side shows. People go to see it because its controversial or unusual, not because it's something noteworthy.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Can't really disagree with you there. I think at the end of the day, it's ultimately up to the eye of the beholder.

That's art for you.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Another example of Libtards,can't leave well enough alone,they have nothing going for them,so thet try tro pull others down with them,these people are scum

That is not art.
That is animal abuse.

a reply to: skunkape23

What about Hamster wheels then, would that not also be a form of animal abuse?

Not that a particularly agree with the artistic temperament displayed but freedom of expression is rather synonymous with freedom of speech, start arsing around with one and it with inevitably influence the other in a derogatory manner.

It's also plainly stated that no animals were hurt or injured so i cant really see the problem other than the material just not being in line with the average person cup a tea(myself included).

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: skunkape23

What about Hamster wheels then, would that not also be a form of animal abuse?

Not that a particularly agree with the artistic temperament displayed but freedom of expression is rather synonymous with freedom of speech, start arsing around with one and it with inevitably influence the other in a derogatory manner.

It's also plainly stated that no animals were hurt or injured so i cant really see the problem other than the material just not being in line with the average person cup a tea(myself included).

Hamsters don't become trained to attack by running on their cute little wheels.
If you turned off the treadmills and unleashed those dogs, it's pretty much a guarantee they are going to go at it.

a reply to: skunkape23

Just putting another Hamster in the cage can pretty much be enough to get them to go at it treadmill or otherwise, it's a territorial matter to the little fellows.

I get the premise of your argument through but artistic temperament is what it is am afraid, just look at some of Turner Prize winners and nominees?

I mean if an unmade bed with accompanying prophylactics and other daft paraphernalia lying around can be considered to be art then so can this im afraid.

People are rather mental, especially where artistic temperament and interpretation are concerned.

a reply to: andy06shake

Freedom of expression is certainly important, but museums and galleries do themselves harm when they don't use discretion when picking out what they present to the public.

The title of "art" should have some parameters. For instance the end product should require some talent to produce. "Artist" should not be a term applied to people with no real talent, who seek only to shock. Wanting to be an artist or calling themselves artists does not make them artists. I think too often it's just people wanting attention who fancy themselves artists, but if you give them a pencil, they would struggle to draw a convincing stick man.

While garbage pollutes parts of some of the best museums and galleries, truly talented artists are often ignored. "That's just stupid" is not the sort of response a work of art should invoke.

I remember once at a Fair I walked through, as I looked through the building that housed the works of people competing for ribbons with their paintings seeing just how bad it can be. The three top winners were all poor attempts at a painting of a cat, while a painting that immediately drew people too it, that took your breath away, was placed on the bottom row on a wall ignored. The amazing artist was 14 years old and completely ignored by the non-artist judges who gave ribbons to their friends. I can't help but wonder at what sort of people make the decisions at museums. Are their decisions more political, or do they truly want to display real art.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Yes some art is rather deplorable and nonsensical at the best of times, it's kind of what they are going for i imagine, a certain type of statement and all that jazz.

End of the day peoples tastes are obviously going to vary greatly where artistic appreciation is at play.

Suppose it worth considering that garbage is indeed considered art these days, is it sad, is it cool? I don't think so but some people obviously do and where art is concerned any type of PR is generally good PR, sometimes the more controversial the better.

Was hoping this would happen.

The museum's mission is that of a curatorial laboratory and dynamic platform for 21st century audiences worldwide, so what may offend Western sensibilities would perhaps not have non-Western audiences bat an eye. However, the museum certainly has learned the hard way that this type of performance, which was one of three experimental Chinese art pieces/performances to show the violence of humanity, is not welcome in New York via the 500,000 signatures and violent threats, which, by the way, should be investigated by police authorities because the signatures would have done the trick.

Strange: exhibit showing the violence of humanity, met with threats of violence from humanity.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Grim, sure. But art is in the eye of the beholder. We don't know the intentions of the artist.
Sometimes the most disturbing things leave the most profound impressions. Maybe that's what the artist wanted.

But...sometimes it's just crap, too. I had a noted sculptor admit to me once that "Art is whatever you can get away with." I would go so far to suggest that perhaps the goal of the doggie performance piece was to see culture vultures tying themselves up in knots trying to legitimise a con. Anyway, I think the Guggenheim messed up in accepting it in the first place.
Who am I to say? Well, I don't know much about Art...but I know it when I see it, eh?

Making dogs mean is not "Art."
Crapping in a can and selling it for $1000. You can call that art if you want.
I correct a dog if it shows aggression against it's pack.

Even if art is all in the eye of the beholder, just because someone calls something art does not make it acceptable.