art?

graham enzk · 26th October 2004, 03:11 PM

taken from another forum:

There's an artist, Nathalia Edenmont, who kills cats, mice, doves, RABBITS, and other animals, mutilates their bodies, and then takes their photographs. She's on exhibit, among other places, at the Wetterling Gallery in Sweden. She has taken the top halves of five white mice and made them into finger puppets. She beat a cat to death with a stick. And this is called art. This is not only inhumane, but morally reprehensible.

Link to samples of the exhibit (warning! offensive content): http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/arc...halia_main.htm
The Wetterling Gallery's Justification of her work: http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/new...newsletter.htm

*****Link to the petition against her: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/853089392

All_in_black · 26th October 2004, 03:15 PM

How do you know she beat a cat to death? It says she killed them as humanely as possible.

Also:

"If Nathalia's pictures had been repugnant, it would have been easy to reject them. But now they are so beautiful - and the insight into the reality behind them gives rise to thoughts about people's shallowness and double standards. Many of us eat meat, wear leather or use make-up that has been tested on animals, without this arousing especially strong reactions. But when a picture shows a dead rabbit, all hell breaks loose."

that kinda makes sense.

graham enzk · 26th October 2004, 03:26 PM

i personally don't know. it was taken from the dead and gone forum and there was someone on there that went to college with her and said she was a bit strange.
i just think mutilating and killing animals in the name of art is sick and wrong it's not like she uses animals that are dead that she's found like roadkill but she actually kills them herself for the purpose of taking photographs. sounds a bit warped to me. she also does photos in morgues etc of slashed up hookers and drug adicts. maybe she'll kill a human someday for her art, who knows?

All_in_black · 26th October 2004, 03:28 PM

Yeah, we'll eat meat and wear leather to give ourselves short term pleasure, but its totally wrong to show dead animals so that atrsy-fartsy folk can smile and analyse.

Rebelius · 26th October 2004, 03:44 PM

personally, I find these:

far more impressive and arty than this:

also, If i squashed 1000 flies and made a pretty picture out of them and took a photo, nobody would care at all.

graham enzk · 26th October 2004, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_in_black

Yeah, we'll eat meat and wear leather to give ourselves short term pleasure, but its totally wrong to show dead animals so that atrsy-fartsy folk can smile and analyse.

indeed, but i don't eat meat or wear leather and as for giving myself short term pleasure that's between me and my right hand thank you very much

gabrillowise · 26th October 2004, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_in_black

Yeah, we'll eat meat and wear leather to give ourselves short term pleasure, but its totally wrong to show dead animals so that atrsy-fartsy folk can smile and analyse.

We kill animals and eat them because they give us essential nutrients.

We kill animals and wear them because they keep us warm.

We kill animals and take pictures because...

Uhm...

Loosea · 26th October 2004, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_in_black

It says she killed them as humanely as possible.

thats still sick, and wrong!

Loosea · 26th October 2004, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabrillowise

We kill animals and eat them because they give us essential nutrients.

We kill animals and wear them because they keep us warm.

We kill animals and take pictures because...

Uhm...

I tried to give you rep for this post, but i couldn't. But well said!

earmuffin · 26th October 2004, 04:31 PM

I'm not shocked, or offended, but i am a trifle saddened.

in fact, i think the concept of these (ahem) 'artworks' is interesting, but really, is it worth killing any creature for photography?
what people are saying here about eating meat and wearing leather, i can agree with; it's the testing of COSMETICS on animals that i have some issues with, for much the same reasons as i don't like the work of nathalia edenmont... in essence, it's pain on the part of an innocent being for human gratification.

Rebelius · 26th October 2004, 04:48 PM

i bet if you were diabetic you would take some insulin.

earmuffin · 26th October 2004, 04:53 PM

so do i. wow, it's like we're thought-buddies.

gabrillowise · 26th October 2004, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebelius

i bet if you were diabetic you would take some insulin.

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabrillowise

We kill animals and eat them because they give us essential nutrients.

We kill animals and wear them because they keep us warm.

We kill animals and take pictures because...

Uhm...

26th October 2004, 03:11 PM	#1 (permalink)
graham enzk Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: back in the day Posts: 2,778 Band: condition21, ultramegaholocausticwhi rlwindzombiedeathsquad , utter fucking hate, distorted noise, tin pot hippies, spiteful	art? taken from another forum: There's an artist, Nathalia Edenmont, who kills cats, mice, doves, RABBITS, and other animals, mutilates their bodies, and then takes their photographs. She's on exhibit, among other places, at the Wetterling Gallery in Sweden. She has taken the top halves of five white mice and made them into finger puppets. She beat a cat to death with a stick. And this is called art. This is not only inhumane, but morally reprehensible. Link to samples of the exhibit (warning! offensive content): http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/arc...halia_main.htm The Wetterling Gallery's Justification of her work: http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/new...newsletter.htm *****Link to the petition against her: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/853089392

26th October 2004, 03:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
All_in_black Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Kirriemuir Posts: 1,873	How do you know she beat a cat to death? It says she killed them as humanely as possible. Also: "If Nathalia's pictures had been repugnant, it would have been easy to reject them. But now they are so beautiful - and the insight into the reality behind them gives rise to thoughts about people's shallowness and double standards. Many of us eat meat, wear leather or use make-up that has been tested on animals, without this arousing especially strong reactions. But when a picture shows a dead rabbit, all hell breaks loose." that kinda makes sense. Last edited by All_in_black : 26th October 2004 at 03:18 PM.

26th October 2004, 03:26 PM	#3 (permalink)
graham enzk Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: back in the day Posts: 2,778 Band: condition21, ultramegaholocausticwhi rlwindzombiedeathsquad , utter fucking hate, distorted noise, tin pot hippies, spiteful	i personally don't know. it was taken from the dead and gone forum and there was someone on there that went to college with her and said she was a bit strange. i just think mutilating and killing animals in the name of art is sick and wrong it's not like she uses animals that are dead that she's found like roadkill but she actually kills them herself for the purpose of taking photographs. sounds a bit warped to me. she also does photos in morgues etc of slashed up hookers and drug adicts. maybe she'll kill a human someday for her art, who knows?

26th October 2004, 03:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
All_in_black Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Kirriemuir Posts: 1,873	Yeah, we'll eat meat and wear leather to give ourselves short term pleasure, but its totally wrong to show dead animals so that atrsy-fartsy folk can smile and analyse.

26th October 2004, 03:44 PM	#5 (permalink)
Rebelius Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 7,220	personally, I find these: far more impressive and arty than this: also, If i squashed 1000 flies and made a pretty picture out of them and took a photo, nobody would care at all.

26th October 2004, 04:31 PM	#10 (permalink)
earmuffin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: I'm there. Posts: 1,657	I'm not shocked, or offended, but i am a trifle saddened. in fact, i think the concept of these (ahem) 'artworks' is interesting, but really, is it worth killing any creature for photography? what people are saying here about eating meat and wearing leather, i can agree with; it's the testing of COSMETICS on animals that i have some issues with, for much the same reasons as i don't like the work of nathalia edenmont... in essence, it's pain on the part of an innocent being for human gratification.

26th October 2004, 04:48 PM	#11 (permalink)
Rebelius Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 7,220	i bet if you were diabetic you would take some insulin.

26th October 2004, 04:53 PM	#12 (permalink)
earmuffin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: I'm there. Posts: 1,657	so do i. wow, it's like we're thought-buddies.