Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Citing Threats, Guggenheim Pulls 3 Works Involving Animals From Exhibition
The Two-Way : NPR: The Guggenheim Museum in New York has announced it is pulling three works from an upcoming exhibit of contemporary Chinese art owing to "explicit and repeated threats of violence."
Although, I completely understand why PETA and other animal rights activist would condemn these pieces of art, but I have to disagree with the Guggenheim condemning these videos due to the simple fact that its art. All of these videos were taken in different parts of the world where cultural norms and standards vary greatly than what we have here in the United States. It's important to acknowledge that these things exist, not to censor artwork. In my opinion, these videos allow me to feel disgusted with what I was seeing, but that is exactly why I think its meant to be art, its not all just pleasure. Just because the Guggenheim displays the art, it doesn't mean they agree with it. By keeping the work, we are able to talk about these issues of cruelty around the world rather than act like it doesn't exist.
I disagree with what Shahzad said, while perhaps the Guggenheim isn’t saying they agree with the art, they would be supporting it by deciding to display it. Also, I don’t think animal cruelty should get a free pass in the name of art. The problem isn’t the fact that they create a disgusted reaction and that art should be pleasant. The problem is that sentient being were intentionally harmed for no real purpose. And while different cultures have different standards of morality, I still agree with the petitions, abusing animals to make an artistic statement is wrong from my perspective. And that isn’t to say the United States isn’t cruel to animals, we are, most notably in the milk, egg, and meat industries. That being said, this art piece, along with whatever messages it intends to send, promotes the idea that it is okay for humans to use animals for their own purposes without regard for the animals well being. That being said, I don’t think people should be making threats against the Guggenheim, and I wish the Guggenheim’s decision had been to them understanding the reason for the petitions and ultimately deciding the points made by the petitions were valid.
While I agree with Shahzad that we shouldn’t just take down instances of animal cruelty and pretend they don’t exist, I don’t think we should be putting these up in a museum under the observed idea that they are art. There are places to show what kind of animal abuse is happening around the world (and here in the US), but it’s not a museum. We shouldn’t be using animals simply for entertainment as all these pieces are doing, or watching others use animals for entertainment as the one piece with the dogs is doing. It’s an abuse of the animal’s inherent dignity. I don’t necessarily agree with what PETA is saying about how emotional complex and highly intelligent dogs are. Sure, they are smart and you can train them, but in the end they are driven by their instincts, not reason, as humans are. And it is our duty not to abuse those instincts and use them for our own purposes and entertainment.
Placing living animals in stressful or painful situations for the creation of art is ethically wrong (no matter where you are - this is not a morally relative question) and it’s right for people to protest the inclusion, and therefore legitimization, of exploitive art. But we have to make sure we are drawing a clear line: the art is being protested because it is exploitive of animals who cannot consent and NOT because it is difficult to watch. Protesting art because it's painful, uncomfortable, or difficult for the viewer is not a valid reason on its own. Pursuing that line of thinking is a slippery slope toward censorship.
Having said that, threatening violence is an unacceptable form of protest, no matter how effective. Though we may agree with the end result, those threats should be condemned as loudly as if the violence was being perpetrated by an opposing viewpoint. When a threat of violence “wins,” it cements its effectiveness and only makes the idea more acceptable for everyone, including the people who will use it for real.
An additional note: PETA, though I agree with the spirit of their mission, undercuts their credibility by using scientifically incorrect information: dogs, while very emotionally complex, do not experience every emotion we do, and lizards and insects certainly don’t. There are so many ways to make this argument without exaggeration.
I have to say I’m a little disappointed that some of these works were pulled, especially since the Guggenheim was not even setting up the Dogs Cannot Touch Each Other in full fruition, but just playing a video recording of the 2003 installation in Beijing. I’m not entirely sure how I feel about the lizards’ piece as the article does not go into much depth as to the comfort of the animals, but honestly it sounds like the reptile house at the zoo or the big ocean tank at the aquarium: sometimes animals eat each other even when held in captivity and properly fed. Again, the Case Study of Transference is just another video of a previous exhibition, albeit sounds pretty explicit, but as the Guggenheim stated: "We recognize that the work may be upsetting. The curators of the exhibition hope that viewers will consider why the artists produced it and what they may be saying about the social conditions of globalization and the complex nature of the world we share." Showing that they are not showing the work because they believe in it, but rather that the exhibition’s juxtaposition in the grand scheme of life and politics and arts is just as important to study as tragic historical events even though they are just as upsetting.
Art is supposed to elicit emotion. A viewer, staring at a painting, sculpture, or drawing is supposed to feel something about that piece. It may connect them to a deeper state of being or it may cause chaos and confusion in their mind. A video taken over ten years ago in a place where the culture is much different from our own should be the subject of study not of protest. Once again PETA is sticking its nose in where it doesn’t belong. Threatening the staff or the museum by PETA supporters should be treated as a criminal offense. How can you protest animal cruelty while advocating violence against humans? These are videos. In terms of a live exhibit, I wonder how many of the signers of this petition take their family to Zoos or Aquariums? An animals nature, much like our own as humans, is survival. We eat to survive and so do animals. We can never learn if we can never watch or examine. And as to the emotional state of the animals on a video? Unless PETA has discovered time travel and learned how to communicate with the millions of species that exist on this floating orb of gas and rock, I don’t think they have the standing to talk about the emotional state of the animal. What’s next, going to the Serengeti to tell a lion that it can’t eat that zebra because the zebra has feelings too?
I feel... uncomfortable after reading this. I love the Guggenheim but their decision to bring some of this in is unnerving. Animals are subjected to cruel every day. But to force it in a museum, for he sake of art? Every person who sees that is being cruel and most aren't even intending it. I would never pay money to see something like that. Those dogs were probably scared and angry and to make a video so you can get a profit off of it? How low can your morals be? I want to say i understand that the artist was trying to point out he cruelty, but even that doesn't make sense. They were doing the same thing themselves. What a horrible way to make yourself famous. Do I think Peta knows what they are talking about here either? No. Thousands of animals have been videotaped when they were upset. Are they going to boycott every single one? Thousands of animals are on display in cages. I don see them picketing outside every zoo, aquarium, and animal rescue. Just seems like a bad situation all around.
7 comments:
Although, I completely understand why PETA and other animal rights activist would condemn these pieces of art, but I have to disagree with the Guggenheim condemning these videos due to the simple fact that its art. All of these videos were taken in different parts of the world where cultural norms and standards vary greatly than what we have here in the United States. It's important to acknowledge that these things exist, not to censor artwork. In my opinion, these videos allow me to feel disgusted with what I was seeing, but that is exactly why I think its meant to be art, its not all just pleasure. Just because the Guggenheim displays the art, it doesn't mean they agree with it. By keeping the work, we are able to talk about these issues of cruelty around the world rather than act like it doesn't exist.
I disagree with what Shahzad said, while perhaps the Guggenheim isn’t saying they agree with the art, they would be supporting it by deciding to display it. Also, I don’t think animal cruelty should get a free pass in the name of art. The problem isn’t the fact that they create a disgusted reaction and that art should be pleasant. The problem is that sentient being were intentionally harmed for no real purpose. And while different cultures have different standards of morality, I still agree with the petitions, abusing animals to make an artistic statement is wrong from my perspective. And that isn’t to say the United States isn’t cruel to animals, we are, most notably in the milk, egg, and meat industries. That being said, this art piece, along with whatever messages it intends to send, promotes the idea that it is okay for humans to use animals for their own purposes without regard for the animals well being. That being said, I don’t think people should be making threats against the Guggenheim, and I wish the Guggenheim’s decision had been to them understanding the reason for the petitions and ultimately deciding the points made by the petitions were valid.
While I agree with Shahzad that we shouldn’t just take down instances of animal cruelty and pretend they don’t exist, I don’t think we should be putting these up in a museum under the observed idea that they are art. There are places to show what kind of animal abuse is happening around the world (and here in the US), but it’s not a museum. We shouldn’t be using animals simply for entertainment as all these pieces are doing, or watching others use animals for entertainment as the one piece with the dogs is doing. It’s an abuse of the animal’s inherent dignity. I don’t necessarily agree with what PETA is saying about how emotional complex and highly intelligent dogs are. Sure, they are smart and you can train them, but in the end they are driven by their instincts, not reason, as humans are. And it is our duty not to abuse those instincts and use them for our own purposes and entertainment.
Placing living animals in stressful or painful situations for the creation of art is ethically wrong (no matter where you are - this is not a morally relative question) and it’s right for people to protest the inclusion, and therefore legitimization, of exploitive art. But we have to make sure we are drawing a clear line: the art is being protested because it is exploitive of animals who cannot consent and NOT because it is difficult to watch. Protesting art because it's painful, uncomfortable, or difficult for the viewer is not a valid reason on its own. Pursuing that line of thinking is a slippery slope toward censorship.
Having said that, threatening violence is an unacceptable form of protest, no matter how effective. Though we may agree with the end result, those threats should be condemned as loudly as if the violence was being perpetrated by an opposing viewpoint. When a threat of violence “wins,” it cements its effectiveness and only makes the idea more acceptable for everyone, including the people who will use it for real.
An additional note: PETA, though I agree with the spirit of their mission, undercuts their credibility by using scientifically incorrect information: dogs, while very emotionally complex, do not experience every emotion we do, and lizards and insects certainly don’t. There are so many ways to make this argument without exaggeration.
I have to say I’m a little disappointed that some of these works were pulled, especially since the Guggenheim was not even setting up the Dogs Cannot Touch Each Other in full fruition, but just playing a video recording of the 2003 installation in Beijing. I’m not entirely sure how I feel about the lizards’ piece as the article does not go into much depth as to the comfort of the animals, but honestly it sounds like the reptile house at the zoo or the big ocean tank at the aquarium: sometimes animals eat each other even when held in captivity and properly fed. Again, the Case Study of Transference is just another video of a previous exhibition, albeit sounds pretty explicit, but as the Guggenheim stated: "We recognize that the work may be upsetting. The curators of the exhibition hope that viewers will consider why the artists produced it and what they may be saying about the social conditions of globalization and the complex nature of the world we share." Showing that they are not showing the work because they believe in it, but rather that the exhibition’s juxtaposition in the grand scheme of life and politics and arts is just as important to study as tragic historical events even though they are just as upsetting.
Art is supposed to elicit emotion. A viewer, staring at a painting, sculpture, or drawing is supposed to feel something about that piece. It may connect them to a deeper state of being or it may cause chaos and confusion in their mind. A video taken over ten years ago in a place where the culture is much different from our own should be the subject of study not of protest. Once again PETA is sticking its nose in where it doesn’t belong. Threatening the staff or the museum by PETA supporters should be treated as a criminal offense. How can you protest animal cruelty while advocating violence against humans? These are videos. In terms of a live exhibit, I wonder how many of the signers of this petition take their family to Zoos or Aquariums? An animals nature, much like our own as humans, is survival. We eat to survive and so do animals. We can never learn if we can never watch or examine. And as to the emotional state of the animals on a video? Unless PETA has discovered time travel and learned how to communicate with the millions of species that exist on this floating orb of gas and rock, I don’t think they have the standing to talk about the emotional state of the animal. What’s next, going to the Serengeti to tell a lion that it can’t eat that zebra because the zebra has feelings too?
I feel... uncomfortable after reading this. I love the Guggenheim but their decision to bring some of this in is unnerving. Animals are subjected to cruel every day. But to force it in a museum, for he sake of art? Every person who sees that is being cruel and most aren't even intending it. I would never pay money to see something like that. Those dogs were probably scared and angry and to make a video so you can get a profit off of it? How low can your morals be? I want to say i understand that the artist was trying to point out he cruelty, but even that doesn't make sense. They were doing the same thing themselves. What a horrible way to make yourself famous. Do I think Peta knows what they are talking about here either? No. Thousands of animals have been videotaped when they were upset. Are they going to boycott every single one? Thousands of animals are on display in cages. I don see them picketing outside every zoo, aquarium, and animal rescue. Just seems like a bad situation all around.
Post a Comment