VeggieBoards banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,873 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Quote:
A DANISH museum director has gone on trial on charges of cruelty to animals for an exhibit in which goldfish were liquidised in a blender to test visitors' sense of right and wrong.

The exhibit at the Trapholt modern art museum in 2000 featured live goldfish swimming in a blender. Visitors were given the possibility of pressing the button to turn the blender on.

Artist Marco Evaristti, the Chilean-born bad boy of the Danish art scene, said at the time that he wanted to force people to "do battle with their conscience".

Two goldfish died after two visitors pressed the button.

The Danish association Friends of Animals filed a complaint against the artist as well as the director of the museum, Peter Meyer, for cruelty to animals.

Police ordered Meyer to pay a 2000 kroner ($481) fine for failing to respect an injunction to cut the blenders' electricity so that visitors would not be tempted to kill the goldfish.

But the director refused to pay the fine in the name of artistic freedom, leaving police no option but to take him to court.

"It's a question of principle. An artist has the right to create works which defy our concept of what is right and what is wrong," Meyer told the court today.

The artist meanwhile said the idea behind the exhibit was to "place people before a dilemma: to choose between life and death".

"It was a protest against what is going on in the world, against this cynicism, this brutality that impregnates the world in which we live."

The verdict is expected next week.

Other controversial exhibits by the provocateur include one last year in which he created 30 pieces of art using paint mixed with heroin. He wanted to promote the work by giving the drug away free to Danish addicts.

The 'smack art' exhibit was his way of "protesting personally against the idleness of politicians incapable of combating the problems caused by drugs in society", he said.

Earlier this year he had drug addicts create their own canvasses using paint mixed with HIV-contaminated blood, heroin and cocaine.
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.a...5E1702,00.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
As an artist , I think this guy is a fraud.

As a human being with a conscience, I think this guy is a piece of scum.

I have no interest in the modern "official" art world. It has more connection with the bizzare fashion world than with any spiritual world or aesthetic world which shows universal truths through design. Most of this is rubbish ... someone just trying to shock or do something different just for it's own sake.

Would you believe the Tate Gallery in London UK actually bought a canister of some artist's own feces that was canned in the 60's ... they paid something like 20000 British pounds for that. The can says "Merde d'artist.

I'm sick of how the so called "art" world has this type of nonsense in it and I'm especially angered when some moron thinks cutting up a couple live goldfish in a blender is anything but a disgrace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
Couldn't he make the same point by the button being hooked to a recording that said, "You are scum" instead of actually having the blender plugged in? What's his next exhibit, a dog (child, adult human, etc.) tied up and a baseball bat. So people have to "do battle with their conscience"? Um, anyone who has to "battle" in any of these scenarios has serious problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
i disagree with his actions, but as an artist i believe in his right to make this choice.

shoot me down! i'm waiting!

needless to say i think it is sick and twisted and not condonable by any stretch of the imagination...

but i do hold the right to free expression as very important, even in extreme circumstances... i just can't let that one go...

BUT HE IS DEFINITELY A WANKER! AS ARE THE DUDES THAT PRESSED THE BUTTON!

Actually, the statement would have been just as effective if the blender was disabled...

so ultimately trhe fishies didn't have to die...

so yes it sucks.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,034 Posts
Quote:
choose between life and death
The life and death of some innocent fish..... for most people it'd be "wow, what a choice".

A more interesting and applicable exhibit would be to have visitors volunteer to stand next to a large hanging sheet of paper with one side facing it, lift a revolver to their opposite temple, and pull the trigger.... then others could see what far-out patterns that person's blood, brain matter, shattered skull fragments and clumps of hair formed as the bullet liberally sprayed the contents of their cranium in a splattering random fashion over the paper.

(A certain scene set in a car in Pulp Fiction has suddenly come to mind.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
I find it hard to believe that this could be considered "art". I have to agree here with DK_Art that this "artist" is a fraud. Some of the nonsense that passes for art these days is pretty outrageous, as DK has already pointed out.

By some of today's standards, I could step on a TV remote and claim it as "art".... it is a depiction of man's battle with technology. Sell it thousands of dollars. Sounds ridiculous huh?

Hmmm, where's my remote....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,778 Posts
Holy Jupiter!

Anyway I think it again comes down to what or (if) rights animals have. Because it's an artist's right to have free expression and do his art, that's for sure - but only if what he does is not interfering with the rights of some other party. Obviously he did not think that the fish have the "right to live". Because what if an artist wants to do the same with human babies (or even puppies!). Clearly, he wouldn't be allowed to do so.

Speaking of which. When I lived in Austria, there was a huge controversy about a guy named Hermann Nietsch. This "action artist" had an "event" where he was 'symbolizing & investigating' the origins of religions, sacrifice and such stuff. Basically he slaughtered animals (cows and pigs) live, smeared everything full with blood, threw it into the audience, draw with it etc. During the whole time, he was filmed by several cameras - also part of the "work".

As far as I can remember there were protests of AR groups, but the main outcry was because he used christian symbols in his work.

(i was not veg*n back then so i was indifferent about the animals - but sure thought that he was nuts)

Anyway the government at the time was very liberal towards art and so he was allowed to do his show.

This is one of the few english links I could find:

http://galeria.origo.hu/nitsch/nitbeng.html
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,034 Posts
I recall a recent incident somewhere (either here in Australia or in the UK) of some "artist" who wanted to kick a can/tin down the street and actually received public (tax payer) funding. WTF is with that? Tax payers would save money by hiring hit men to rub out these "artists".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,778 Posts
I found a transcript of Nietsch's exhibition:

http://www.zhurnal.ru/staff/gorny/english/nitsch.htm

Here's a soundbite:

Quote:
(1) The camera transports us into one of the rooms of castle. Spectators stand around a long table covered by a white table-cloth. Gradual fusion of the strings and the wood-winds. Music turns to a cacophony involving rattles,wistles, drums, etc. The noise reaches its peak and suddenly breaks off.

(2) Silence. Three men in white approach slowly to the white canvas stretched on a frame. Above the canvas a slaughtered lamb is strung, fastened head down as if crusified. The man in the middle takes off his robe andstands close to the canvas, holding on the to carcasse with both his hands. Nitsch solemnely pours several mugs of blood on his back.

The man is redressed, his eyes bondaged, a cord attached to his arms. They lead him, hands aside, back to the audience. Music.

He stands as if crucified; Nitsch gives him blood todrink; blood is flowing on the actor's white robe.

(3) The naked man lays as if crucified. Viscera (or brains?) are put on his sex organ and doused with buckets of blood by Nitsch. The man is again given blood to drink. He kneads the mess on his own body for a long time with apparent enjoyment. Then he is taken away on the stretcher with a cacophonic noise followed by a charming violin piece.

Subsequent episodes vary the same pattern:

- position of 'crucified' actor: standing, sitting, laying, hanging upside down;

- acts upon him: he is given blood to drink, his faceand sex organ are drenched in blood, a few people kneads the entrails on his body;

- accessories: drained carcass upturned over his head into which the entrails and blood are poured so that they flow down on his face and chest.
How's that for artistic freedom?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,339 Posts
Okay, there are some sickos out there...

I love museums, but when I go to the modern art museums I usually only find 2 or 3 exhibits that I really like while the rest I just either go "huh?" or "I could do that" (unless it has a really spiffy title -- sometimes the titles are the only good things about modern art). I mean, I like Duchamp and Man Ray all right, but after them it seems like everything's kinda been done. There are a few things that are okay and a rare great piece.

But I've never been offended by anything artistic -- I mean, morally offended (my intelligence and my taste have been offended several times
) and goldfish in a plugged in blender?!?!? There's no reason for it to actually have been plugged in! The point would have been made. And did the people who pressed the button actually think it was plugged in? I've been to several "hands on" art exhibits where you can turn gears, open doors and drawers and such, but never anything like that.

Ugh. And up to this point the worst modern art story I'd heard was about a huge cube of wood (10' x 10') that was entirely painted black and titled "Black." It sold for 3 million dollars. Thppt. I missed my calling, apparently. I could've been rich making asinine objects and pretending to be a tortured soul...

Actually, I have a few ready-mades in my house complete with titles (this all done during my Duchamp phase) -- maybe I should put them on e-bay.


Mskedi
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,034 Posts
I'm gonna create an exhibit based on a Clive Barker novel. I'll masturbate and spill my seed onto my own feces and call the result Lix (from The Great and Secret Show).

How much could I make from that? Quite a bit, based on the amount many fnckheads out there will pay for such stupid sh!t.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael

I can prove the same point without killing anything...

If I told you that clicking this link would crash your browser* would you still click it?


* won't work on Opera
Um, I think I'll pass for now since I have spent the last 48 hours trying to get my computer stable. But it is very tempting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael

I can prove the same point without killing anything...

If I told you that clicking this link would crash your browser* would you still click it?


* won't work on Opera
Heheh, well... let's face it... it doesn't take much to crash Internet Explorer. Just starting it up can crash it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Goldfish Liquidized, Museum Director Acquitted

AFP

Safe from the Danish Art Scene

May 20, 2003 A museum director in Denmark was acquitted on Monday of charges of cruelty to animals for a controversial exhibit in which goldfish were liquidized in a blender to test visitors' sense of right and wrong.

The exhibit at the Trapholt modern art museum in 2000 featured live goldfish swimming in a blender. Visitors were given the possibility of pressing the button to transform the fish into a runny liquid.

Artist Marco Evaristti, the Chilean-born bad boy of the Danish art scene, said at the time that he wanted to force people to "do battle with their conscience."

Two goldfish died after visitors pressed the button, and the Danish association Friends Of Animals filed a complaint against the artist as well as the director of the museum, Peter S. Meyer, for cruelty to animals.

Only Meyer was taken to court over the affair, after he refused to pay a 2,000 kroner (about $315) fine for failing to respect an injunction to cut the blenders' electricity so that visitors would not be tempted to kill the goldfish.

But the director refused to pay the fine in the name of artistic freedom, leaving police no option but to haul him into court.

"It's a question of principle. An artist has the right to create works which defy our concept of what is right and what is wrong," he told the court in Kolding.

The court acquitted Meyer after a technician employed by the blender manufacturer and a veterinarian both testified that the fish did not experience any suffering due to the blenders' high speed, and said they were "killed painlessly."

The artist meanwhile said the idea behind the exhibit was to "place people before a dilemma: to choose between life and death."

"It was a protest against what is going on in the world, against this cynicism, this brutality that impregnates the world in which we live," he said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
Aquitted eh? ...... what garbage

"It was a protest against what is going on in the world, against this cynicism, this brutality that impregnates the world in which we live," he said.

-----------------------------

Yeah and this idiot is part of it ....... how is he any different. Artist? ... maybe of the "con" variety! I'm sick of this nonsense parading as some sortof deep psychological societal observation.

Rather than try to change things in a positive way, he follows the trend .... he creates more cynicism

Meanwhile this artist (ie, me) was at the park today where chick-a-dees landed on my hand and I gave them seeds. A squirrel came up and sat on my knee as I crouched down and I gave him seeds. Why doesn't this joker do something to spread some positive ideas in this world.

I don't think I even like the word "art" anymore as I don't want to be associated with this crap which is as devoid of imagination as it is full of brutality!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
Just another observation here. I agree that this is hardly art... but I have to wonder why only the "art" is being targetted and not the two people who actually pressed the button and blended the fish.

It seems to me that the person placing the fish in the blender did not cause the death of the fish. But rather, the people who turned ther blender on is who caused the death of the fish. I just wonder why there is no public outcry or moral outrage over the ones who turned the blender on, or is there?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Thalia, I liked your idea of what this 'so called' artist should've done.

I am all for freedom of art, etc. But it seems if this man did this to the judges dog or cat, somehow things would've turned out a little differently. Simply because the fish didn't feel pain, this was OK? So if this artist shot someone in the head and used their brains as art this would be okay since it didn't necessarily cause suffering on the victims part?

Give me a break
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top