Baker response By Marissa Gravett (05/07/13 19:45:06)
1. What does Steve Baker think of Randy Malamud and others who criticize artists working with animals of being non-ethical?
Baker believes that all pieces involving animals should not be criticized in one category. They should instead be looked at and criticized as individual pieces. There are different extremes to art dealing with animals and some may be more non-ethical than others.
2. According to Baker, what is the issue with looking at the ethical issues of an artwork before making a proper reading of it?
In the case of Rat Piece, the artist had an underlying meaning of dealing with the issues of US soldier deaths. Unfortunately, the actual performance is such a shocking sight to see, that most of the audience would focus only on the non-ethical issue of the piece and would totally overlook the actual meaning of the piece. Baker argues that the audience needs to understand that the artist had a deeper meaning than just burning rats for pleasure. The audience’s first reaction is disgust and they fail to see the artist’s true intentions.
3. What is some of Baker's criticism of the Rat Piece and Helena?
Baker believes that Rat Piece is a very alarming piece. It evokes reactions out of people that other art pieces do not. Even so, he still considers both of these pieces to be art simply because the artists believes that they are art.
4. Is Baker defending the Rat Piece and Helena? How/Why?
Yes, he is defending these pieces because he says that people are too quick to judge the ethics, but he sees the pieces for their true meanings and for the power that they have on the audience.
5. According to Baker, can we trust artist to work with/use animals?
Yes, we have to be able to trust them. Most artists obey the unspoken respect for animals. There are only a few that do not. If we did not trust them, we would not be able to open our minds to the ideas that they are trying to convey by using animals.
6. Do you think artist have ethical responsibilities? Why/why not? What are those ethical responsibilities in regards to working with animals?
I believe that artists should have ethical responsibilities. I understand that the point of art is to make people feel something, but I also think that there are ways to convey these powerful ideas in a way that doesn’t involve brutally torturing animals. I believe that artists need to have respect for their audience and respect for their materials (the animals). People are more drawn to art when it follows morals. It would be very difficult to put these responsibilities on artists who tend to break the rules to make their art unique.
7. What does Bryndis Snaebjornsdotter mean when she says it is impossible to ask if it is ethical to use animals in art without also asking if it is ethical to use them in science and for food? Do you agree/disagree?
This is a very difficult question for me to answer. As a meat eater, and a believer of using animals in scientific research, I still believe that harming animals for art is not necessary. Where as animal research and animals as food benefit us in a way that advances our scientific world and nourishes our body, killing animals in art is not the same. Although it does expand the mind of the individual as they reflect on the piece, it is not necessarily a positive benefit to society. I believe that the uses for animals that she speaks of should not be held on the same level of ethics.
| Artist Animal (Book) |
[Write Comment]