Artist Animal: The Ethical Implications of Making Art with Animals By Katie Edwards (05/16/13 16:20:10)
In Steve Baker's “Artist | Animal” excerpt, the issue of artists putting their aesthetic or creative endeavors before the humane treatment of animals is discussed through analysis of various artworks/performances and critic responses to such works. Baker attempts to discuss these works in a manner which does not belittle the artist or compromise the validity of their work while simultaneously expressing concern for the wellbeing of the animals involved. He claims one must “engage” with a work before entirely dismissing it, even if it initially appears cruel or unethical. Rather than assume that all artists are incapable of creating respectful art with animals, Baker suggests we should trust them until given reason to believe they are unworthy of such responsibility.
Baker cites Randy Malamud in his discussion of animal harm via art, stating Malamud refuses to look at the artwork itself and instead focus solely on the question of ethics. Like other critics, Malamud is skeptical of artists and does not trust them to treat animals humanely in their works. Baker encourages people to consider both the moral implications of the work as well as the pieces as serious artistic practices.
Kim Jones' Rat Piece and Marco Evaristii's Helena are examples of works which Baker attempts to explore in terms of the value of human and animal life. While he does not outright condemn Jones for burning three innocent rats and having inconsistent statements about why he would do such a thing in later interviews, Baker clearly does not encourage such practices. He recognizes that Jones intended for the piece to be metaphorical of his personal experiences in Vietnam, yet has difficulty defining whether or not it was too sensational to be artwork. Similarly in his analysis of Helena, Baker tries to understand the value of an animal life in the hands of a human audience. Evaristii claims he simply gave people the option of turning the blenders on and therefore killing the goldfish, but that he did not force them to do so. This issue of audience participation or intervention is intriguing to me—the way people act in a group setting or while watching an art performance is often different than they would act on their own or in a typical setting. However, Baker argues that both pieces lack an interest in nonhuman life, and that the works did not alleviate the conditions of the animals but rather use them as a way to convey strictly human death/emotion.
I think artists should have ethical responsibilities while working with animals, just as everyone should have a certain level of respect for animals in their every day lives. I do not think it is acceptable to endanger the life of an animal or treat it as a material for the sake of creating an art piece. I struggle to think of any aesthetic purpose that would be powerful enough or convince me to mistreat a nonhuman creature. Artists have an obligation to create things which will inspire others or serve some emotional purpose to them or their viewer, not to create sensational performances which draw audiences in to view horrific events disguised as “works of art”. I understand that artists should have a certain degree of freedom to express themselves, but I draw the line at abusing other species for such a purpose. [Write Comment]