Animals in Art By Montana McLeod (05/28/14 21:30:21)
Steven Baker expressed that artist and viewers hold various views of utilizing animals in art alike, however, he reinstates that it is important to place trust in the artist and their intentions. Baker argues that artist treat animals as creatures in a part of the “more-than-human world” that coincide with the human world. In essence, the animals are reflective of a world that we are not a part of or necessarily understand. Nonetheless, we feel entitled to a representation of their world.
Baker makes the case that for the art to be valued and the efforts made against the animals justifiable, the public must take the art seriously before questioning the ethics in their intentions. If the art can reflect a moral lesson and impact its viewers, who is to say that it is morally wrong if the intended purpose is to teach a lesson?
Baker criticizes the Rat Piece for its immediate and direct experience as Jones felt it was absolutely necessary to involve living animals and their transition through death. His reflection on the inconsistency in Jone’s performance demonstrates the change in perception over time. Baker, however, states that some inconsistency is better for the development of the art piece.
Baker critiques that Helena attempts to justify its methods as a medium for social change, but it is not necessarily representative of honest intensions. Baker argues that morality just consists of norms, to which we are expected to submit to, which is essentially what the artists are testing in the applications of these methods. In some ways I feel like Baker does not defend the Rat Piece or Helena, but is defending the presumptions made regarding the artists. He understands that the artist have created these pieces in order to facilitate a reaction regarding the ethics in utilizing animals. He argues that it is best to trust the artist and their intentions as their actions may be harmful and detrimental, but they are not done in vain. They are done to teach a lesson and instigate a change in the way we perceive morals.
I, however, think that an artistic representation of a moral value should not be done counteractively. With that being said, I feel like demonstrating the adverse effects of human power over animals should not be recreated by doing such horrible atrocities they advocate against. You are essentially fighting fire with fire, and create this paradox about moral integrity once you have subjected yourself to the very acts that do harm against animals. The ethical responsibility of artist is to take into account that the animal is a living organism, just like any other human, and their rights cannot be disregarded. And by rights, I mean the right to not be mistreated and the right to be respected as an individual of a living species who is capable of feeling pain and remorse.
Snaebjornsdotter says that animal rights within the artistic hemisphere cannot be deliberated against without taking into account the actions of utilizing animals for scientific research. This is truly an excellent point that I am guilty of not fully acknowledging before taking this class. To break it down simply, animals are used in science to gain knowledge about research for the benefit of the human race. However, animals in art can facilitate a deeper understanding of a value or of a problem that is intended to benefit the human race. Yes, animals in science seems more acceptable than in art due to the plethora of research papers validating how the study of animal behaviors reflect scientific research. Nonetheless, that in no way should trivialize the experience one can receive from an art exhibit regarding the problems with anthropogenic factors affecting animals and their inherent rights. The more important question is whether or not it is even right to utilize animals for the better understanding of human life? What great power, other than human intelligence, entitles us to “use” another living organism to our benefit?
But we do live in a world where animals are necessary for survival and a natural part of the food chain. I do believe that it is ethical to use animals for food as we need the nutrients we receive from the animals to live a healthy lifestyle. Yes there are ways to work around it to receive said nutrients, however, in almost all primitive lifestyles animals hunt animals as a natural part of the predator-prey relationship. Still, you do not typically see predators using their prey in the natural environment to gain further knowledge about their own species. This, conversely, all goes back to what one considers natural.
The Bees making Art article brings to light how the current diminishing ecological state of bees has actually uprooted a bee culture within the art community and how interspecies collaborations have made bees aesthetically and culturally valuable. They question how art in previous centuries have shaped the representation of honeybees in the 21st century. Unlike baker’s text, this text references how art can be created by the species on its own. The bees are working with humans as oppose to humans controlling the fate of these animals, such as in Baker’s text. The animals can give their own response and leave evidence of their own artistic work. It represents the individual species, not just the species as a collective representation of all animals.
[Write Comment]