Moral Cowardice WARNING: DEEPLY DISTURBING AND OFFENSIVE.

This story in Canada’s National Post describes the controversy at a Toronto art gallery over a particular piece of artwork, and the refusal of two of the gallery’s directors to condemn the piece.

What is it? Why, it’s the on-camera torture, by being skinned alive, of a housecat. A 17-minute tape, actually, in which the terrified animal is butchered while conscious. The artist, one Jesse Power, apparently made the tape to “comment on the death and suffering of animals used for meat.” He and two other men obtained, then killed, this helpless animal.

The two gallery directors, Mssrs. Brown and Borsin, have appeared at Power’s bail hearing. Which is fine, as far as it goes. But Brown also states in the article that “I don’t support the killing of animals for food or art, but whether it is art is not for us to answer.” (Mr. Browns notable contributions to the world of art include “ingesting primary-coloured foods and vomiting on two paintings he considered ‘banal’ – a seascape by Raoul Dufy at the Art Gallery of Ontario and a Mondrian at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.”)
He went on to say that “We’re against cruelty to animals, but these people want us to issue a statement that would define the limits of artistic freedom. It’s extortion.”

The chairman of the student union at the Ontario College of Art and Designm, which Powers attends and which funds the gallery, stated “The actions on the videotapes are abhorrent, immoral and illegal, but it is not our role to be arbiters of what is and what isn’t art.”

What a bunch of cowards–so afraid to violate the orthodoxy of the art world that they refuse to condemn this activity as beyond the pale. Heaven forbid anybody take a moral stand for anything, especially in the modern art community. Oh, they aren’t going to show the tape in the gallery–after all, it’s illegal. But they aren’t willing to go the next step and say it isn’t art, either.

Well, I’ll say it: Killing living beings is not art. It’s sick. A comment on the meat industry? Bullshit. It’s not that I can’t see the point behind it – that we as Westerners get inflamed over the killing of a housepet but not batting an eye over killing a cow. That’s a legitimate point to make, calling attention to cultural anomalies. But it can be made without torturing a defenseless animal to death on videotape. What makes it worse it that this animal’s life was wasted. Beyond the fact that it might have been somebody’s pet that got away, nobody ate this cat, nobody used it for fur, nobody did anything constructive with it. No, some too-hip artsy-fartsy schmuck tortured this poor animal for his own amusement, thereby completely wasting its life.

If killing is art, we can simply refer to Pol Pot as a performance artist. But he wasn’t. He was a butcher. And Power’s actions make him the moral equivalent of the meat producers upon which he claims to be commenting. In fact, they make him worse, because those people are at least providing wanted food. All this moron did was kill a cat. Any psychopath can do that.

Too bad his friends in the art community are too cowardly to tell him that.

That makes me sick. Absolutely disgusted. These fucking morons get so caught up in the sanctity of “art” that they won’t even condemn the torture of an animal? They should be thrown in jail along with that Powers fuck.

Nothing at all to add. A-freaking-men.

There’s more damage, too, albeit of a lesser import. You just know that at some point some self-appointed censor is going to point at these guys as typical defenders of art and try to draw the parallel so some real art that the censor opposes.

Sick.

Beyond the pale doesn’t begin to cover it, nor does disgusting. I understand your outrage, but all the same, I am sorry I read this post. I feel sick now.

There’s more than one way…
oh crap, even I can’t say it.
Interesting article. I’d like to hear Power’s rationalization of it from him rather than second hand sources.
As far as artistic freedom goes, there should be a limit: legality. I can think of many unjust laws and rules of our culture that I’d be willing to protest. But I can’t think of a single one I would break solely because I want to make an artistic statement.

Huh?

No, not with their moral cowardice – with their conclusion. It is not their place to define what is or isn’t art.

That, of course, has nothing to do with their disgusting failure to declare what is or is not acceptable art to be displayed in their gallery.

pldennison chose the perfect descriptor – cowards. THey are afraid to draw any line for fear that others might try to draw a different line. They shouldn’t be trusted with any decision more important than when it is time to cook more fries.

Aw, c’mon Phil. It makes perfect sense to slowly torture a cat to death to show that slowly torturing cats to death is wrong.

[sup]bolding mine[/sup]

So, they know it shows an illegal -and disguisting- act, but they still won’t pull it? Where do they draw the line? Will the next piece of “performance art” be an on camera rape?

How is this a comment on the meat industry? I don’t recall ever hearing of cows being skinned alive.

Sick Fucks.

I think that it is immoral art. Also that they might not want to pull it because they don’t want it to turn into an even bigger issue with censorship people arguing for the skinned cat.

Goddamn. I was just expecting a nice, concise rant about the hypocrite next door who stole your lawn gnomes. Now I want to vomit or hit something. Augh.

I think I’m going to throw up…

Arden:

Well . . .

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/2001/0419/Story2.html

Note that the prosecutor does not think such things haven’t happened, just that he doesn’t have enough evidence to get a conviction.

And I have to laugh at this:

“Also, the agreement establishes a video monitoring system and implements a training program to help employees recognize live or conscious cows.”
Sterra:

So it is art then?

Okay, I read it, andros. But I have one question: How the hell do you do that to a live cow? One good kick would put you in the ER.

Maybe I missed something.

Well, we’ve watered down the definition of art to the point where anything is art.

So, by the commonly accepted definition I would say that this is art.

I will definitely agree with pldennison - I don’t care how you choose to define art, this isn’t it. It’s torture. And it’s wrong.

I think the artist totally missed his own hypocracy. He was commenting on “the death and suffering of animals used for meat” He did this by killing and skinning an animal (in a far more vile fashion) that, in the end, will NOT be used for meat…

This pretty seems like a clear cut case of cruelty to animals to me. I used to live close to a meat packing plant where they actually kill the cow. I mean, it’s gross and all but the animal in now way suffors. It’s in the best interests of the butchers to make sure there is no suffering, it’s simply easier that way. I didn’t mean to turn this into some sort of philosophical discussion…sorry bout that.

My main point was the first paragraph…

meant to edit that…

The artist went out of their way to ensure suffering while a butcher does there very best to make sure there is none. Another flaw in his project.

Not in the least.

Art can be gross. Art can be illegal. Art can be immoral. Art can’t be hacking up a struggling animal.

Really? I know a lot of “art can be anything” people (heck, I was taught by them), but can’t think of any who lack the common sense to call this bullshit for what it is…and that ain’t art.

Videotaping a cat being skinned alive…

and this motherfucker calls it ART?? Shit, I guess Picasso, Giotto, Michaelangelo, and company wasted their time learning about combining colors and forced perspective when they could just torture animals.

And I LOVE this little rhetorical gem

So there are no limits to artistic freedom? How about if the artist had raped and strangled a four-year-old girl and videotaped it as a protest against child abuse? Would that cretinous curator defend that as a work of art? Fucking pseudo-intellectual morons!

Maybe I shouldn’t hijack, but I’m curious…

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Myrr21 *
**

First and third sentences I won’t didpute. But the second one I’m having a hard time with. Other than grafetti, what would you consider to be both illegal and art?

Would keying someone’s car be art?
Would throwing paint on random passerbys be art?
Would child porn be art?
Would a show consisting of you running red lights at 90 MPH be art?