As you read in the article, the school student union is funding the gallery that is standing behind these so-called “artists.”
To take more action than just vomitting over the repugnance of their behavior and logic (or lack thereof), you may contact the college and encourage them to withdraw funding and take disciplinary actions appropriate to behavior of this type. I will provide the contact information which is available on the school’s website and therefore is public information.
http://www.ocad.ca/
Ron Shuebrook, President
Ontario College of Art & Design
100 McCaul Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 1W1
If you look under “Why Choose OCAD” you will see the gallery address and contacts as well. Funny, I looked through the website and no where does it say this college of art and design teaches slow, torturous killing of any type of animal – not even as an elective course that I can find. We need them to know that whether or not it is art, is not germane, (though I personally don’t believe it is or can be) but whether it is humane or cruel, permissible or criminal…they cannot hide behind “art” to justify or excuse these actions anymore than Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy could for their “personal expressions.”
I humble thank you for your attention. As you can tell, the bile has sufficiently raised in my throat that I have ventured into the pit…one small step for man, one huge step for me.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Enderw24 *
Maybe I shouldn’t hijack, but I’m curious…
To continue your hijack a little – legality is defined by the laws of a given jurisdiction. Plenty of governments throughout time have decided that particular acts were illegal and persecuted many artists. Think of the Cultural Revolution in China. Think of Solzhenitzyn and Voinovich in the Soviet Union. It’s not hard to imagine art being illegal.
Art absolutely can be illegal. The Entarten Kunst (Degenerate Art) exhibit in Germany in 1938 was Hitler’s attempt to show the destructive effect of proscribed artists like Oscar Kokoschka, Paul Klee, and Marc Chagall.
But anything cannot be art, or the word loses all meaning. Art has to be the product of discipline. Anybody can torture a small animal, but not anybody can paint * Starry Night*
So art is whataver the artist claims except when you are personally offended by it?
I’m not saying it isn’t disgusting; I’m not saying it isn’t illegal. But I have listened for decades as morons told me that shit was art just because the artist says so. So, this is art if the guy says so (but feel free to send him to jail).
Um…goboy? Anybody can shit in a can and put it on a pedestal. I’ve been told by many that it is art. I don’t think there was any discipline involved.
In fact, if this guy is truely against cruelty to animals but thought that actually torturing a cat was the artistic way to demonstrate the hypocrisy (you can torure a cow but not a cat) then wouldn’t that show some discipline of purpose?
a) The cat video described is obviously beyond vile.
b) I think we’re over-valuing the word “art”, putting it on some holy pedestal. Who cares whether it’s “art” or not? It’s not like there’s some constitutional guarantee to creating art or some Geneva convention that mandates art be held sacred.
No. Whether or not this is construed as art is inconsequential to whether or not its right or wrong. Also, I don’t think anyone here said that anything an artist says is art, just because someone claims it is…
And I listened for a decade that gay people are sinners condemned to burn in hell, and I’ve heard people say blacks are inferior to white–doesn’t make it so, does it? Besides, I’m could find revered artists who wouldn’t buy into that “it’s art because I call it art” or “it’s art just because it makes a statement–no matter what the statement” crap.
Not really no. Not any more than raping another human or molesting a child (not pretending as in acting but actually performing those acts) and recording it on tape to demonstrate it is morally reprehensible and indefensible those acts are would be considered discipline or art.
Besides, if they truly believe its an artistic statement, they they will suffer (the consequences) of their so-called “art.” That would be a continuation and logical and just conclusion of their “artistic statement.”
Hmmmmm…not really. Not in my opinion. Actually, I didn’t really see any one say that it was, but…
Listen, I don’t like the pit. I don’t frequent the pit. And don’t and won’t post much here. But shit–wrong is just wrong sometimes…no matter how (pun intentional) you paint it. Whether it’s a cat, a cow or a kid (child not a young goat), torture and murder is wrong whether it’s motivated by jealousy, hate, perverseness or even art.
I’ve never made any secret of the fact that I am a gun owner, a gun-rights advocate, that I have hunted, and that I believe hunting is morally defensible on certain grounds.
But I have never deliberately hurt another animal “just to make a point”. This goes beyond pissing me off.
I would have very little problem with meeting those three buttnuggets, skinning them alive, and videotaping it. I might like to have their “art” running in the background while doing so.
Or maybe just dropping them into the tiger cage of a zoo, and catching that on tape.
I’m very reluctant to post what I would do to the people who tortured the cat.*** I don’t want people to think any less of me than they already do. Some people think I’m evil, after all.
I don’t know what bothers me more - the people who did it, or their defenders who with a straight face say “but it is not our role to be arbiters of what is and what isn’t art”. It’s almost like a gruesome stereotype - like the aforementioned artists who shit in a can and call it art. Or “performance artists” who smear their bodies with feces…fake feces…whatever, and receive Federal funding for it. :rolleyes:
I’m pretty certain that torturing animals is a common theme in budding serial killers, but that is neither here nor there. Maybe.
I’m sure these things will continue to happen. An example needs to made of these greasy sick ratfuck sons of bitches. And of their defenders.
*** Of course, Fierra wanted me to post that she thought that they should be sentenced to life, but given a hundered lashes first to flay their backs open, so they could start to feel some of what the kitty felt. And that they share their cell with a socipathic, serial killer, cannibalistic cat-lover, who has a whole collection of toothbrush shivs. But then, she is a far, far kinder person than I am.
This is so insane that my bullshit detectors can’t help but start ringing. Is there any chance it’s a hoax?
The dog-throwing road rage guy got three years in the state pokey last week. If this is real, the alleged artist here should spend a hell of a lot longer than that in a 6 x 8 cell thinking about why being an artist doesn’t excuse being a worthless piece of shit.
I really, really would like to think it is. But I’m afraid it doesn’t look like it.
From the National Post article:
“Mischief”? Mis-fucking-chief? (I know it has some fucking legal meaning, but I don’t care.) Doesn’t sound like they’re going to get what they deserve at all, no.
And I don’t really give a fuck what the fucking definition of fucking “art” is, either.
Make sure the tigers are well fed first. That may sound counter-intuitive, but a hungry tiger is likely to make a quick, efficient kill. We want well-fed, slightly bored tigers who are in a playful mood. Their little art gallery friends Messrs. Brown and Borens can watch the whole thing.
Oh, and this:
I vote we let this guy
puke all over Mr. Brown a few times to relieve the stress of having to watch that videotape. In fact, I imagine there are probably quite a few Toronto PD cops who need a good slop bucket after that.
Yeah, I read the National Post article. But these guys were supposedly charged with an amazingly outrageous act almost two months ago, and I can’t find a single news article about it other than this one. Nor can I find any mention of “Anthony Ryan Wennekers” or “Jesse Power” on the Ontario College of Art and Design web site. Jubal Brown and Daniel Borins appear to be real, but pretty much all I’ve found about the puking-on-paintings thing Brown is supposed to have done is a bunch of reprints and summaries of a 1996 Associated Press article that doesn’t seem to have much to confirm its story.
Anthracite is right. There is a link between killing and torturing animals (for entertainment) and acts of barbarism/abuse of other people.
These guys weren’t (supposedly) doing it for their own amusement, but anyone who can do such a thing (for “art” or “education” or a “political statement” or any other b.s. reason) seems to me to have something miswired in their heads. Something is truly and utterly wrong with them. Having their art yanked from a show ought to be the least of their problems. They need therapy.
Art, while admittedly being a VERY hard to define term, should never involve actual physical harm to any living thing (well, in MY opinion, not this guys…). Speaking as an art student, I’d have problems being in the same program as a guy that was allowed to do this type of shit.
And where did they get that poor kitty? The article merely says the cat’s name and owner are unknown. Would they go ahead with the ‘art’ show if that cat had an owner (besides the artist and his friends)?
Just to be forthright - Fierra was the one that advised me of the animal cruelty/human cruelty links. I know little of the factors that motivate serial killers. I’m much more of a “spree killer” myself…
