Animal abuse as “art”

I’m no animal rights wacko, but the “art” created by Nathalie Edenmont turns my stomach. She kills animals, chops ’em up, mounts their parts, and then takes photographs of her handiwork. So far, she’s killed white mice, chickens, rabbits, and at least one cat. The Wetterling Gallery in Sweden (what a surprise) hosts her work, and they see no problem with it. Over in Los Angeles, the LA Art Show showed her craptacular work last year.
I’m getting very tired of this “let’s-shock-the-straights-and-call-it-art” attitude from pretentious leftists. The irrational part of me hopes Miss Edenmont meets the business end of a cranky tiger with hunger pangs, but the rational part of me knows she’ll find plenty of admiring upper-class twits to support her work. Ah, well.
Here’s a gallery of her “art”, but don’t click the link if you’ve got a weak stomach.
Hat tip: cowsarenotshoes

6 comments

  1. Raven

    You don’t like looking at dead animals, no matter how beautifully they are mounted? The idea of killing innocent animals for human consumption, food or otherwise? The photographs you point us to are nothing compared to what happens to animals everyday in this country, animals destined to your dinner plate. I’m guessing the animals used in Nathalie Edenmont’s were probably not mis-handled or abused before they were killed – not so with the MILLIONS of cows, chickens, and pigs tortured and slaughtered, just for you. Like eating puss, germs, fecal material? Open up that chicken you got from the local grocery and cook it on the bbq – mmmmm, yummy! I really do not understand how Nathalie Edenmont’s work can disturb you when far greater harm is happening to animals in your own backyard. Check out http://www.peta.com – I don’t like them, they are pretty extreme, imo, but they do have the facts, and the tape to back them up. You might want to check out the facts on how for-consumption animals are mistreated, as it seems to me you have your priorities backward. Millions of animals suffering in horrific circumstances, many butchered while still alive, or a few animals in a “art show”? Which one do you think is the bigger deal?

  2. Chet

    Maybe this art is an attempt to scare us into veganism.
    The problem with that is that, honestly, I don’t care about animals, or how gross they are on the inside. Meat is just too tasty. I’d lick a pig’s asshole if it tasted like bacon. As it is I’d strangle the thing and torture it to death if that was the only way to get a bacon cheeseburger.
    Ok maybe I wouldn’t lick any assholes but hopefully you get the idea. Am I right, carnivores?! Hell yeah!

  3. Chet

    Actually, now that I look at the art, the rabbit heads in vases are actually kind of cute.

  4. deadscot

    Raven – I can’t speak for Puddle Pirate but I would consider reaction to be one the extremes mentioned in his post. I completely understand that animals are needlessly harmed everyday for the purpose of feeding mankind. I also understand there are more humane and cost prohibitive ways to get our desired protein. This does not make it okay for for these incidents to become pleasurable and artistic.
    You’re trying to draw a correlation between two very dissimilar events. A more accurate argument would have been a sport hunter using bait to shoot an animal with no intention of eating it, but merely having it mounted. That may have drawn some sympathy on my part. May have.
    When individuals begin taking artistic liberties with over life forms in a effort to make a statement, cause shock or just morbid curiosity, dignifying as art, and giving it due place in our museums is self defeating and only serves to lower to meaning of art as whole and weaken the position of animal defense activists.

  5. deadscot

    Wow, the grammar there was really atrocious. Shouldn’t try and type and watch the Eagles game at the same time.
    I don’t really have a whole lot of sympathy for extremists from either side. This country needs a little less political correctness and a lot more common sense.