This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/29/can-mistreated-dogs-ever-be-considered-art
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Can mistreated dogs ever be considered art? | Can mistreated dogs ever be considered art? |
| (about 14 hours later) | |
| The Guggenheim museum’s decision to withdraw three pieces from an upcoming exhibit is an unusual conflation of human and animal rights | |
| Edward Helmore | |
| Fri 29 Sep 2017 16.15 BST | |
| Last modified on Wed 4 Oct 2017 15.11 BST | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| The decision by the Guggenheim museum in New York to pull three pieces from an upcoming exhibit after 600,000 people signed a petition claiming they depicted animal cruelty has revealed unusual trip-wires across the well-trodden arguments around freedom of speech and cultural offensiveness. | The decision by the Guggenheim museum in New York to pull three pieces from an upcoming exhibit after 600,000 people signed a petition claiming they depicted animal cruelty has revealed unusual trip-wires across the well-trodden arguments around freedom of speech and cultural offensiveness. |
| One of the withdrawn pieces, a seven-minute video-based work, Dogs That Cannot Touch Each Other, shows pit bulls tethered to treadmills that exhaust themselves trying to reach, and presumably maul, the other. | One of the withdrawn pieces, a seven-minute video-based work, Dogs That Cannot Touch Each Other, shows pit bulls tethered to treadmills that exhaust themselves trying to reach, and presumably maul, the other. |
| A second work, Theatre of the World, was an installation of leopard geckos, Italian wall lizards, millipedes, crickets, cockroaches, grasshoppers and two types of beetles, fighting, devouring or being devoured or dying of fatigue. | A second work, Theatre of the World, was an installation of leopard geckos, Italian wall lizards, millipedes, crickets, cockroaches, grasshoppers and two types of beetles, fighting, devouring or being devoured or dying of fatigue. |
| “I was trying to present a metaphor through these creatures, not to emphasize their cruelty,” artist Huang Yong Ping explained in 2015. “I was presenting a case in which the bugs represented different kinds of people who supposedly cannot exist together, and raising the question – what would it be like if they coexisted?” | “I was trying to present a metaphor through these creatures, not to emphasize their cruelty,” artist Huang Yong Ping explained in 2015. “I was presenting a case in which the bugs represented different kinds of people who supposedly cannot exist together, and raising the question – what would it be like if they coexisted?” |
| A third work, also a video and titled A Case Study of Transference, showed a boar and a sow copulating, both parties stenciled with Chinese and Roman symbols. | A third work, also a video and titled A Case Study of Transference, showed a boar and a sow copulating, both parties stenciled with Chinese and Roman symbols. |
| The museum said in a news release this week that its decision to pull the three pieces rested on “explicit and repeated threats of violence” it had received. | The museum said in a news release this week that its decision to pull the three pieces rested on “explicit and repeated threats of violence” it had received. |
| “As an arts institution committed to presenting a multiplicity of voices, we are dismayed that we must withhold works of art. Freedom of expression has always been and will remain a paramount value of the Guggenheim.” | “As an arts institution committed to presenting a multiplicity of voices, we are dismayed that we must withhold works of art. Freedom of expression has always been and will remain a paramount value of the Guggenheim.” |
| But that posed the question whether, in similar circumstances, involving human participants the institution would have taken steps to protect the art, the artists and the institution itself from animal rights activists. | But that posed the question whether, in similar circumstances, involving human participants the institution would have taken steps to protect the art, the artists and the institution itself from animal rights activists. |
| The museum’s decision to withdraw the works is an unusual conflation of human and animal rights, says Gary Comstock, professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University and board member of the Culture & Animals Foundation. | The museum’s decision to withdraw the works is an unusual conflation of human and animal rights, says Gary Comstock, professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University and board member of the Culture & Animals Foundation. |
| Comstock says the dog video, by the artist team Sun Yuan and Peng Yu, represents a “valuable historical record of a dubious ‘artistic’ act that has obviously served a purpose; it has provoked conversation about the human/animal bond and about differences between cultures in what we accept as ways to treat companion animals”. | Comstock says the dog video, by the artist team Sun Yuan and Peng Yu, represents a “valuable historical record of a dubious ‘artistic’ act that has obviously served a purpose; it has provoked conversation about the human/animal bond and about differences between cultures in what we accept as ways to treat companion animals”. |
| The Guggenheim, Comstock points out, says it withdrew the exhibits not because it was persuaded by the merits of ethical arguments on behalf of the animals, but because they claimed to have been threatened with violence and could not protect visitors to the museum. | The Guggenheim, Comstock points out, says it withdrew the exhibits not because it was persuaded by the merits of ethical arguments on behalf of the animals, but because they claimed to have been threatened with violence and could not protect visitors to the museum. |
| But Comstock finds no ethical objections in the insect or pig exhibits, only in the dog video. | But Comstock finds no ethical objections in the insect or pig exhibits, only in the dog video. |
| “The dogs were clearly being harmed during, and probably after, they were restrained in harnesses on treadmills and being out in front of other dogs that were aggressive and antagonistic to them. But this was not extreme or mortal harm and, as far as I know, the artists are not continuing to harm these creatures.” | “The dogs were clearly being harmed during, and probably after, they were restrained in harnesses on treadmills and being out in front of other dogs that were aggressive and antagonistic to them. But this was not extreme or mortal harm and, as far as I know, the artists are not continuing to harm these creatures.” |
| “The video of the dogs records morally questionable behavior, but that’s no reason to suppress them,” he argues. | “The video of the dogs records morally questionable behavior, but that’s no reason to suppress them,” he argues. |
| Prior to Monday’s decision to withdraw the three works, an online petition warned “this assault on animals in the name of art will not be tolerated or supported”. It called on the museum to “take a stand with our animal cohabitants of this planet, and pull the pieces employing these cruel methods from your upcoming show”. | Prior to Monday’s decision to withdraw the three works, an online petition warned “this assault on animals in the name of art will not be tolerated or supported”. It called on the museum to “take a stand with our animal cohabitants of this planet, and pull the pieces employing these cruel methods from your upcoming show”. |
| After the Guggenheim took the decision to withdraw the work, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, thanked the institution “for withdrawing these vile acts of cruelty masked as creativity, because abusing animals should never be taken lightly and the museum is not a circus but a temple of fine art”. | After the Guggenheim took the decision to withdraw the work, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, thanked the institution “for withdrawing these vile acts of cruelty masked as creativity, because abusing animals should never be taken lightly and the museum is not a circus but a temple of fine art”. |
| But the museum now faces accusations that it caved to pressure from animal rights activists in place of any reasoned argument about the work itself. | But the museum now faces accusations that it caved to pressure from animal rights activists in place of any reasoned argument about the work itself. |
| Chinese artist Ai Weiwei called the decision to remove the pieces “tragic for a modern society”. | Chinese artist Ai Weiwei called the decision to remove the pieces “tragic for a modern society”. |
| PEN America described the decision as “a worrying precedent”. “That threats of violence became grounds for the cancellation of the works represents a major blow to artistic freedom,” PEN said in a statement. | PEN America described the decision as “a worrying precedent”. “That threats of violence became grounds for the cancellation of the works represents a major blow to artistic freedom,” PEN said in a statement. |
| The issue is not short on precedent. The recent Fly By Night (2016) show in Brooklyn’s Navy Yard used a flock of pigeons each with a small light fixed to its leg. Show organizer Creative Time took the precaution of consulting the Wild Bird Fund, which issued approval and described the work as “transformative”. | The issue is not short on precedent. The recent Fly By Night (2016) show in Brooklyn’s Navy Yard used a flock of pigeons each with a small light fixed to its leg. Show organizer Creative Time took the precaution of consulting the Wild Bird Fund, which issued approval and described the work as “transformative”. |
| Still, nearly 7,500 people signed a petition calling the work cruel and demanding that the 2,000 pigeons be released. | Still, nearly 7,500 people signed a petition calling the work cruel and demanding that the 2,000 pigeons be released. |
| In 2008, the San Francisco Art Institute shuttered a show of works by Adel Abdessemed’s called Don’t Trust Me, that included a video of animals being bludgeoned to death while tied to a brick wall. The exhibition closed after an outcry. | In 2008, the San Francisco Art Institute shuttered a show of works by Adel Abdessemed’s called Don’t Trust Me, that included a video of animals being bludgeoned to death while tied to a brick wall. The exhibition closed after an outcry. |
| In that instance, artnews reports, a similar argument was advanced that while the art institute was committed to freedom of speech, it was swayed by the public safety arguments. “We have to take people’s safety very seriously,” the institute said. | In that instance, artnews reports, a similar argument was advanced that while the art institute was committed to freedom of speech, it was swayed by the public safety arguments. “We have to take people’s safety very seriously,” the institute said. |
| But to Comstock at the Culture & Animals Foundation “this is a case in which the Guggenheim should have kept the video on display, assuming they were not incapable of ensuring visitors safety. The video is not harming the viewer and not harming the dogs because the harm has already been done”. | But to Comstock at the Culture & Animals Foundation “this is a case in which the Guggenheim should have kept the video on display, assuming they were not incapable of ensuring visitors safety. The video is not harming the viewer and not harming the dogs because the harm has already been done”. |
| “It’s bad art, in my opinion, but that’s an aesthetic, not moral, judgment. At worst, those artists may have corrupt minds. In any case, anyone thinking of doing this to sentient animals in the future should be condemned.” | “It’s bad art, in my opinion, but that’s an aesthetic, not moral, judgment. At worst, those artists may have corrupt minds. In any case, anyone thinking of doing this to sentient animals in the future should be condemned.” |
| Animal welfare | |
| Animals | |
| Dogs | |
| features | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |