|
Nathalia Edenmont aka killing animals for art
|
Posted By:
sam
Dec 02, 2004
|
I've seen all sorts of brutally hateful comments on the internet, directed at this artist. I'm unsure, though, if she actually kills the animals or if it is just an elaborate Photoshopping? It seems to me that she'd be in some trouble if she were openly killing animals for the purpose of art.
Something seems wrong-- it's too controversial.
heres the link:
http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/archive/nathalia/nathalia_main.htm
Any comments, thoughts?
|
Comments
|
Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 > |
Myst
|
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 | 03:23 AM
When I read the statement from the gallery this sentence caught my eye. Is this a hint to the truth of the pictures?
Her pictures tell lies in front of our faces, but they are not alone in this - the lies exist all around us every day, without us questioning them
Maybe they aren't real animals at all, they are making some very realistic looking toys these days.
Hmmmm |
BugbearSloth
|
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 | 07:49 AM
For some reason, the one with the little white mice on the fingertips really creeped me out. |
Maegan
|
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 | 08:27 AM
I think it's fake. Animals get rigor mortis also...She may be able to stuff an animal to get it to look alive...but taxidermy animals still have that fake look. Their eyes are usually marbles & their fur is just never the same. I think it's clever photoshopping. Besides, some of the photos even look like they could have been made with a live animal & then the picture distorted so that the 'body' disappears into a vase. And if she's doing it in the U.S. & she was REALLY killing animals...PETA would have put up a billboard, or petitioned her about it already. |
The Curator
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 | 12:18 AM
I bet they're real. Why not? The museum is right: it's not illegal, and we do kill animals for art (or fashion) all the time: leather jackets, belts, etc. Also, they don't look photoshopped. |
Nefertari
|
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 | 12:26 AM
This was also in the gallery statement..
"There is nothing illegal in Nathalia's art. She has killed the animals in as humane a way as possible."
That mice on the fingers one was creepy.
|
Maegan
|
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 | 11:23 AM
I don't know. Those animals just don't look dead to me. I know I've seen similar art somewhere before. Even if it is real art...it still looks wholly fake to me.
Also...animals killed for clothing is different. Those animals are bred for the sole purpose of being killed when their hide is needed. There are a few animals not raised for their hides that end up getting killed for other reasons...and THEN their hides are used for clothing. It's not like Louis Vitton comes into your living room & steals your cat to make one of those ugly LV purses!
Here's an article about the killing of the animals.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/13/1071125716675.html?oneclick=true
Not to mention...her art is getting QUITE a lot of attention over this. Hmm... |
BugbearSloth
|
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 | 08:30 PM
No doubt to boost sales and drive prices up, eh Maegan? |
Patrick
|
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 | 03:44 PM
Definatly photoshop 7, I use this regularly, it's not very hard just expensive. Its not that hard to identify a photoshop creation besides the eyes of the animals give it away, pun not intended but they would of turned to fluid being the first part of the body to decompose. Aplause to the people who created this on many counts. |
Suki
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 | 06:55 AM
If you put an animal to sleep and set it up like that right away to take to take pictures it's eyes will still have that *alive* look.
It is possible to do with out photoshop.
She was reported to public prosecutors by the Swedish Veterinary Association for failing to have a veterinarian present when killing the animals she photographs in 2003.
She has been featured in a few museums in different places such as London and the country she lives in ... Sweden. I do not know much about how museums pick artists to show .. but I do not think they would want to feature art where some one lied about the way it was made. |
Maegan
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 | 08:13 AM
But if it's a contraversy (sp?) it'll get more people in the doors! |
Hannah
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 12:55 AM
The animals are real. And I think it is wrong and disturbing. I do not wear furs, and I do not wear makeup tested on animals! Some people think all people agree to that stuff, but yeah right! I wish she would move to America and try displaying corpses she calls art. Boy would the animal rights people get on her case. |
Maegan
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 11:43 AM
Don't some tribes in south american crush up bugs & use them as make-up? Is that the same as killing for art?
P.S. I still think it's fake. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 12:52 PM
My brother and I have developed an odd practice over the years. When he comes to visit, we frequently take hikes up through the extensive woods around here. At first, we often took pictures of the scenic views, the trees and such, but after a bit we regularly began to take pics of the animal remains we came accross in our travels. This would include deer, porcupines, racoons, squirrels, cows, herons, turkeys, the list goes on. We never disturb the remains, only observe. We've gotten some disturbing shots of cow and deer ribcages and such. We always have that really creepy feeling as we come upon a larger carcass, in the primal fear that it may be a human, but haven't found one yet, thank God(dess). We are also smart enough not to approach what may be a fresh kill by a predator. Don't want to interrupt a meal, and then become one. We have lynx, bobcats, coyotes, bears, hawks, barred owls and other folks I don't want to anger. While it's kinda creepy, we only documented nature, and wouldn't dream of harming an animal or exploiting it's demise for art. That's just sick |
Myst
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 05:45 PM
Lynx? Where are you at, if you don't mind my asking, From what I know there aren't many lynx left in the US. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 08:30 PM
North Central Pennsylvania, way up in the woods where we see lotsa animals slightly outside their normal range areas. I have seen both the bobcat, or red lynx (lynx rufus) and the canadian lynx (lynx canadensis). Lots of places for them to hide up here |
Myst
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 11:42 PM
Here in Colorado we lost all of our lynx due to encrochment on their space and loss of their natural prey, the snowshoe hair. A few years ago some idiot decided to reintroduce them to the mountains, they hoped the lynx would find other prey since their natural prey was gone. Needless to say one, maybe two died of starvation. I'm not sure what happened to the others, no one ever said. Anyway, I said all of that to say lucky you, I would love to see the lynx here again. |
Rex D.
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 02:24 AM
Is that really considered art? The animals could have died natually and the "artist" could then have used the remains. I think it's all just one big lie to promote the "art", cuz' of course words going to spread, aren't we talking about it? |
Maegan
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 08:49 AM
Florida has Lynxes...lynxs...(How do you pluralize Lynx?)
A couple of schools here have the Lynx as a mascot. |
Rex D.
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 06:20 PM
Lynx is both plural and non-plural. See why I hate this language? |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 09:36 PM
singular and plural. I love English |
Rex D.
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 09:42 PM
Damn it! I'll get the hang of it someday. |
Suki
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 09:42 PM
Nothing to do with an artist killing critters so sorry on the off subject comment! But ... talking of singular and plural words. Mouse and House have different spelling by one letter. How come the plural word of mouse is "mice" and the plural term for house is not "hice"? |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 09:44 PM
No shortage of rabbits around here. I usually see tracks most every morning in the winter, and I think I may have seen bobcat tracks yesterday, both less than fifty feet from my house. As a matter of fact, a litter of rabbits became quite familiar to me last year, as I accidentally uncovered their warren while mowing. I covered their hole with a couple of boards, and they matured quite nicely. I've taken to leaving tree prunings down on the ground as shelter for them, and feed. I'd prefer they chew on the downed limb bark, than my live trees. I haven't seen as many this year, and the bobcat tracks may have something to do with that. Nothing like the scream of a bobcat, believe me. Scares the bejeezus outta you. |
Myst
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 10:11 PM
A cougar scream can get your attention to! |
Rex D.
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 10:11 PM
It should totally be "hice".
|
Hannah
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 10:29 PM
Crushing up bugs? Native Americans? They eat bugs too. That is like deer, not domesticated animals. People do not have cat heads on the wall. |
Hannah
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 10:31 PM
P.S. Makeup testing on animals is wrong. |
Rex D.
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 11:26 PM
I think you enhance the cuteness of an animal with a little makeup. Some blush, eyeshadow, painting they're cute little nails, you know, like....nevermind. |
Sabrina P
|
Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2004 | 04:43 AM
How did they fit a person inside the butt of a chicken? :0 |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2004 | 07:44 PM
simple... little person, big chicken, and a running start |
Rex D.
|
Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2004 | 08:57 PM
They could have pulled it off in the fourth dimension, you can do some really interesting stuff there. |
kim
|
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 | 12:54 PM
well yes it is all true! she brutally kills the animals as shown in a FHM issue this year she states that she simply throws them away when she is done and doesnt find anything wrong with it seen as the chinese eat dogs. so yes well it people like her that make our world an 'unhealthy' place! |
Rex D.
|
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 | 01:40 PM
God, I sure hope they at least get to make it up to animal heaven for compensation of their death.
Animal #1: "So what brought you up here?" Animal #2 "Some lady just Had to take some pictures of me. I thought my cuteness was finally paying off. Turns out it was the other way around." |
Hannah
|
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 | 11:03 PM
They test it on animals because if there is something toxic in the makeup they don't think it will be important if they harm the animal, not the human! |
Hannah
|
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 | 11:06 PM
Who would want to look at something perverse like a cat head on a face or some dead fingerpuppets. Ick! Makes me shiver. Grotesque. |
Rex D.
|
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 | 11:15 PM
Marilyn Manson would dig it. |
Lia
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 | 12:16 PM
Hey all,
Unfortunately her images are not fake. She is slaughtering (murdering) innocent animals to proove the point that people in our western society has double standards on how we treat our fellow animals. We have them as pets, think they are cute and love them, but still a majority of westeners eat meat and wear leather! I'm a vegetarian, I think it is appauling to kill, whether it's for art, food or clothing. There is no need and Nathalia's aim is futile cause the only people she really enrage (and thus stir emotions in) are the ones that find her actions completely wrongful and immoral!
I would like to see murdered humans on display and hear artists defend the artistic idea behind that!
Nathalia B. must be stopped and killing animals should become a crime in every industrialised country which can provide protein-sources for their citizens in alternative ways.
Peace/Lia
|
Lia
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 | 12:26 PM
On one hand Nathalia Edenmont is achieving HER goal though...A very selfish such that she has admitted to...And that is to sell art and to get into galleries. Lots of art people think her ideas and art theory about "dubble standards" are extremely interesting, so interesting that they choose to disregard the way the images were created, as they disregard how the pig they are eating at Christmas was treated. In all this doen't she contradict herself, if the double standards was what she wanted to oppose???
Nathalia is booking galleries all over. DISTURBING! She was charged in Sweden for killing animals in an inhumane way, but could not be prosecuted because of lack of evidence... |
Maegan
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 | 01:07 PM
"We'll save the Whales, but kill the Children", a line from a song written by Jeff (Jeffrey?) Brewer. The song is basically saying that people will invest time, energy, & money in saving animals...but children are dying of hunger, being beaten, & being taken in abortions.
Frankly...she can kill all the damn animals she wants. It's stupid...but I'd rather see an animal die than a child. I'd kill a million Christmas pigs to feed a child. |
Rex D.
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 | 01:36 PM
I agree with that completely Maegan. I too wouldn't give a damn about any animals as long as we could do something about children in need at solve those problems once and for all. |
Rex D.
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 | 01:42 PM
And the elderly too, I'd like for them to not have to live in nursing homes where they are abused emotionaly, verbally, and physicaly. Also to have social security retirement pay a little more than just enough to survive. I've seen too many elderly struggling to live and they have spent their whole lives with that same struggle. When do they get a break? |
Maegan
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 | 01:52 PM
Exactly my thoughts, Rex. I joke with my mom a lot about putting her in a home...but I would never really do that. I've volunteered in a nursing homw & it's awful the way the people are treated. It's not really their physical well-being that's an issue, but their mental. The nurses & orderlies talk down to them, yell at them, get frustrated when the patient doesn't understand.
Also, I'm of the feeling that any person who has ever been convicted of a crime against a child should be sterilized. Men & women. I'll get off the soapbox now...you all can go on talking about animal killing. |
BugbearSloth
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 01:25 AM
Human beings and their ancestors have been killing and eating animals for, oh, about two million years now. But within the last fifty years, a couple of lunkheads come along and say, "Stop! This is wrong!" Nope. I won't stop. Dead animals taste damned good, and I'm going to eat them.
I, too agree with Maegan. We should be more concerned with how we treat each other than how we treat animals at this point. Especially children. They are this species' future. |
Rex D.
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 02:10 AM
Yeah, we've been using them for nurishment, and it may be wrong to end the existance an animal that did nothing wrong, but taking their life for art? Are you kidding me? |
Maegan
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 08:17 AM
Besides...if no one killed animals for food...How the HELL would you expect to get a good steak?
P.S. I'm so very warm right now in my leather jacket. Mmmm...warmth. Do you really think I'd be able to get this warm with corn husks??? |
Hannah
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 11:00 AM
What are you, Japanese? We don't eat domesticated animals. We eat deer, cow, pig! Oh yes and not to mention pigs (farm kind) can never really be fully domesticated. We don't eat mice torsos either! Bugbearsloth and Maegan, you make no sense! And leather is from cows, not cats. Bugbearsloth, you eat dead cats? Please! Not to mention there are always things like funds and sending food and stuff to childs in need. It is still a problem, but people are working on it! |
Hannah
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 11:02 AM
Marilyn Manson is a he she! |
Maegan
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 11:20 AM
"What are you, Japanese?"
-That is just wrong on so many levels.
"but people are working on it!"
-Not as quickly as they are working on saving some mice bodies. Mice are gross anyway. They run about in garbage & carry diseases. I'm glad the nasty little pink ones get fed to snakes. (Because snakes can be raised for food).
Also, who is this "we" you speak of...is "we" people who are NOT Japanese? Or are "we" people who are Japanese? Are "we" people who like Marilyn Manson? I'm confused about this "we". Please explicate this "we".
|
BugbearSloth
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 12:47 PM
Hannah - Yes, I have eaten cat. Also, you can make leather from the skin of about any animal. Maybe not armadillos. Yep, I've eaten armadillo, too. Tastes like possum. We do eat domesticated animals. Maybe not so much in the US, but then again the US is less than 5% of the world's population.
Taking care of children is something EVERYONE needs to do, not just SOME PEOPLE. |
Maegan
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 02:27 PM
Soft-shell turtle is like lamb...pigeons are gross...& they're not worth the beebee you shot them with.
Main Entry: 1leath |
REX D.
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 03:42 PM
You guys are fun Maegan an Bug. Hannah, the manson thing was a joke. |
Janna
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 08:17 PM
Hi everyone! Just saw this forum, and hey guys there is stuff here that I have to say. Firstly, huh humm..... Maegan, I am sorry but you are a DITZ. Also sorry that you can |
Patches
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 08:51 PM
yes, she does kill them. This is how her gallery responded to people like me trying to petition and blacklist her from galleries.
"Dear Animal Friends,
The work by Nathalia Edenmont that we (The Wetterling Gallery) are currently exhibiting position within the same ethical and legal regulations that constitutes our society in whole. Every day, animals are sacrificed to end up as decorations on jackets or on a meat stack in order to stabilize our economy. Edenmont is asking us whether we think the over consumption of our affluent western society is civilized.
Edenmont explores the moral and ethical structures and she is careful to move within what the law permits. This is not for arts sake! She is not exploring what art permit, that is already constituted, she is provoking the laws of society. If you find it immoral, you see exactly what Edenmonts is trying to point out to you. Her message to you is to think critically, and see through conventions and shams that lead to unreasonable injustice to animal and man.
It saddens me that you have "blacklisted" our exhibition on your respected website. You have drawn conclusions from articles in less valued newspapers. The animals that were used for the installations were bred to be snakefood, or simply "put away" as they were not wanted anymore by the petowners.
Please don |
Lia
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 09:09 PM
There is really no conflict between saving the animals and caring for the children and elderly of this world. In fact we could feed all the worlds starving if we did not produce meat. We could feed the worlds starving if we instead used 30 times LESS ENERGY in producing protein rich vegetables. This is a scientific fact.
So if YOU want to save the children of the world the first step you should take is to become a vegetarian.
Cruelty starts with animals and moves on to humans. Most criminals convicted of killing or abusing humans (children and grown ups) started with doing it to animals, but since that kind of violence is not considered a crime they were not caught in time before they started their cruelty on their fellow humans. Many psychological studies of interns show above facts.
Man ate meat through time because man got used to eating meat when living as nomads, since the nature around us was not friendly enough to settle down and grow vegetables in. We now live in a developed nation which can produce everything we need without much suffering, why are we not? Because people are uneducated and unwilling and GREEDY. The big companies earn to much money on making you fat so why would they let our government feed the poor for free?
There are also many materials that keep you as warm as animal skin. Just go shopping and you'll see.
I did not mean that we should have murdered humans on artistic display, I meant that it would be AS horrible as displaying murdered cats, rabbits or other animals.
Stopping artists like Ms. Edenmont from doing this is more likely to decrease acts of violence at a total, not likely at all to make the children or elderly suffer.
Life is sacred, all life and we need to start treating it as such.
All the best/Lia |
Lia
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 09:35 PM
Once again, the only people Nathalia Edenmont affects are the people who think her actions are wrong. People like Maegan above does not care about Nathalias art since she does not think it is wrong to kill any animals. So what other real purpose does Edenmont have than greed and making sure she is the next big thing in the art world? The income she makes from the photos and the death of the animals, does not go to animal shelters or to help starving children, they go in to her own pockets.
Edenmont has also said she is not a vegetarian and does not find killing animals wrong, so she is not trying to fight any nobel cause, whatever the Wetterling Gallery says. They too want their commission of her paintings, so naturally they will say anything not to get blacklisted.
It is sad to dress up cruelty as beauty as Edenmont does. Psychologically it makes people less sesitive to the true nature of violence. |
Suki
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 | 11:43 PM
"we could feed all the worlds starving if we did not produce meat." yes, that is a fact... but a misleading one... We have enough food right now to feed everyone in this world: a few pounds of food per person, per day, around the world ... even with people producing meat. ...Hunger stricken areas of the world are that way from landlessness, no money to buy the food, people with the food can not access with enough for all at once cargo space wise. In other words hunger is not created by lack of food in whole but by the inability to make it accessible to everyone.. Even if we stopped making meat to have enough to feed people even more a day... we would just have more food as a whole piled up with a wish to go to the hungry places. As far as man learning to eat meat or being vegitarian .... I thought this thread was about killing animals for art .... not killing animals for a sourse of food.
I do agree that there is no conflict between saving a few cats and saving starving kids... you are just saving more things at once ... humans are capable of multitasking.
Maegan and BugbearSloth were for the most part I think having a bit of fun. And that is all cool with me. The Manson thing made me laugh for a while .... and I also have a leather jacket! No one here is a ditz... where is the love?
I love cats but I can say that there are plenty around and that a few that are put to sleep and put into what ever she calls art is not going to put a dent in the population. Neither is doing in a few Mice or rabbits.... you know how fast and how much those breed. She is not using endangered animals ... I might have a problem if I saw a bunch of Cheetah heads on sticks or panda foot vases. ... I feel more outraged about the treatment of veal then I do about her pictures.
Heck, this guy's art is more disturbing http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0%2C8542%2C669680%2C00.html .. even if the people donated their bodies ... it is just creepy to look at. This guy even wanted to preserve 2 people copulating and wanted to disect a human in public ...saying it would be educational. o_O That is way over the top compaired to Nathalia.
I think the uproar is mostly because she is using animals that us humans have classified as "cute and lovable" (yes many people find mice to be cute fuzz balls).
I doubt you would hear as many people screaming if she went fishing for the purpose of putting ugly Mackerel heads on her fingers.
|
Rex D.
|
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 | 01:29 AM
Yes, that may be over the top, but still fun. I am going to say this and that now. But I don't give a shit what is thought of me, cuz' personaly(- Maegan, Bug, Alex B., Paul, Hairy, Myst, Sam, Sabrina P., and I know, I'm missing somebody, (are the coolest).Help me out. I forgot someone.
Any name not mentioned, I'm not even going to tell you. Use your imagination. Let the good times roll.
Who was forgotten?( my humblest of apologies to you)? |
Rex D.
|
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 | 01:42 AM
This has got to the point where it's just funny. People are arguing. I don't see why anyone has to get to that point in a discussion. Fuck off to those of you who can't figure out how to talk. I know that seems hypocriticle, me bitching at bitch's but what's more fun than not making sense? The way I see it, your dumb and I'm going to get a laugh out of you if your dumb, but your going to play like your not dumb, I'm going to laugh even harder. Dumb-ass! |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 | 02:26 PM
Hurrah, Rex. Also, just to defend myself here. I was typing at WORK. I live in Florida & the temperature in the building is controlled in Cleveland, OHIO. They kick on the AC so that the PCs run well & no one falls asleep. Since I'm a natural-born Floridian...I can't really handle temperatures below about 77 degrees.
I DO care about animals, I have had lots of pets that I cared for. BUT, in my own (humble) opinion...I feel that this is not as disgusting as child porn, molestation, incest, rape, murder...etc. I'm just saying that everyone is making a HUGE deal out of something that is a little lower on my "offended & outraged" list than on other's.
I'm not that big on beef. I prefer fish (damn mercury poisoning...now THAT'S a shame!) or chicken. To my family, a HUGE salad (we're talking a whole head of iceberg, 3 or 4 romaine hearts, baby spinach, that red/purple stuff I can't remember the name of, peppers, tomatoes, cheese, nuts, seeds...) is a meal. I'm not going to share my views about starvation in 3rd world countries & devastation elsewhere...b/c that's not for this post...but there is a reason people are starving & their lands have been dried up by the sun. God gave dominion (supreme authority : SOVEREIGNTY)over the animals to Adam. That dominion passed to each generation, getting farther & farther away from the original plan until people have actually let animals take dominion over THEM! Excuse me for my long-windedness, but I feel like SOME people jumped into a thread & unraveled it. We've heard from people who are so sad this is happening, people who are shocked this is happening, hippies, and (as you can see by this particular post) people who aren't all that concerned that animals are dying.
Now someone get my a damn knife, my kitten-steak is getting COLD! |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 | 02:27 PM
Get ME...get ME. Sorry. |
|
Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 > |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
