Michelle Lyon
13th April 2008, 09:09 PM
Here's a link (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/art/archives/134292.asp). You can google the artist's name to find more.
The concept behind this piece is brilliant, the sort of art concept that you have to wrap your brain around over and over again. The dog might have been on its way out already like the artist says. He has a good point about the strays, and this isn't the first time animals have been used in artwork worldwide. Lawd knows animals are used for far worse things.
But, is it ethical to keep a *live* animal in an art piece, a live and *emaciated* animal, and keep it emaciated while under your care, and to make it's death part of the piece, in order to make your point?
At the same time, would the point be as powerfull if the dog were still alive and cared for, or if it was not just out of reach of a dog food mosaic while in the museum?
It's that old question again that we artists toss around...where do you draw the line?
The concept behind this piece is brilliant, the sort of art concept that you have to wrap your brain around over and over again. The dog might have been on its way out already like the artist says. He has a good point about the strays, and this isn't the first time animals have been used in artwork worldwide. Lawd knows animals are used for far worse things.
But, is it ethical to keep a *live* animal in an art piece, a live and *emaciated* animal, and keep it emaciated while under your care, and to make it's death part of the piece, in order to make your point?
At the same time, would the point be as powerfull if the dog were still alive and cared for, or if it was not just out of reach of a dog food mosaic while in the museum?
It's that old question again that we artists toss around...where do you draw the line?