It was a protest against what is going on in the world, against this cynicism, this brutality that impregnates the world in which we live
Marco Evaristti
Artist
The artist placed live goldfish in blenders that were plugged in. One visitor took him up on the challenge of choosing between life and death.
It is precisely because one of the people who visited his art reacted in a brutal manner, he, as the person who put a creature's life in the balance--placing it in immediate danger for benefit of his message--should have willingly accepted the charge of cruelty to animals, paid the fine, and made a point that his action was part of his art.
If the goldfish was a suitable subject for exhibiting brutality, than wasn't it a worthy enough subject for the artist to pay the price for the brutality that he risked and even encouraged?
Stating that your art was created to make a point, and then dodging that "point" yourself, seems to me to be just another example of humans harming other beings simply for shock value.
There was no message here. There was only grandstanding for shock value in the name of art--and cruelty.
Ah, that IS a message, isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment