Artistic Confusion or Outright Perversion?

Some people have been really concerned about the display of a stray dog in an art exhibit. Yes, the dog died. Many things die. But would you have ever thought about the concept of death in this way if he had not made this "art"? There is a heated debate over the repetition of this exhibit in a larger show were the artist and this exhibit were expressly invited to participate. Although I also do not agree that this is a exhibit that should be repeated, the artist took a stray dog that was not being cared for, much like the thousands of homeless and poor throughout the world and confined it just as we confine and segregate those who dig in the trash for their next meal. It is not about a dog who was going to die eventually.

That is the point. Not for us to hear about it and to forget about the individual, in this case, non-human animal, but rather to intensify our connection with the animal and the interworkings of that pity we feel for the INDIVIDUAL that does not extend in any way to the THOUSANDS of people living confined in poverty, often without the means to 'escape' and that at a certain point are no longer able to do anything but wither away into the alleys and garbages where they were attempting to survive. I do not beleive that this exhibit had very much to do at all with the individual dog, but rather the point of our identification with an individual that causes intense emotion for a being that is historically considered a lesser being, while we ignore the masses that can be grouped together and essentially ignored by the caring public that will willingly sign a petition to protect an individual while not even considering the possibility that it is the artists responsibility to bring issues to our attention and he has overwhelmingly succeeded. It is the connection between this animal the people that we have essentially ignored that this is rampant in our society. Many artists have use animals to demonstrate the conflicts and issues in human society.

One of the prominant artists who has used live animals in art is Huang Yongping. Two of his most famous pieces are one called "Theatre of the World" in which a sort of observation glass case is built and then poisonous lizards, insects, and arachnids are placed inside with traditional Chinese sculptures and a second called "The Wise Man Learns from the Spider how to Spin a Web" in which a large spider is placed at the bottom of a lampshade with the light shining directly on the spider, which is alive, and casting a shadow of the spider on copies of well known pieces of artwork. Now the posionous nature of the animals in the first exhibit leads to the inevitable death of many of the 'insects' (since lizards, spiders, and scorpions are all considered insects in Chinese tradition), however, this exhibit was shown many times in the West without complication or any fuss from the public whatsoever. When the second exhibit was shown in the United States and Canada, the public reacted in such a manner as to end in the banning of that piece from being exhibited in public venues in the United States and Canada. Why? Why do a group of animals surrounded by traditional sculpture that are killing each other anyway not receive this immense concern? Some have argued that it is natural for these creatures to kill each other, however it is not natural that these animals be confined Together, so that kind of puts a damper on that explanation for the acceptance of this exhibit, Some have said that the presence of the non-living sculptures transforms the live animals into living statues and therefore when they cease to move anymore, they become statues in totality, thus completing the piece. However, the title of the piece suggests that this unnecessary slaughter of others in a particular environment is a direct reflection of humanity.

Opposing the group dynamic of the first display, the lone spider in the lampshade evokes strong emotion because it becomes an individual that we can identify with. Most of the people protesting this piece would probably not think twice about squishing this arachnid on an offhand encounter, but human idnetification with individual animals in art makes it very powerful and, when the observer takes the time to consider the title and significance that a work can have when the concepts are applied to human culture and so many other things. In this way, also, the lone dog on a chain evokes a stong emotion, however when the artists chooses a subject that we so strongly identify with, the human tie can be totally lost and the significance that the artist wished to convey can be lost. This is a risk that some artist feel that they must take. Artists do not exhibit anything without a purpose, and though we may be offended, perhaps we should apply this emotion to the human aspect that the artist is trying to convey so that the art no longer applies to humanity and the reason for its original display fades.

(Other artists who use animal representations inclued Xu Bing and Cai Guo-Qiang, if anyone wants to look at their works they are also very thought provoking.)

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •