Art for what's sake?

[Bartc]

I know we've had these discussions before about what art is or isn't or should or shouldn't be.

By my own definition, most acts of "creation" are art, so the starving piglets in this piece fit the bill. But in a practical sense, labeling this stuff as "art" does us all a massive disservice. Not to mention what it would have done to the piglets...

Let them eat ... NOT!

How do you like them apples?

 

[txomsy]

Apples are apples, not oranges.

Art is art, not Ethics. That one can do something does not mean one should, or it is right. In that case, the author may claim it was art (which I won't consider) but it certainly was not ethical and it was contradictory: "to protest for animal suffering I'm gonna make animals suffer" does not add well. Picasso was a great artist, and arguably a misogynist. One thing does not bear on the other, and they should not be confused.

Apples are apples, not oranges.

 

[TK H-H]

I personally don't feel like harming living things is "art" or can ever be called art. And I agree with txomsy. It's one thing to make a statement about animals suffering. But to make more animals suffer to make that statement is not the right way to go in my opinion. And this isn't the first time that particular individual has done something like this...