Is it ethical to make artwork if the process kills other living things? Does it matter that those things that are dying are ants? What if we gain scientific knowledge in the process? Take a look at the videos below. Consider those questions.
Interview with the artist showing his process
Video of the process
Pictures of the various casts he has made
“On April 18, 2011 Maddow and her network had no difficulty showing and discussing the “Piss Christ” photo by Andres Serrano after it was destroyed in a museum in France by protestors upset with the image of a crucifix submerged in urine.”
“There is no room for the idea that Kyle might have been a good soldier but a bad guy; or a mediocre guy doing a difficult job badly; or a complex guy in a bad war who convinced himself he loved killing to cope with an impossible situation; or a straight-up serial killer exploiting an oppressive system that, yes, also employs lots of well-meaning, often impoverished, non-serial-killer people to do oppressive things over which they have no control. Or that Iraqis might be fully realised human beings with complex inner lives who find joy in food and sunshine and family, and anguish in the murders of their children. Or that you can support your country while thinking critically about its actions and its citizenry. Or that many truths can be true at once.”
“We also believe that with free speech comes great responsibility not to gratuitously offend. But that responsibility belongs to the individual, not the government, and the consequences for breaching it should be social, not governmental. Yet we see an ominous trend toward government restrictions on speech in the very places speech freedoms were born.”
Photograph that has attracted controversy for more than two decades attracts protests outside New York exhibition
“Costa Rican artist Guillermo Vargas has been accused of creating a sensation — not art — after he reportedly tied up a stray dog and left it to starve.”
Should a piece featuring a starving dog be considered art? Is it ethical? Does it matter that the dog was a starving stray dog before being brought to the gallery? What if the artwork inspired people to take positive actions? Or become aware of their own apathy?
In a shocking decision in a case against a Houston couple, a judge ruled that animal snuff, or ‘crush’ films, are protected by the First Amendment.
Animal lovers and decent human beings in general are appalled and disgusted that this ruling allows people to film animal torture, which might otherwise be a crime, as long as it is called ‘art.'”
Should films depicting the death of animals be considered art? Would limitations, even ones most people find objectionable, stifle artistic expression?
Should we tolerate animals being hurt in the production of art?
Does it matter that many of the animals who were hurt or killed in these productions were unintentional?
Some of these movies were made long ago when standards were different from what we consider ethical today. Is it unethical for us to enjoy watching these films and shows today?