Is this Art to you?

[Simon]

I wonder if anything have notice this piece of news that was aired last night. I belong to the so-called conservationist fraction "Butterflycircle", after watching it on the news last night and having heard 2 feedbacks about the matter. I truly wonder what is the reaction of people, if they happen to see the exhibit?

Comments made by the Director of SAM that the specimen were collected after the natural death of each butterfly, our dismay to his comment was that natural death occurance in butterflies is never seen in such pristine conditions.

I personally feel sadden by the comments and views of the interviewees, that it is ok in the name of art. And if this is Art, it is the most distasteful kind to me.

[eviltrain]

if that case, if i were to go and kill someone and display him/her in the art gallery, can i be the next Da Vinci or Picaso ?

From another point of view, if they are breed purposely for this piece of art work, i don't think there should be any much of a problem.

-In the name of Art-

[bossteck]

From another point of view, if they are breed purposely for this piece of art work, i don't think there should be any much of a problem.

I do.
You got to question the purpose in this case.

It is like someone telling you... oh, my wife and I are going to have a baby, so that we can harvest his organs.

[eviltrain]

It is like someone telling you... oh, my wife and I are going to have a baby, so that we can harvest his organs.

haha this sounds like a scene from << The Island >>
oh sorry, its <<Sister's Keeper>>

[BFG]

if that case, if i were to go and kill someone and display him/her in the art gallery, can i be the next Da Vinci or Picaso ?

Too late already, someone has done that. Remember the body show? If still dead animal being displayed are called ART, what about living animal contain in a container, a moving or living ART? In this case, we are all artist?

[felix_fx2]

Seems like a very human way to put inhumane acts as the right thing to do.

Even breeding them seemed abit wrong to me, well if they "were" caught and the artist waited for them to die naturally. It might be another case.

But its just my personal view.

I personally still keep my 1st Crayfish (Shell only) which died after my 3Ft leaked.
Its in ok condition now, even the color has faded from light blue to almost white now.

[iwishweallcouldwin]

I think the message of the art piece is the crucial factor here. Whether or not the specimens are collected before or after their 'natural' death, we can only take the artist's word for it.

What I am more concerned about is the 'artistic' message behind the art piece. Is this used to create awareness and repulsion about the questionable ethics of artists who use 'live' specimens with 'vague' origins in their workpieces and provide a sounding board for resistance or protest, or is it trying to justify the compromising of a life's worth all 'in the name of art'? Seems more like the latter in this case.

[Simon]

clint, it isn't about the message the artist wish to convey, but the necessity in the killing to justifed the message for artist. I'm sure there are other ways to do the same minus the unnecessary killing of innocent/helpless living beings.

FYI, this is the message for the piece of 'art'
109 butterflies were pierced neatly on dinner plates, supposedly symbolising the relationship between the powerful and powerless in Indonesia.

[barmby]

No. Art is Lionel Messi scored 4 goals against Arsenal in a Champions' League quarter-final game. That was art.. Off topic

[desmondekker]

a rather disturbing piece of art.

[iwishweallcouldwin]

clint, it isn't about the message the artist wish to convey, but the necessity in the killing to justifed the message for artist. I'm sure there are other ways to do the same minus the unnecessary killing of innocent/helpless living beings.

FYI, this is the message for the piece of 'art'
109 butterflies were pierced neatly on dinner plates, supposedly symbolising the relationship between the powerful and powerless in Indonesia.

Precisely, that's the message that they are portraying - that it is 'necessary' and 'justifiable' for an artist to kill in the name of art. Don't get me wrong, I am not endorsing the 'wrong methods if they convey right messages', in fact, I don't really think its possible, except for a few counter cases. I kill because killing is wrong and I want to showcase to everyone the horrors of it? This butterfly art piece is not one.

I'm trying to say that what is most disturbing to me is not so much about the methods, but the message conveyed to the masses with the use of such methods, and its implications. Knowing the temptation (and necessity) to revolutionize the arts is always there, what can we expect next? I wonder if there are ethical review boards when it comes to art production. I doubt so.

Symbolizing the relationship between the powerful and the powerless? How apt. Powerful mankind against powerless creatures of nature. Even after death, the powerless would not get to portray a right picture of their senseless deaths, but gets masked of their integrity so that the interests of the powerful would not be compromised.

[Mizu World]

Symbolizing the relationship between the powerful and the powerless? How apt. Powerful mankind against powerless creatures of nature. Even after death, the powerless would not get to portray a right picture of their senseless deaths, but gets masked of their integrity so that the interests of the powerful would not be compromised.

I was at the exhibits about 2-3 weeks ago and this was one of the first few exhibits I saw.

Until now, I still do not see how the display by the artist showed what he wanted to portray. Perhaps my appreciate of art is not at such a sophiscated level yet.

But I did express shock and pity for the lives on the plates.
I am pretty sure that his message can be displayed in many other ways, if he wanted to.


Ben

[Shaihulud]

Our life is sustained by the death of animals we consume/destroy everyday..If it was needless death that we are so concerned by, remember, a butterfly/moth is an agricultural pest, we may consider the aesthetic of a living butterfly here, but some places they are to be squished when seen.

[budak]

agricultural pests?? Do you have any idea at all?

[lucasjiang]

Hi budak,

i think shaihulud is referring to the caterpillars of moths and butterflies, not the butterflies and moths themselves

[budak]

yes i know. I am not an idiot. so what if some (out of thousands of butterfly/moth species) are agricultural pests? Does that make it right to kill those in the exhibit (which are not 'pest' species as far as i know. It doesn't even 'sustain our lives' in any way such as food.

[seosinga4]

for me, it is an art. because butterfly can spread multiple numbers. so there is no big deal on making them an image.

[iwishweallcouldwin]

for me, it is an art. because butterfly can spread multiple numbers. so there is no big deal on making them an image.

Hmm I don't think that is something that should be taken for granted.

[lucasjiang]

i agree, doesnt mean that just because they can multiply quickly means that we can just kill them like that. imagine if each artist uses just 50 butterflies, with 100 artists, how many butterflies gone?

[Shaihulud]

They breed the butterflies, so the pursuit of art in this direction is sustainable. I do not see the issue of right or wrong in this matter, although I do not see it as art, I will not hinder the artist attempt to utilize buuterfly as a medium.