|||||Mack the Knife - Ella Fitzgerald||]|
Oh crap, here we go again.
This artists kills animals and photographs them. OMG TEH ART!!! OMG WE'D BETTER JUSTIFY THIS!11
You know, being a hard-working artist, I really have a problem with these "arteests" who like to, for really no apparent reason other than to get famous, do something really weird and shock people. And then the gallery gets all defensive:
"Most people who see Nathalia's pictures for the first time are impressed by how beautiful they are."
...Holy crap. A cat's head on a vase. I'm impressed. And the mice finger puppets--those are beautiful too? On my planet, we call that "sham" and "tacky." I'm not saying it isn't "art;" I'm saying that it looks like a final project for a high school Photoshop course. The photos look like some graphic CG-type thing--they aren't all that special.
"One can, of course, choose to think that it is always wrong to kill animals in the name of art."
Note the "choose to think." Why does that sound peculiar?
"But now they are so beautiful - and the insight into the reality behind them gives rise to thoughts about people's shallowness and double standards. Many of us eat meat, wear leather or use make-up that has been tested on animals, without this arousing especially strong reactions. But when a picture shows a dead rabbit, all hell breaks loose. "
Ah, yes, the old "but you eat dead animals OMG!!!" There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between picking up a package of beef at the supermarket, and actually killing an animal--and ones traditionally held to such high esteem as pets--yourself.
Also: I'd like you to take a real close look at those photos. Are they all that special? Are they really so disturbing? Is the only reason they're anything amazing at all is because WE KNOW that those animals were killed just to take the photograph?
"She is not the first to use dead animals in her works of art - that has been done at least since the 1700s,"
Oh, so...having a dead peasant on the table in eighteenth-century Holland is akin to killing a cat and cutting off its head to put on a vase for the audience of the 21st century? Okay! Because we TOTALLY eat rabbit heads for dinner!
Really--they're falling back on the "it's supposed to be disturbing and make you think!" excuse, when, in reality, the pictures AREN'T all that innovative, AREN'T all that disturbing, and are mostly the failed efforts of someone trying to be "arteestic." Did she succeed in creating controversy? You betcha. But art isn't about getting the most attention.
DISCLAIMER: While yes, I found one or two of her photos cool, some of them were in just really, really bad taste. Mouse finger puppets? Are you serious? And honestly--she didn't have to kill any animals to do this. "Richard" is pretty cool-looking, but all it really is is a graphic design, a CD cover. Photoshop would have gotten the same result, but then she wouldn't be famous, would she?