Comments on: Update: What-Is-It Solved

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:14:17 +0000

Of course there are herbivores too. I guess my two cents on the meat eating vs macabre sculpture thing is, just because I happen to like meat does not mean I want to meet the cow. Or see it made into a twisted, alien sculpture. But if people like that kind of stuff, well that’s their right.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:59:36 +0000

Just for the record, carnivores are creatures that subsist only on meat. Omnivores eat both. Something cannot be a little carnivorous. It is either carnivorous eating nothing but meat, or omnivorous eating both. There are no shades of carnivore. Humans are omnivorous, that is what our gastro intestinal systems are designed for, not carnivorous. But although I like a good steak as much as the next person, I am not impressed so much with artwork using dead animals. There was a museum exihbition in Japan called “Mysteries of the Human Body” and it was all works using donated cadavers. Chilling. I am a bit like Kittenz in that I find it not to my taste.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:40:15 +0000

things-in-the-woods,

Omnivores eat meat, so in that sense they are carnivorous. I do not find it unnatural or obscene to kill animals for food, as long as that killing is done quickly and humanely.

Everyone has his or her own feelings about what is beautiful, obscene, or bizarre. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my perceptions.

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:09:01 +0000

The main point that comes to mind here is how confidently many of us (me included!) dismissed this by claiming it to be a dog/feline/etc., and proved to be wrong. Just how good are we gonna be when/if real photos of cryptids do turn up?

And kittenz- just to pick you up on something- humans aren’t naturally carnivorous- we are naturally opportunistic omnivores. In any case, i can’t see that has anything at all to do with the morality of killing and eating animals.

I, for one, find it rather bizarre to worry about a ’sentient being’ only after it is dead (and therefore no longer sentient). The obscenity comes in killing an animal, not in what you do with its corpse afterwards.

Anyway, this really isn’t the place for a discussion of the ethics of our treatment of non-human animals (although perhaps loren might consider starting a ‘how should we treat sasquatch if we do find it?’ blog).

By: pitch black moon

pitch black moon — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:08:55 +0000

Just waiting for the “reveal” on the Russian Bigfoot now…

By: Rillo777

Rillo777 — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:47:01 +0000

Loren
Sorry but I’m more with Kittenz on this one. It’s just short of playing doctor Frankenstein in my book and I don’t make grotesque sculptures out of my fried chicken!

By: RoxyanneY

RoxyanneY — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:33:59 +0000

You have more in common than that, Loren. You and Brewer are both featured in your pick for the best children’s cryptozoology book of 2006, Tales of the Cryptids: Mysterious Creatures that May or May Not Exist, written by Kelly Milner Halls, Rick Spears, and myself! (Brewer’s piece is on page 51 and features her own self-portrait photograph with some of her amazing creature creations, and Loren’s interview is on pages 54 – 55.)

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:25:40 +0000

Late addition: Michelle Souliere’s two photographs of Sarina Brewer’s exhibits at Bates College, 2006. See above.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:19:55 +0000

People are carnivorous by nature, and I have no problem with people eating meat, as long as the animals are raised and killed humanely. Using the leather and fur from food animals is perfectly acceptable to me. I’m an admitted tree-hugger and conservationist, but I am not anti-hunting. I’m no hunter myself, but I respect conscientious hunters, and I realize that many hunters are also avid conservationists. I disapprove of trapping because I consider it cruel.

Keeping preserved animals as mounted specimens in naturalistc poses is not my thing, but it’s not something for which I would condemn someone. Even the preserved skinned carcasses that Ms. Brewer sells, while they are startling, could be considered educational.

Where I draw the line is the creating of “gaffs”, which are jokes, really, from the cobbled-together parts of animals. Without waxing too philosophical and wandering off the topic, I believe that when you use any part of an animal, you should honor its life. Even “roadkill” was once a living, sentient creature.

I’m not saying that Ms. Brewer’s creations are not art; creating them takes skill and imagination, and that fits my definition of “art”. But just because something is art, does not mean that it isn’t obscene.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is obscenity. My feelings about this subject are purely subjective. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. But, yes, in my opinion, using animals to create such objects as gaffs and jokes is an obscenity.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:49:38 +0000

Macabre, of course. That’s the point, the wonder, and more.

But “obscene”? That’s kind of severe, isn’t it?

So it’s not okay to use roadkill for gaffs and art?

But it’s fine to….humm, what did you say you had for dinner?