Quote:
|
Originally Posted by auto-aim
I think they're the same in the scheme of it. The motivations and ultimatly what it's out to achieve... all of that kind of stuff are the same. And i find it strange you saying that because SY are known for blurring the lines between the visual and audeo art - im digressing though. I guess im that kind of person that follows the same rules or ideas for things. I'd explain that more but afraid i'd confuse it. I don't know though do you think if it were a painting of a dying dog during say the renaissance it'd be acceptable?
|
If the artist had deliberately let a dog die to do it no
And as you mention painting, the reason sad fucks like this come up with stupid sensationalist ideas like this is usually because they cant paint, have little talent and thrive off of causing controversy
In art, as in the media, we seem increasingly to be living in the age of the pointless celebrity where the only criteria to join this exclusive "club" seems to be to achieve some form of notoriety or outrage in the eyes of the public by some monumental act of socially unacceptable behaviour
The only piece of "art" I wish to see now is this photographer tied up and made to starve to death with the denial of any form of humane intervention
What I am amazed at is what sort of society are we living in where anyone could possibly come up any form of justification for unnecessary cruelty to an animal?
Sickening, truly sickening