I decided not to post it on New Art. So as not to encourage something I find incorrect, or rather - wrong.
After a while I came back to see it, and watched the whole thing again. And I thought: who am I to judge this? After all, didn't I watch it with curiosity, and watch the whole thing, twice? Why can't I show what's disturbing me, bringing it forward to this public forum, so everyone can make her own mind?
But first, let me warn you: in my opinion, animals were being hurt in the making of this work. If you want to be absolutely sure you don't participate in any way in the popularity of this work, do not see the film below.
I would not resist if I were you. Maybe I would do it for the sake of something (it's a scary skill, thinking up good reasons). But I would be there, peeking in. Maybe not until the end. But then, it doesn't matter, does it? Does it?
The question of the onlooker, his power and his role in the process of creation, might often be used in contemporary art - but very seldom is it addressed in-depth. What is our responsibility? Can shutting our eyes be a good way of "appreciating" and yet disliking the work? Can I refuse something without knowing what it is? What do we know about the work we see above? About the conditions of its creation? Should I even be posting this without that knowledge?
See this strange video, also directed by Körner (Koerner) Union. (Be patient.)
Now, the astonishing part with the hen makes me question my own assumptions. Was my judgement too simplistic, also in the other case? Maybe this is just a short moment, or maybe it's all a trick, maybe the birds are not bumping against the mirror, shocking against it violently, thinking there is space where a solid mirror remains? Maybe it was all digitally manipulated or they were trained, or something? Or maybe I'm being hypersensitive?
Relax, now.
Here are a few untortured animals, in a wonderful picture by Isabella Rozendaal.
No, this is no antidote to these moral dilemmas. But it's an appeasement: the gentle distance. Rozendaal is someone who appreciates " the remarkable and humorous things she encounters in real life". And a way of approaching reality which plays with the idea of "amateur" photography, so we feel like this is almost too easy, and yet, remarkably appealing.
Yet, after all this, let's make a circle, and go back to Korner Union, with a video that somehow makes one think of the pictures above, with simple stories that are just slightly off (and a great song by Don Cavalli)...
But my favorite thing by Korner Union is quite minimalistic I suppose and maybe it's just this mood, tonight, with all the snow melted away, thawed and relaxed and, well, it's a page I found on their soon-to-be-active site. It also takes part in the game of hide-and-seek between the onlookers and the people-who-show-as-things-we-like. And it's simple.
12 comments:
I'm not sure I understand why this video is so problematic. It looks as if there is some kind of food on the other side of the two mirrors that the animals can smell and they are trying to go after it. They seem to be brushing/flying up against the mirrors rather gently. I didn't see any animals getting hurt... is this a shorter version of the video?
I remember as an onlooker (on TV) watching 9/11 unfold with the buildings sucking up the planes and thinking - that is beautiful - But then remonstrating with myself because people were dying.
But it is the beauty I remember.
The last video reminds me of a time in winter when a friend took me around an old French castle by candlelight. It was huge but reduced down and concentrated by the small orb of light.
Good to have you back posting
A video shows birds bumping up against a mirror and now you are musing about how beautiful you found the mass destruction of 911?
It seems as though all this precious gasping at befuddled parakeets might have left you a bit out of breath. Because, really? If beauty comes to mind when you think of the mass violence of 911 then yes, this is a problem. Another problem is the ease with which it is even possible to associate a confused duck with the deaths of so many people.
The way that a screen can serve as a moral equalizer, creating the illusion of theatricality, of irreality, is dangerous. When the methods used for interpreting performance art are used for reading the world around you (where violence and morality spills over the frame of the symbolic) then we are left without a sense of scale.
If everything is reduced to the frame of the screen then we too are made just as small and, yes, superficial.
i like it
http://go2sabah.blogspot.com/
Bustos,
There is no food (I think). It is just the image. They are thinking there is an exit at the end,so they move in that direction. And the mirror makes them think there is more space to the sides, or other animals, so they fly that way. I remember a friend putting some sheet over a window because the birds kept hitting it and killing themselves - it was a one-way mirror. So the principle as such is cruel, and the animals seem to be in a no-win situation. Although it's just a short video. But then, this does not seem a very good excuse...
As for the several questions the next comments raise, I find this a very, very delicate issue - the aesthetic aspects of ethics. Obviously, the association of beauty with goodness and truth is a thing of the past. Yet, we still often feel that something morally repulsive cannot be beautiful. It's as if it were dangerous to flirt with the idea of beautiful evil. Of course, on the other hand, this is one of the favorite cards of any iconoclast. And we often find appeasement in finding beauty in sadness, for instance. And even in tragedy (an "epic: tragedy, we say). Very tough issue here.
Bustos... I abhor the violence that caused 9/11 and the violence of 9/11 so perhaps the beauty I saw was me trying to make sense of the senseless. But I think it is more what vvoi was trying to show, can we see beauty without ethics. I can, but it doesn't diminish my disgust for the real nature of the act.
Me parece muy coherente y revelador el 2º video. Una síntesis del laberinto de la energía.
With Google translator:
I find it very consistent and revealing the 2nd video. A summary of the maze of energy.
Hi there, I personally have a huge problem with animal cruelty. I try to do my part by eating meat or eggs which come from cage free farms. It is really sad when others think other animals can't feel pain the way a human (also an animal) can. Maybe they just ignore that fact. Anyway, I am trying to follow other blogs which post about art. Please feel free to check out my website and blog below. I am an artist trying to raise awareness about mental illness. Feel free to post about my cause or to send my links to anyone you know. THANKS!!
http://www.gaining-insight.com/
http://gaining-insight.blogspot.com/
just say great art
woow that is great
I believe what the bible says, that a wise man takes care of his animals. Art is natural expression, not something you look at for so long it becomes inane and stupid then you think you might understand it. artists create art, just like welders weld steel.
Yes, in the first video, there is the element of confusion amongst the animals. The flying birds (smaller ones) were more at risk because they could hurt themselves. The larger ones not so much. The work was still inherently beautiful though.
In the second video - he employed an old trick you can do to a chicken to make it temporarily 'sleep'.
While the first video did expose the smallest flying birds to potential harm, overall it was actually much more kind than the methods used to slaughter animals for human consumption.
I do eat meat and other animal products so I am not making a statement here about that. However, if culturally we were indeed vegetarian the videos would be construed as much more shocking. It's so much about context.
Post a Comment