Don't tell me this belongs in the art forum

[Sethomas]

I laughed at length at these, so I'm going to hell.

http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/archive/nathalia/nathalia_main.htm

[Mike]

That is fucked up

[Sacks]

What.. Is that like.. Those are photoshopped.. er what?

[Dr. V]

no that's real

[Sacks]

Oh ok, it makes more sense that way.

[Dole]

I don't think there is anything more tedious than achingly self- concious 'controversial' art.

[dreaddi]

Oh no a new bonsai kittens... those are kind of cute though.

[MetalMilitia]

yea really cute... :/

http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/bilder/nathalia/Star.jpg

[liquidstatik]

That looks so fucking awesome. :/

[dreaddi]

I just realized that those aren't manipulated photographs... that's pretty creepy. But still cute, in a way. :/

[Mike]

The cat thing has got to be illegal. That's ridiculous.

[FS]

I didn't read anything on the site, but I think because of the blood on the mouse finger puppets, they're probably incredibly realistic animal sculptures.

Otherwise I guess she might be one of those insane cat / miscellaneous animal - ladies that celebrates the deaths of her pets by turning them into deformed sculptures.

Still weird.

[Dr. V]

There's no way that can be real. I mean, come on!

[Dr. V]

Holy fuck it is real.
Is it permissible to kill animals in the name of art?

Most people who see Nathalia's pictures for the first time are impressed by how beautiful they are. It takes a few seconds before you start to wonder how they have been made. A photo-montage? Some kind of digital manipulation? When you look closer, there is something slightly distorted in the rabbit's expression. Something slightly abnormal about the face of the cat. Slowly you realise that the animal is dead, that the animal has died for the sake of the picture. Is this acceptable?

One can, of course, choose to think that it is always wrong to kill animals in the name of art. That nothing can defend Nathalia Edenmont. But if you feel more doubtful, we would very much like to explain Nathalia's reasoning, and how we at Wetterling Gallery argue when we exhibit her art.

Art arouses thoughts and poses questions that are necessary. Nathalia's beautiful pictures are frightening in the same way that many other beautiful things hide some sort of suffering. One can enjoy beautiful exteriors, or one can go beneath the surface and find things that perhaps you do not want to know about. If Nathalia's pictures had been repugnant, it would have been easy to reject them. 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.

Nathalia grew up in the former Soviet Union, and she has a razor sharp eye for paradoxes and gaps in our western morals. She is not the first to use dead animals in her works of art - that has been done at least since the 1700s, but she is a contemporary debater who provokes questions which nowadays everyone should ask themselves. Her pictures tell lies in front of our faces, but they are not alone in this - the lies exist all around us every day, without us questioning them.

There is nothing illegal in Nathalia's art. She has killed the animals in as humane a way as possible. Has she been guilty of a moral crime? We do not think so. We think that art is of vital importance. What do you think?

[FS]

I think she's full of shit.

[ziggytrix]

i see. moderately talented artist can't get attention with her own talent, so she resorts to displaying fuzzy animal carcasses in an effort to generate controversy.

pretty fuckin lame.

[Goldensoldier]

Im suprised the PETA or w/e there called didnt nuke the place yet. Theres gonna be a war over this.

[BlueOatmeal]

I want to peepee all over Goldensoldier. I swear I mean that. I'm not joking.

[Dr. V]

I think she's full of shit.

No way man, it's right there in black in white. She's a bunny killer!

[Dr. V]

When you look closer, there is something slightly distorted in the rabbit's expression. Something slightly abnormal about the face of the cat.

That's funny.

[FS]

I was more responding to the final line of what you quoted:

What do you think?

I suppose her taxidermist skills may be admired, though considering that the mouse corpses on the fingers are fresh enough to leave blood, maybe her art doesn't look so hot anymore after a few months.

Still, I only would've found this remarkable if they were highly convincing fakes. Then you're doing a mindfuck and pissing off people who end up being pissed off for nothing. When you're using actual animal parts of animals that were killed for the art, it becomes too obvious that you're shooting for publicity by angering people.

[ziggytrix]

"It's like, when I cut the animal up, their life is GIVEN to CREATE something NEW. It's ART!"

Fucking douche.

[sadie]

this belongs in the art forum.

[kellychaos]

This belongs in the Velvet Elvis Paintings Forum.

[Perndog]

I suppose her taxidermist skills may be admired, though considering that the mouse corpses on the fingers are fresh enough to leave blood, maybe her art doesn't look so hot anymore after a few months.

I think the art is the photographs. They probably tossed the carcasses after they got the right photos. Which means they didn't need any taxidermy. Just fresh meat.

[Jim Duncan - Weather]

This belongs in the art forum. :rolleyes