RE: [New-Poetry] Re: POL: Prevent the "Artistic"Death of Another Innocent Animal

[Skip Fox]

I have so many friends who are "true animal lovers" (and they give time an
energy to Animal Rescue, fostering pets, etc.) who laugh at the idea of
becoming vegetarian. Many of these same people are very concerned about the
environment and significantly try to leave a small carbon footprint.

 

I'm not necessarily an animal lover (not of their order surely) and I do
have leather in my life, but I would never consider eating meat. And, I'm
told that by not eating meat I require significantly less of the earth's
resources and do much less harm to the ozone layer.

 

Ito me it's rather simple. I haven't eaten meat for almost 20 years.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: new-poetry-bounces at wiz.cath.vt.edu
[mailto:new-poetry-bounces at wiz.cath.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Anny Ballardini
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 4:04 PM
To: NewPoetry: Contemporary Poetry News &Views
Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] Re: POL: Prevent the "Artistic"Death of Another
Innocent Animal

 

I haven't eaten meat for about 15-20 years now, nor fish, lately not even
eggs. I do eat cheese. I am not a vegan, because I do not have time to cook
and my life gives me time enough for a sandwich and cheese is a good
nourishment and helps me get through. 

Mine was a choice. I realized that meat were animals when I first arrived in
Italy from New York. I was ten. Those little rabbits were what we ate. I did
not want to believe it, as I did not want to believe so many things. They
forced me to eat, up to when I could do what I wanted. 

I anyhow wear leather shoes, woolen sweaters, and who says that plants do
not have a soul? 

 

I think we should talk about this more, and keep more in mind what kind of
disasters we, the humans, have succeeded in doing to this earth.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: amy king <mailto:amyhappens at yahoo.com>  

To: UB <mailto:POETICS at LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU>  Poetics discussion group ;
NewPoetry: Contemporary Poetry News  <mailto:new-poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu> &
Views 

Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:21 PM

Subject: [New-Poetry] Re: POL: Prevent the "Artistic"Death of Another
Innocent Animal

 

Mark,

You're right -- the treatment of animals and for what purposes is not so
black and white.  I too never assumed so.  In fact, I've struggled with the
issue on a personal level, often hypocritically, for years.  I eat seafood
as though those living beings don't have feelings.  I've been sick as of
late and have turned to chicken soup, something I haven't eaten since 1990.
I buy kosher and organic whenever possible.  I cross my fingers and hope
that promise that the animals were given food and treated humanely is true.
I don't condemn people who eat animals or wear their by-products; I'd walk
around angry all the time, especially at myself.  Eliminating the products
of animals from our lives seems next to impossible.  

But when folks get bogged down or distracted by an "It's art" claim when it
comes to issues of accountability (usually to shirk accountability), most
especially by people such as artists who are making a public statement using
animals, the territory gets dangerous.  These "artists" try to set the terms
and evade the ethical questions, as Vargas has done.   He treated the dog in
terms he won't acknowledge for "the greater good" of other starving dogs.
Great.   He brought attention to those dogs?  There was no other way than to
seemingly abuse one of them?  Somehow I don't imagine that all of the other
citizens of Costa Rica sit around idly ignoring what I'm sure is dubbed the
starving dog problem.  Certainly there are organizations he could produce a
campaign for. He could speak out, contribute time, use his public persona to
recruit attention and volunteers, any number of other efforts I can't
imagine at the moment.  Instead, the outrage he produced has instead focused
on his dubious treatment of one dog, rightfully so, instead of the cause he
claims to have exhibited a starving dog for.  How effective was his "piece"
in its goal?  Could he have been more effective?  

Those who consider the ethical before the supposed artistic "gains" are
dismissed with a variety of reasons, mostly ones that implicate they are not
sophisticated enough to understand the artist's aesthetics.  We are then
supposed to feel less-then-intellectual and quiet down in embarrassment.
Some of these "aesthetics" have managed to erase the ethical and lead to
thinking like eugenics (Yeats, Eliot) and even the advancement of the
Holocaust.  Wasn't Hitler, after all, trying to make things better?   Some
have called him an artist.  Didn't he sell that vision?  The art produced
under his regime, especially that of Riefenstahl's and her ground-breaking
aesthetics, cost many lives and much torture.  

Now without the shock value, where would Vargas be?  Would he be a decent
artist?  Would he be noticed?  Aren't art and aesthetics about much more
than finding the next shock value boundary?  

On another note and for those folks who are interested in the treatment of
animals, most especially ourselves, I just started reading what already
seems like a brilliant new book by Barbara Kingsolver, ANIMAL, VEGETABLE,
MINERAL:  http://www.kingsolver.com/bookshelf/miracle.asp

And a review:  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20080512/a52a63ba/attachment.html