say what?! :eek:

outside looking in said:
I'll tell you what's backwards Jon - someone equating the life of the goldfish with the life of the Judge (no offense Shadowfax). You know, those billions of years of evolution weren't just for shits and giggles.

Very true :)

From a personal point of view, I'd hate to see that happen. It's a fucking goldfish - what have they ever done to him?!

[Ricky Tomlinson] Art, my arse [/Ricky Tomlinson]
 
I can see the headlines now -

"New, humane execution method - convicted killer gets blended! He died instantly says the warden, then we used him to fertilise the vegatable patch. You could say he finally put something useful back into society." :lol:
 
Q said:
That's not art. It's sheer stupidity.

Not only is it not art...it's not even original. Someone did the same thing with a rat and a air-compressed plunger.

The difference is that that 'artist' didn't go through with it.

Cooking lobster is hardly humane either . :):wink2: but what it is - is good with garlic butter
 
I really don't consider fishing a cruel habit...I fish, I eat what I catch...we're all omnivores here...things die so we can eat them. It's that whole 'top of the foodchain' thing.

This person's fault (beyond what a good anti-psychotic could cure) is his mis-interpretation of the definition of art as an emotional trigger. Art is more than an emotional trigger...it's not meant to be a knee-jerk trigger...it's meant to illicit thought, emotion, and self-awareness. Blending up a goldfish is the sam kind fo back door that 'rubbernecking an accident' is...purely simian in nature, and should not be taken as true art.
 
Above all, art is supposed to elicit appreciation, and in fact the level of appreciation of a piece is really the only way the artistic value of a piece can be judged.

Art that is repulsive or simply uninteresting can still be appreciated, and even if you don't even like the piece. I fail to see how this particular exhibit classifies as such.
 
Back
Top