Aloi, Art & Animals Chapter 2 (24-49)
Hiroshi Sugimoto, “Diorama: Hyenas, Jackal and Vulture” (1976)
Presentation: Omer
Rogue Taxidermy (short documentary)
Diane Fox, Unnatural History
Mark Fairnington, Fabulous Beasts
Snaebjornsdottir / wilson, nanoq: flat out and bluesome
Angela Singer, Recycled Taxidermy
Tinkerbell (short documentary)
Nina Katchadourian, Chloe
Jordan Baseman, “The Cat and the Dog”
I want to point out the absurdity of both the founder of the Guild of Taxidermy who thinks he is showing respect for the animals he embalms, and Angela Singer who seeks to redress the former injustice through a “de-taxidermy” of the animal. It is surprising that both people manage to simultaneously have opposing views on taxidermy, yet denigrate an animal so profoundly regardless. It seems so self evident that it does not bear posting, but deciding how another life form wants to be treated in death is problematic if you choose to treat it differently from how you would treat yourself. If you do not know how an animal wants to be treated in death, the normal response would be to mimic something you would like for yourself, mimic what the animal’s ‘culture’ would do for the animal, or choose a seemingly ‘neutral’ course of action. It would not be to construct an entirely new death ritual for the animal. Also, it seems self evident that expanding upon said arbitrary created death ritual for the purpose of critiquing it, would be furthering the problematic situation. It is not culturally acceptable to taxidermy our family, but if we found a family member in this state and were repulsed, we would not address the issue by “resurfacing the killing“ of the family member. “Resurfacing the killing” is reiterating the ‘use value’ of the animal, which is the precise problem to begin with. What is actually happening in Singer’s art, is that the animal’s body is used again, but this time, in the service of propaganda that happens to suit her.
Ingrid – we discussed this briefly on Wednesday, but we didn’t come to any resolution. I’m less inclined to be concerned about the treatment of a dead body. Of course, it feels wrong and perhaps offensive to play around with dead bodies, but in pragmatic terms, no-one is actually harmed. You say “deciding how another life form wants to be treated in death is problematic if you choose to treat it differently from how you would treat yourself,” but to me, this insult to the dead body is nothing compared to how we treat living animals every day, torturing and slaughtering them to serve as food. Isn’t it worse to mistreat a living body than a dead one?
http://horrordigest.blogspot.com/2011/04/artistic-inspiration-in-cell.html This blog article talks about the horror movie “The Cell”- I’m adding it because every time I see Damien Hirst’s shark I think of the cow scene in this film, which was actually based off of another artwork and is quoted again and again within art and film.
Dressing an animal up in taxidermy is a similar process to the steps of preserving precious artworks. Humans might find it flattering if reproduced in a wax museum, and spend much of their lives trying to create objects and ideas that will transcend death- it seems only logical of a specieist human race to further personify its cultural customs onto other living things that have bodies, and onto things that no longer or never did have bodies.
There are many connections we might make to the animal body and the body of a woman, and a clear and well as knowable oppressive history in which they existed in the past and exist now. Susan Bordo is a feminist theorist emphasizing the practical over continual meta-theory as the accessibility of her texts knows no bounds. She believes there is a place for theory but that we don’t always need theory to act. The dualism between human and animal and the dualism of gender is real because bodies have suffered and continue to suffer due to these cultural conditioning, dictating, re-preforming, and re-locating itself through individuals based on changing but mostly inert status-quo. Salo states an interesting and controversial idea, that women are the one’s whom have bodies, as men become the practitioners and assessors of bodies in the medical, and scientific fields. I suppose we could say that we view animals as the one’s with bodies and us a practitioners here, literally stitching and stuffing their skins for our own cultural critique and perhaps amusement, perhaps as a distraction where we place the idea of their death and “re-birth” as a distraction from our own death and potential nothingness.
I distinctly recall a visit to the “bodies” exhibition three years ago. How the bodies were acquired was extremely controversial, but I recall the poses of the female and male bodies as being suggestive, and the show to be very hetero-centric in this kind of grotesque dried up utopia of Olympians exemplifying sports and dance (perhaps operating out of a Socrates/Plato line of thought). The male figures were occupying more active poses and the females more inactive stretching and distinctly more spreading of the legs. The lack of flesh propagates taunt stomachs and stretched out abdomens, strangely mimics beauty ideals while communicating that in death we must be less, while the male figures do gender just as severely. There is something quite disturbing about all of the figures, its as if they are asking us to consider them as more alive than a marble sculpture like the “Disk Thrower.” We are so ready to empathize with these in scale, once breathing versions of ourselves but not ready to do so with taxidermy animals.
sorry if that site is disturbing, and not that informative after all
I also posted (and have visited) the “Body Worlds” exhibit. “Bodies” is by a different group, but the core premise is the same. In my posting, there is an author who shares your concerns regarding the gender roles in the exhibits. It may be worth discussing how this relates to diorama, and wether the animals are displayed in their appropriate roles (gendered or otherwise.) Recognizing gender is different than sex, I do believe Body Worlds also created a piece (?) with a man and a woman having sex. It wonder if they would display homosexual activity? Would the orientation of the donor matter? What about displaying hermaphrodism?
I first encountered taxidermy on my first visit to a large metropolis (Bogota,Colombia ) at the age of eleven where i had the opportunity to visit the natural history museum. I vividly remember my excitement at encountering these animals at such close proximity and being able to study them carefully definitely heightened my appreciation of nature and animals as well as educating me about their place within the different ecosystems.
So there are instances where taxidermy seem to have a significant positive effect when used as educational tool , however as Donna Harraway points out the killing itself (for the perfect specimen) echoes sportsmanship and trophy hunting. It is interesting as well to see how these animals (trophies as well as specimens) can be re contextualized in order to review their reading as cultural objects in the work of Bryndis Sneabjornsdottir and Mark Wilson shedding new light as majestic symbols that draw attention to global warming and its perils.
Both these instances are problematic in the sense that the objectification of these animals degrades them from their natural being and habitat to mere object of display.
They were after all sacrificed in the process.
There are however alternatives in the portrayal of animals that seem more ethical and revealing such as the recent exhibit “Anima” by Charlotte Dumas at the Corcoran Gallery of Art.
http://www.corcoran.org/exhibitions/charlotte-dumas-anima/
Thanks for the heads-up, Renwick. I might have to take a trip to see that exhibition….
MB
In response to the rhetorical question, ‘Isn’t it worse to mistreat a living body than a dead one?’, I would respond that this is problematic. I would rather have my dead body mistreated than my living body, but for certain cultures and religions that is not the case. Maybe for an animal, that is not the case. I don’t think this can logic can be used to mitigate the injustice of taxidermy. Taxidermy has an aspect of theatricality and humor to it that I find distasteful. I would rather be murdered painlessly (which is the ideal way that I would want the animals that I eat to die), and buried with dignity, then allowed to die naturally and stuffed and displayed in a museum. There is a mocking aspect to taxidermy that I find upsetting. Obviously this is culturally based, but it seems arrogant to display another formerly sentient being’s dead body without their consent.
Aloi’s divides taxidermy by intention and context. I was especially intrigued by the idea of taxidermied pets. The ostensible truth that our pets claim a place closer to us than other animals is not news. Therefore, the fact that many of us would be uneasy preserving them in the same manner is not surprising. However, Katchadourian’s Chloe brought about quite a stir. The idea of a domestic dog in a diorama of it’s owner’s home is, while definitely cheeky, true to the scientific spirit of the practice. The indignant’s response made me think of the hubub around taxidermied humans, namely the Body Worlds exhibits. There are some differences. The insides of the humans are the star of the show, not the just skins. There are some similarities, though. The human subject’s are posed to relay to the viewer some ability subject may or may not have had. Another difference runs parallel with Singer’s work. Some of the plastinated humans have there cause of death on display as their main feature (smoking, liver disease, cancer, etc.) Decency and religious concerns were the only cries against the displays. Megan Stern in her article, “Shiny, happy people. ‘Body Worlds‘ and the commodification of health,” labels the displays as perpetuating “conservative” gender roles. As in painting, men taking heroic roles and woman passive ones. She goes on to describe Reclining Pregnant Woman, a plastinate whose womb shows its unborn child in “a pose taken straight from pornographic cliche.” I personally disagree, as the pose of a female archer is nothing if no heroic, and pregnancy does not imply pornography (or passivity for that matter.) This question is, what can we learn by comparing the hierarchy of taxidermy in relation to otherness: insects, “cowardly” animals, big game, livestock, pets, and humans?
P.S. It is also worthy of note that Gunther von Hagens Body Worlds classifies as the imported bodies as “art collections.” This means they are not subjugated to the same regulations as cadavers or medical research specimens.
Taxidermy has always been disturbing to me. I think it might be due in part to my perception of underlying cruelty attached to the death of the animal. I brought up coyotes in class and the relationship ranching culture has with this particular predator. The discussion of taxidermy reminds me of a taxidermed coyote my stepfather had in our basement. I believe it was somehow tied to his father who had passed unexpectedly. The point I am trying to make is that we can talk all we want about what we assume is the motive for trophy taxidermy, but lets not ignore the cultural ritual tied to this practice. Many people perceive the traditional use of trophy taxidermied animals as a sign of self reliance and strength passed through family generations.
I have to say, I detest seeing a taxidermed mammal, but i am endlessly fascinated by Mark Fairnington’s Fabulous Beasts along with beetles and butterflies pinned to foam in natural history exhibits. Insects do not survive through the same circulatory and nervous systems as mammals and I must feel disconnected just enough not to feel the cold brush of impending death pass when I look at them.
I have to admit I’ve received a bit of a thrill while reading through the comments posted here, as they are all quite passionate. I have yet to see my peers become terribly emotional in the classroom. Removed, behind our glowing screens, I suppose it is much easier to reveal a side of ourselves that exists in conflict with our cool-headed academic personas. These passionate reactions toward the taxidermy of animals (pets and human bodies as well) are telling. The hyperbolic language used in a number of posts reveals our sensitivity (perhaps oversensitivity?) towards animals (the ones we are able to identify with easily, not the cold, robotic insects; somehow we find more beauty in their stasis.) On Wednesday, I imagine it will be difficult to set aside emotion from our discussion of taxidermy. Personally, I find my thoughts surrounding the issue to be muddled, as they are so informed by my emotional response.
It’s difficult to remove death from the equation, here. It is ultimately death that makes this issue so charged. When we encounter petrified animals (particularly mammals, not Hirst’s shark) aren’t we coming face to face with a more palatable, though still disturbing version of our own death? (This fits nicely with Dandee’s last thought in her post…)
Yes, it’s interesting that we have very different personalities in writing and “in the flesh”. it’s easier to be polemical when we don’t have to face each other. And on that subject, it seems odd that many of us feel uneasy about taxidermy when we have no hesitation about chowing down on animals that have been magically transformed into ‘ham’, ‘steak’, ‘sirloin’, ‘pot roast’, ‘porterhouse’, ‘bacon,’ and ‘drumstick’. In these transformations, the magic “works” and the animal disappears and becomes something else (meat, food). But in taxidermy, the animals themselves don’t disappear – they remain in their original form. Perhaps that’s why we feel uneasy around it. I hope this comment doesn’t seem righteously indignant. As JB points out, it’s very difficult to separate emotion from reason here – in fact, ir’s impossible – and I think we should accept this, and even welcome it. Let’s not pretend we can be logical about matters of life and death.
What is problematic about taxidermy is the hunting of animals for display as trophies. When considering the history of animal usage (humans included), employing animals as ornament is contradictory to their beneficial function for the living. The donation of a body for use once that life has expired has yielded information pertaining to its anatomy and biological processes. The study of the dead has a rich educational record. With consent, people donate their bodies to science and for medical applications. If an individual donates their body for use in science or medicine versus a body being acquired without consent, the ethical quandary becomes whether or not one has permitted the use of their body. There are examples of people whose body provided incredible amounts of information beneficial to the study of life, but were also the subject of great ethical concern. Is it because animals are unable to give consent that makes the use of their bodies so unethical?
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/may/17/henriettas-tumor/
Taxidermy seems to be a selfish act that affirms human life. We use it for decoration, ornamentation, and gloat over its death. I, for one, have a problem with it because I don’t understand the fascination with dead bodies – be it of an animal or a human for that matter.
In many countries, necrophilia is a criminal offense. I often find that this dialogue gets lost when taxidermy is concerned. I’m thinking about necrophilia in terms fetishization of the dead. Artists touch, feel, and then alter body of a once living animal, and that gets critiqued as art and the ethical treatment of dead bodies seems to get lost.
We, as humans, consume animal flesh, but I do see an honest (more so in this part of the world) effort to find the source of the meat we consume. The treatment of animals in life or in death informs where I get my meat supply from. I also agree with the fact that it becomes easier when we consume animal flesh because it appears to be something else. Taxidermy is a constant reminder of what the animal actually was.
I agree with Nick. Dead bodies have informed medicine, which in turn has increased our life span. And perhaps it would be okay for animal dead bodies to be construed in the same fashion as human dead bodies have been to understand “anatomy and biological processes,” but to display it out of a laboratory context raises questions of consent and ethical treatment of living flesh – be it human or animal.