5/20/2003: Fish in a Blender

In the IotD theme of interesting/controversial art, this is an installation in a Danish museum. Not only are the fish and blenders real, they are plugged in, and a display invites visitors to blend the fish if they like.

The museum director was initially charged with animal cruelty, but he was acquitted yesterday after it was decided that the fish, if they are blended, are killed instantly and thus humanely.

That brings up questions. Why the director? Shouldn't it be the visitors who choose to press the button who are charged? Why was the artist left out of it? If it's OK to kill them, why is it suddenly not OK if it takes a while for them to die?

Is it good art? It's provocative; without even seeing it, all of us are provoked to answer the question of whether we'd press the button. (I wouldn't.)

On the other hand, it's too simple. It's easy to provoke people via cruelty; we are guaranteed to react to it. Art is not good solely because it makes you think. The best art, it seems to me, is deeper and more inspiring as it makes complicated statements in subtle ways.

Maybe one could come up with a complicated statement about this; "Look, the dark side in humanity is all around us, maybe standing right next to you, maybe in your family, and it's demonstrated in simple ways, just by offering the push of a button." But "Duh!" -- we knew that already, and it's been well-explored, and at the end of the day our cruelty is not the truly interesting thing about humanity.

Where the hell was this?

Trapholt Art Museum in Kolding Denmark.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...ws/5895738.htm

I can't help but imagine the "artist" standing just out of sight, wringing his hands and grinning broadly, occasionally peeking around the corner at the blenders and snickering...

This is not art. This is a "Hey, wouldn't it be rad if we...!"

Re: 5/20/2003: Fish in a Blender

Bass-O-Matic was funny because it was so preposterous.
This is just sick. I don't no much about art, but this ain't it!

Can fish even feel pain?

Of course, they're animals.

The friendly folks at PETA have a viewpoint:
http://www.nofishing.net/pain.html

I wonder how many fish they go through in a day?

Two (2) total, apparently. It was pulled after that.

     What's up with those cheap-ass blenders? Only one button, one speed? What's the fun in that?
     I wonder how many people double tapped the button? Ya know, just enough to spin the water a bit, but not actually suck the fish down to it blendery death? Er, not that I'd do, or even think of such a thing...

A few years back there was a pet store in Delaware on Rte 202 that had a tank of Piranha. For less than a buck you could buy feeder goldfish and drop them in the tank.

Now since the activity which ensued was

a) part of the natural order

and

b) not wasteful since the fish are serving a purpose

does that put it on a higher ethical plane than the blender art?

A FRENCH Blender, oui? Merde

Re: 5/20/2003: Fish in a Blender

Now something more interesting would be if the blender was fitted with an invisible partition that seperated the fish from the blades. The fish would be safe and you could watch the reactions of the button pushers - would it be relief, disappointment, anger at being fooled?

Goldfish

A well cared goldfish has a life expetancy of over 25 years, so yeah, the fate of most pet store goldfish isn't exactly rosey, considering they'll do good to last 3 months in a goldfish bowl...

BTW, the fish in the blenders aren't goldfish, they're Swordtail Platy's, I believe (Hard to recall, I've become mainly a saltwater fish geek lately, my freshwater species recognition skills are getting rusty)...

Live breeders, they breed like mad, and commonly eat their own fry as they're being born, if you don't seperate them somehow...

Ironically enough, I am a complete fish geek, have over a dozen tanks up and running in my house, and I have no problem with this display as art. I think it makes a very profound statement about the nature of man. When confronted with the opportunity, would you push the button? Would that nice looking old man next to you?

I think any scientist would say that fish feel pain. Do they experience that same sort of angst over feeling pain that we do? I don't think we will ever know the answer to that one. Feeling the sensation of pain is not exactly the same thing as suffering. I'm not even sure that all people experience the same level of pain let alone suffer to the same extent from the pain they experience.

One cool factoid - redheads usually feel more pain senstations than the rest of us and need more anesthesia for pain free procedures.

That probably ended the first time a surgeon tried to cut on an baby that wasn't under anesthesia. They get very loud and squirm like you wouldn't believe ... and that's when they are happy.

There is certainly more delicacy involved when putting a baby under, but that's why anesthesiologists are well paid.

What is the limit of stupidity of these guys? or do they have a limit?

I can tell that the artist who came up with this is not even an artist. it's just another guy who is trying to pull up some money from an unsuspicious public.

What is art anyway? Art is all the activity related to coming up with emotins, more detailed, elegant emotions; and it takes work to accomplish it.

michelangelo did it by painting the 6th chapel, many other works and even sculpting David in those "pure" years. (of course out of art, not nudity or pornograghy)

Da vinci did it by making several intricate works that people now think there is a secret code to them.

even Roy Liechenstein did it by posterizing images of magazine-like detail.

all these have one thing in common. it took work for them to accomplish their status. but putting a fish into a cheap, POS blender is not art. it neither gives any emotions.

A Good Bach or a nice Queen might do the trick, but this doesn't

I'm not saying it's good art, but it does provoke emotion.

I'm not saying it's good art, but it does provoke emotion.

So does punching you in the face, but I doubt you'd consider that art.

Provoking emotion MIGHT be necessary for something to be art, but it's certainly not sufficient.

/can't define art either

ah but two people punching each other in the face would be art.
or a bar brawl. Such a thin line these days.

Standing under a "Punch in the Face - $5" sign could be art, though.

ya bunch of sick bastards

Why don't you ask my sister? she's an artist.

I thought you were about to say she was a boxer.

Yo I also have the background of boxing in my life also Tae-kwondo.

So watch out.

Yeah, those are swordtails.

Interesting. I don't think it's art. It looks more like drunk college Teke humor. Oops...drunk and teke...that would be redundant, wouldn't it? Sorry 'bout that. Adolescent college humor, along the lines of daring someone to swallow goldfish when they're drunk.

It seems pretty common that the infliction of pain on lower life forms is not often considered important to humans. They figure since THEY can't feel it, what does it matter? However, here in the states, the artist would possibly be subject to animal cruelty laws. I can't swear to that, though, because I don't know if the animal cruelty laws apply to fish.

I find it interesting, also, that some who don't support execution for a convicted murderer have no problem causing the useless death of an animal that's done nothing to deserve it. They'll press the button just because "oooohh, watch the fishy spin...cooooool. Check out the blood, dude, that's gross. Cool.""

I agree that it takes more for something to be art than for it to just be provocative. Yelling racial slurs on the street corner is provocative, but it isn't art. My daughter is more creative, and she's only two-and-a-half.


And as to the suggestion that if you blend it you oughta drink it, RIGHT ON!



Sidhe