February 17, 2008: Art?

[xoxoxoBruce]

From the newspaper;

The dog/cat doll is an exhibit at a leading art fair opening in Rotterdam today and it has been stirring up a storm of response in the Dutch media.

From Tinkebell;

She says the idea of the dog/cat doll is to start a discussion about how we treat animals and that it should be seen as a protest against the push to create perfect pets via breeding and genetic manipulation.

[sweetwater]

perhaps "Art" is the name of one of the former animals, but i don't think it is art. calling it so would be the same as calling Jeffrey Dahmer a chef.

[Sheldonrs]

Now we know what happened to Paris Hilton's pets.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The only thing on the inside is the other side of the doll.

Originally Posted by DucksNuts

Bruce!!!! Dont call it a *doll*

I think of it more of an action figure, myself.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Trans-fur-mer?

[shina]

Bizarre is the only word I can come up with. How anyone can come up with these ideas is beyond me. I'll pass.

[LabRat]

Maybe it's just the mood I'm in this morning, but I thought it was kind of funny, actually. It also made me think of Popples, Clod, thanks for posting that.
Cool taxidermy project? Sure.
Art? Nah.

[JDwithcoke&lime]

She was going to make a 'doggie bag' to bring home leftovers from a restaurant, but all she had handy was the cat.

[Aliantha]

IT'S NOT A BAG! (ask bruce)

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I think it's a handbag.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It's not a handbag.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

IT'S NOT A BAG! (ask bruce)

It IS a bag. A marble bag. It's empty 'cause 'Tinkebell' has lost her marbles. All of 'em.

If someone did that to my beloved Slick (Bombay cat), bodily harm would DEFINITELY be the order of the day!!

[monster]

[Aliantha]

my kids used to love that show when they were little.

[Flint]

why the hell didn't I think of that? ha ha ha it's catdog

[Giant Salamander]

It's definitely art. From what I can tell, it's quality craftsmanship, and the materials are interesting...but, without the medium's shock value, it's just a somewhat nifty 2-purses-in-1...thing.
Plenty of crap art gets attention because it's "shocking;" that's just the way it goes. Stupid fucking monkeys and their love of hearing their own yowls in the night.

But art is art whether it's good or shitty. There's an art to everything you do, including living, but I'm not going to fart out my mouth about that, since the farts wouldn't even be my own, and I may as well just type "ttttttpppppt"

[Grismar]

Is it art? Of course it is, if someone says it is and someone else feels the need to disagree, it's not just art, it's engaging art. Whether it's fun, clever or beautiful is strictly subjective. Whether it's good or successful also depends on arbitrary marks, though a majority might agree. But then, art is hardly democratic. Personally, I favour "it's art if anyone says it is". Saying something is art provokes the audience to take another look and look at something with a different outlook.

Besides, as far as the argument goes that "putting something on display and saying it is art making it less likely it actually is art": that doesn't work too well with an average Rembrandt or van Gogh, unless everyone in your area agrees none of that is actually art and, in fact, they have one hanging in their tool shed.

In this case, the artist merely wanted to point something out and succeeded very well, as it was in all the newspapers over here. The only reason we feel disgusted when we see this is because we view our pets as fundamentally different from foxes, minks, etc. Even though we breed both ourselves, raise them in captivity, feed them processed food and enjoy stroking their furs.

The fact that we can feel so strongly different about things so close gives pause and -that's- what makes this into a very successful piece of art if you ask me. (I think it's ugly as hell though)

Greetings,
Grismar.