You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity.
—Ralph Waldo Emerson
If we're not supposed to eat animals ... how come they're made out of meat?
—Anonymous
It's harder to get a steak 'round here than it is to get Christ off the cross.
—My father, apropos of nothing.
Here's a hypothetical in the style of Geoffrey Robertson:
Imagine I, David Walsh, go down into the gallery, kill someone at random, and call it art. A lovely ironic way to do this would be to put the suicide machine on display, but make it work. My defence would be: it's a work of art—a lesson in the complex consequences of immorality.
What would happen to the Tasmanian economy? My guess is Mona would go from being well known globally to being a household word. Disaster tourism would drive Mona to the top of the charts, and Tasmania's economy would go along for the ride. I'd see the spectacular increase in dark tourism from my prison cell, of course. And, as they dragged me away, you would probably hear me shouting something about the greater good. Mona might end up being supported by the same sort of people that go on the huge number of competing Jack the Ripper tours—given Mona's much vaunted sex and death theme (I wish I never said that) the prurient interest would be vast.1
Prior to Mona opening the biggest tourism destination in Tassie was Port Arthur—an elegantly ruined convict settlement, but also the site of a massacre. I was invited to talk to people involved with Port Arthur about potential commonalities between Port Arthur and the forth-coming Mona. I guess they were thinking about cross promotion. I started with, ‘I've been racking my brain trying to think of things that Port Arthur and Mona have in common. All I can think of is that we are both interested in death—but we are opposed to it, and you seem to be in favour of it’. I had momentarily forgotten about the massacre, so I awaited a polite chuckle. It never came.
But if the extreme form of consequentialism had merit (if ends really justified means), Martin Bryant, the perpetrator of that heinous deed at Port Arthur, would be labelled a hero. The Port Arthur Massacre changed the political climate regarding gun control, and it enabled John Howard to spend half-a-billion dollars buying back some types of guns. The result: there have been no mass shootings since Port Arthur, the decrease in the homicide rate has accelerated but, most particularly, gun-related suicide rates have plummeted with no commensurate increase in suicides by other means. The Port Arthur Massacre has saved hundreds of lives.
So why do we know that my little scheme is reprehensible, and the Port Arthur Massacre despicable? There's a clever thought experiment in psychology: the trolley problem. Wikipedia describes it thus:
There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:
1. Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the most ethical choice?
When faced with this dilemma, most people pull the lever. They kill one to save five. So the ends justify the means? Not so fast. When the experiment is slightly altered, so that one has to push a fat man onto the tracks to stop the trolley, very few will do it. If it isn't clear to you why, consider this: here's a healthy guy, but his organs will help save five people who are dying. Do you sacrifice him? It is, apparently, only moral to kill one to save five when the action is an indirect consequence of the intervention. This is a key component of how Hitler got Auschwitz done in the first place. This 'banal evil' was a side effect for almost all concerned. Only those who released the gas were directly acting and, of course, that action was just a side effect of them doing their jobs.
Recently, there has been a rising tide of opposition to a Hermann Nitsch project planned for Dark Mofo. He uses a bull marked for slaughter to ritualistically cover a bunch of people in blood. Here's a video of one such performance. I expect the tide to keep rising.
These performances are pretty gory, and superficially (perhaps at every level) pointless. These performances have their genesis in the sixties—Nitsch is Austrian and, unlike Germany, Austria had assumed no culpability in its part of the Axis atrocities of WWII. There are also not-so-subtle references to the psychological posturing and sacramental rituals of The Church. The Catholics have this great play wherein they turn wine and bread into the blood and body of Jesus (this, they insist, isn't ritualistic). They then eat it under the watchful gaze of their crucified messiah—and that crucifixion is another ritual that is periodically re-enacted. In the history of the Abrahamic religions, Abraham himself is willing to sacrifice his son. Nitsch's bull (like Jesus) gets no such reprieve—even if the protestors have their way, it will end up in burgers or cat food (maybe the protestors, if successful in their endeavour, should pay for this beast to spend the term of its natural life indulging its vegan habits—would they be happy if we agreed to spare two animals in return for this bull being Nitsched? Such is the sanctimonious calculus of moral equivalence).
Yvette Watt, Tasmanian local and, I later found out, a 'noted vegan crusader', expressed her opinion on Facebook that it was not good art. For my purposes, it is good art. I believe that it has already spiked a conversation (thank you, Yvette) about the appropriateness of slaughter and Dark Mofo hasn't even happened yet. That isn't what the artist intends, but Mona has a history of repurposing art to serve its own psychological or political purpose. And anyway, Yvette Watt would oppose it even if she thought it was good art. She is opposed to the ritualistic killing of animals per se—on another occasion she said, ‘On an ethical basis, I don’t think any animal should have to die or suffer in the name of art’. That's a more than reasonable position, and there is not a trace of hypocrisy about her. She opposes the slaughter of animals both directly (as an art performance), and as a side effect (for the generation of meat).
If you don't think the side-effect argument has merit consider this. We have a work at Mona by Jannis Kounellis (see this blog post). When whim pervades, we hang chunks of meat from hooks. Nobody cares. The only reason I can think of as to why that is okay, but Nitsch's meat isn't, is that Kounellis’ meat is killed for food and repurposed (side-effect), whereas Nitsch's is killed for performance and later eaten (the side-effect is the only 'legitimate' purpose). I hate that Nitsch insists on eating the meat. I want clarity of intent—I want the audience to ponder why meat for food is okay (at least people aren't protesting at Mona's barbecue) but meat for ritual or entertainment isn't.
Under the legal regimes of all the countries in the world, it is legal to eat meat. Once Nitsch has made the choice to eat meat, a choice he apparently has the right to make, he has already decided (perhaps inadvertently) that killing is moral, so for him, depriving the life of one more beast has no bearing on his morality. Unless you think you have the right to impose your choices on others beyond the law (think bombing abortion centres) you probably, de facto, agree with him. But bombing abortion centres is a direct action, like killing the fat man, so most people find it an appalling strategy. You might argue that eating meat is part of our biological basis, so it can't be immoral. Well, half a billion people don't eat meat, so it isn't necessary to eat meat. And, as I've argued in On the Origin of Art, art is also a biological necessity. In my opinion, people consume meat because they like it, and they consume art because they like it. When art (even accidentally) makes explicit what eating meat entails (slaughter, pain, blood, guts) they don't like it. Of course, that's an ends-justifies-means argument, a fat-man-on-the-track argument, so it doesn't buy any social currency.
All that verbiage and I still don't know whether Nitsch's performance is justified. I can argue that it does good by creating awareness of moral hypocrisy (highlighting the slaughter of millions of beasts a year for unneeded food) but it is hard to find a way that avoids it being categorised as a direct action, and humans generally think doing good by doing bad is wrong. But our biology is generated by evolution, and the survival-of-the-fittest mechanism doesn't maximise morality. When people are faced with the trolley problem they will routinely sacrifice one to save five. Unless that one is kin, or a sexual partner.2 That moral spasticity is a lot less concerning to me than this one: I learned as a Catholic boy about 'sins of omission'—for example, recounting a story but leaving out the important, self-incriminating bit. Murder is a sin of commission, but not saving someone when you can is a sin of omission. Some early Catholic theologians contended that these two categories of 'sin' held equivalent culpability. My Catholicism has long since collapsed but I see merit in the argument.
In The Most Good You Can Do, Peter Singer argues that working in rapacious Wall Street jobs (rather than being, say, a doctor in the third world) is eminently moral, because it maximises capacity to spend resources helping others.
Constructing and operating Mona has, so far, cost me around $300,000,000. The economic benefit to Hobart has been enormous, and although I didn't intend it I am often lauded for my contribution. Singer, and others, point out that mosquito nets cost around $10 (by the time they are transported to a place where they are useful) and about one time in 500 they save a life by preventing a fatal bout of malaria. So, the calculus is simple—saving a life costs about 500*10 or $5,000. Had I spent my money that efficiently, instead of building Mona, I could have saved 60,000 lives. Of course, doing that might have left Hobart in the economic doldrums. A man on the street the other day described me as a 'saint'. Little he knew. Somewhere, on that same street, another man might have been shipping all of his excess resources off to anonymously save lives (and those resources might come from honourable employment—not Wall Street nor the Japan tote). His sanctity is undeniable, but invisible.
Let's talk about you, now. I don't know you, but you may have made some great lifestyle choices. The chances are, if you're reading this blog, you are self-aware, have a social conscience, and consider yourself a bit of a lefty. But you also earn far more, and consume far more, than your average fellow human. The average global income is about $20,000 (massively skewed by rich fuckers like me—about a billion people subsist on less than a dollar a day). You probably drive a modest car (a hybrid). If you caught buses instead you could save around six lives with the money you spent on that wholesome transport. But, let's face it, you would have to get up half an hour earlier. 'What can you do? Only so much' (remember that Christian Television Association ad?).
So here's my advice to you. If Nitsch's performance is wrong (and I've been unable to find anything but moral equivalence arguments to suggest that it might be ok), get out there and stop it. It won't be a disaster for Tassie, since it'll just generate a few headlines and a bunch of Facebook discussion. But stopping Nitsch won't stop me doing the sort of self-serving, status-enhancing, biologically-bound good that I do through Mona. You should be protesting that, too. And you also should have a crack at getting your own 'house in order' (as the Bible says). You should, of course, stop eating meat, and rapacious crops, and you should stop doing anything that has cost (economic, social or environmental). And you should take all the cash you squander and spend it buying mosquito nets, or some other efficient life-saving interventions. For, as the Bible also says, 'why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?'
Your life is no longer yours. Having being released from the ties of religion, and the indentured servitude of social expectation, you are now bound by the strictures of ethical philanthropy. And also by the ineluctable need to undermine a performance that changes very little beyond expediting the unjust demise of a beast, and luring you into reading this sentence, and those before it.
P.S. Among her Facebook posts Yvette Watt made this offer:
I have a proposal for you and [Mona curator] Jarrod [Rawlins]. (I will email Jarrod.) As an artist whose own work does tackle the issue of animal death at human hands for meat I would like to meet the bull that will be slaughtered, and would like Hermann Nitsch to come with me. I would like to film this meeting. I would like to be able to at the very least recognise this animal and his individuality prior to his death, and ask that Hermann does the same. He is on record as saying he is an animal protector and from his point of view 'factory farming is the biggest crime in our society'. I would still vastly prefer that the bull is not killed for the event. But rather than simply insulting Hermann I'd like to engage with him.
I acceded to her request. It seemed honourable, and it would, at the very least, improve the quality of debate. However, Jarrod wasn't contacted, and the Facebook exchange was removed. It seems Yvette has changed her mind, as is her right, of course. But having set us on the path to enable her request, one wonders why this crusader for justice didn't contact us to inform us of her revised strategy? She thinks the bull is worth engaging as an individual. Is Hermann? Am I? So now I have a proposition. If you succeed in having the event cancelled, will you meet the bull with me anyway, and film its demise? Or, at least, acknowledge that its death was foreordained, not because of me, nor Hermann Nitsch, and not because of an iniquitous system, but because of the sanitisation of that system? I'm planning to aid and abet the murder of this animal. Is it possible that those who oppose this performance are aiding and abetting the iniquitous system, by concealing one more slaughter? Throughout this blog, and my adult life, I've not been able to find an answer to these questions, as this blog acknowledges. I expect more than the usual number of responses to this tirade. I do hope I learn something.
P.P.S. It won't save taxpayers any money if Nitsch's performance is cancelled (unless the whole of Dark Mofo is scrapped). I kick in about $750,000, so it'll just give me a better bottom line. I could donate the returned funds to an ethical charity, but that eliminates all moral ambiguity. If I was sufficiently bloody-minded, I would suggest that I make that donation only if the event goes ahead. But I'm not that much of a 'physiopath' (as one commenter just called me).
1An earlier version used Auschwitz as an example of disaster tourism. That unsurprisingly upset people, and I'm sorry. It was a thoughtless error, both because it gave needless offence, and it is clearly not an example of disaster tourism. In an earlier version I had this reference to Jack the Ripper, and I thoughtlessly changed it to give it more punch. The punch was to my glass jaw. Again, apologies.
Responses
winky420 | April 19, 2017 at 08:32 pm
Justy Phillips | April 19, 2017 at 08:38 pm
David Walsh | April 19, 2017 at 09:15 pm
She removed her offer from her Facebook page. I guess she did that while washing her hair. I probably won't be there either.
Kerry gunn | April 19, 2017 at 10:13 pm
Gregory Crocetti | April 20, 2017 at 03:29 pm
Rosie Cross | April 21, 2017 at 08:59 pm
Rosmyn | April 19, 2017 at 08:42 pm
Keely Windred | April 20, 2017 at 10:21 am
Erin | April 21, 2017 at 01:01 am
Yvette Watt | April 19, 2017 at 09:14 pm
And you’re right, I should have emailed Jarrod by now. The truth is I was in Melbourne over the Easter weekend having fun and then got back very sleep deprived to a work backlog. Today was lost in work and dealing with unexpected media attention and emails from various people in response to it that started last night when the Mercury called me at 8pm. There is nothing in what I have said in the media that should have surprised you given our conversation on Facebook.
You see, I do care about these things, but I also have a life that includes a demanding job (and also includes having fun). My offer stands and I will email Jarrod. I will consider your counter offer, but as you know I did not suggest filming the bull’s slaughter with Nitsch – I simply suggested we meet the animal that would die for his work. I won’t lie – I am not sure I can watch this animal die. But as an artist, an activist, and an academic whose work is very much concerned with these issues I am open to thinking through the possibilities all of this offers. Lets keep the conversation going.
David Walsh | April 19, 2017 at 11:37 pm
LordBoofhead | April 20, 2017 at 01:08 am
Jules | April 20, 2017 at 01:58 pm
Yvette Watt | April 20, 2017 at 07:22 pm
So, the plant thing (I don't know a vegan who hasn't been hit with this one. Or the desert island with only a pig for company and no other food scenario). No, I'm, not a fruitarian. But if plants do turn out to be sentient then a lot more plants die if you eat animals, than if you just eat plants yourself instead of feeding them to the animals first. But for now each time I eat a meal I do so in the knowledge that I have tried to cause as little suffering as possible, but also in the knowledge that there is no such thing as a perfect vegan, and that somewhere along the line animals have died as a result of me being alive. I'm a very long way from perfect, and there are doubtless things that I am hypocritical about, but I'm giving it my best shot, and that's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing. Part of this attempt at doing the best I can is to speak out about the fact that an animal might die for an artwork. It's a gesture that recognises the power of art, but in this respect I am troubled by an artwork that presents an animal as mere material, and further exploits the commodity status of this sentient being unfortunate enough to be categorised by humans as food. This was behind my offer to meet with Nitsch and the Bull - to at least give the animal some presence in all of this beyond being a carcass (the absent referent as Carol J Adams terms this effect in her book The Sexual Politics of Meat). Without a doubt the discussion around this event has been fascinating and important and I delight in the engagement shown by so many people who care enough to have a considered opinion.
I am curious though that it is a bull who is the chosen beast - I mean, I'm clear why Nitsch would want a bull over a steer or heifer as it's not manly enough to dominate a castrated or female animal (and yes, I know, pagan bull rituals etc). My point is that it is generally steers and heifers that go to slaughter for human consumption. Bulls are only kept for breeding purposes, which explains why (as I understand it) it was hard for you to source a bull for this event. So if this is the case (that the animal in question is indeed a bull rather than a steer) then it would seem that the perhaps animal’s death was not in fact predestined (at least not yet)? I guess this also means you either had to pay a pretty penny to get someone to part with a stud bull who was still in use, or it was a stud bull at the end of his useful life in which case as I understand it they go pretty cheaply as they're only good for mince. The stock market. Regardless, I can confirm that if the event does not proceed than I will be able to buy and rehome this bull. If he doesn't already have a name it seems only fitting that he should be called Hermann.
Sonya | April 20, 2017 at 08:20 pm
David mona is amazing and the festival puts tassie on the map. Thank you. I'm hopeful this guys 'act' gets cancelled tho. I think the points been made without having to see this art.
Nalin Arileo | April 21, 2017 at 08:45 am
Coupled with the old 'but you drive a car and kill bugs, and you step on ants - how dare you call me out on my support of animal slaughter, you hypocrite!' argument.
People who are opposed to the slaughter of animals for food, clothing or any human purpose, are not perfect. Yes our cars kill bugs. Yes we might inadvertently step on ants. And yes the crop cereals we eat probably involve the deaths of many creatures.
The difference here is two-fold. Firstly, there is intent. The person paying for their meat, dairy, eggs, honey, is financially rewarding the system of slaughter. They are intrinsically complicit in it. The system couldn't operate without their financial contribution. The person doing their best to avoid any such complicity, while still inadvertently causing deaths, is doing their best. It's never going to be perfect, animals will still die. But we aren't going around rewarding the killers financially, urging them to continue.
Secondly, there are sheer numbers. Most of us drive, and therefore kill bugs. Most of us walk, and therefore squash ants. Most of us eat cereals, and therefore are complicit in the deaths involved in cropping. These deaths are shared by us all. But 56 billion animals each year are killed for food. Think about that number. Each year. There are 7 billion humans on the planet, just for perspective. Vegans are trying not to be a part of that atrocity. Trying not to add to the culpability of the inadvertent deaths that we all share. It's that simple.
I don't think that someone needs to be absolutely morally perfect before they can comment about a reprehensible act. If this were the case, nobody could call any other person's actions into question, because none of us are perfect. Yes, hypocrisy exists, and is probably unavoidable. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing our best to live well. And by my judgement, doing our best does not involve farming animals, does not involve slaughterhouses, and does not involve ritualistic killing of a fully sentient being, capable of joy, sadness, fear, for sheer entertainment. I think we can do better.
Jean E | April 21, 2017 at 11:53 am
Rosie Cross | April 22, 2017 at 12:02 pm
Rosie Cross | April 22, 2017 at 12:02 pm
Adrian Garner | May 4, 2017 at 08:43 pm
I guess we won't know until the performance has happened, what it is supposed to be about. Unless he is just rehashing what he has done before- in that case the video would shed some light on the subject.
I didn't want to watch it but I'll check it out now. Hang on.
--
Mmm, I probably should have opened up an incognito tab for that one.
Yvette, I think that you and Nitsch both have mostly similar messages about animal lives. He's trying to borrow a (what he thinks is) dead animal to bring the greater issue of animal slaughter into discussion. I feel you are trying to intervene in the death of that individual animal for the benefit of that individual animal AND to bring the greater issue of animal slaughter into discussion.
On the flip side...
Now that I look at a few more of his artworks, it seems that dead animals and nudity are the medium, not the message. I think that reading a message about animal consumption from this is an excuse more than a theme. I think that Nitsch's work is "just" shock and gore, but that is a big, valid thing to be explored in itself.
I appreciate that you are a vegan, and that you are taking every opportunity further the cause and I hope you pick the best battles.
(Nothing but nets , awesome)
Adam | April 19, 2017 at 09:15 pm
Diana | April 20, 2017 at 06:39 pm
AJ | April 19, 2017 at 09:20 pm
It appears the wild world of social media and hasty responses to jump on the pitchfork bandwagon has worked in your favour. Your online performance has jumped a little bit, and you're now trending on Facebook.
I look forward to this years event.
Damien Taylor | April 19, 2017 at 09:20 pm
LordBoofhead | April 20, 2017 at 01:10 am
See: Mithras.
Jo | April 20, 2017 at 03:58 am
Kathy Gates | April 20, 2017 at 10:46 am
Kelly | May 28, 2017 at 10:32 pm
Alistair Ripper | April 19, 2017 at 09:26 pm
Angela | April 19, 2017 at 09:26 pm
Tasha | April 19, 2017 at 09:29 pm
Blood belongs to the living. Blood flow signifies dying, which is different from being dead. Blood shows us that this beast is like us, in a way that is removed once it's packaged and sold as food.
The concept definitely makes me wonder why I'm fine with carnivorism, but 'put off' (and a little intigued) at the thought of slaughter for pleasure's (art's) sake.
MDR | April 20, 2017 at 11:35 pm
Adam | April 19, 2017 at 09:35 pm
I would also like to thank you for helping Tasmania get back on track with your dream of setting up Mona.
I am personally (and all my family) are proud to be living back in Hobart from nearly a decade away in the Northern Territory...Mona saved Tassie while we were away...things didn't look good at all.
I suppose a question would be...imagine if Mona didn't exist...no thanks :)
Dark Mofo is a spectacular event and helps, maintains-increase people's serotonin through winter (sad weather)...it's something to look forward to...winter is tough for a lot of people and your spectacular event helps the world come together.
From your Facebook feed, I believe art is art and I also believe that art can also be dark.
For me, I was bought up on ferreting and fishing and understand what needs to happen for some foods to be produced for the table. I also believe it's good for children (of mature age) to have an understanding of what happens when this is required so a respect is formed from living, catching, killing then consuming.
As I have been saying this for nearly 15 years...Imagine if we...
*Take all the buildings and infrastructure away
*Take our jobs away
*Take our clothes away
What would happen?
1. We would need shelter
2. We would need safety
3. We would need water
4. We would need food
We would need to survive...
What would be around us to survive on?
That depends on the location, climate etc.
A survival network somewhere in their is meat...to find this out...go out into the remote wilderness for a week and see what happens...take nothing with you...
As you know, every one has a choice to what they consume the thing that is missing from this choice is respect...respect for how the food is produced, respect for how we consume our food.
For me having a killing of an animal on show (to say yeah, we saw that) will bring a lot of people to the event and get people talking which is great for business...but for the main element of respect - this will be dishonored and my 3 young children, wife and I won't be attending this part of the event.
At the end of the day (in a nut shell), this is your event, it's bluddy hard to keep everyone happy and your heart will tell you if it's the right thing to do or not.
Thank you for reading and good luck!
Kind regards
Adam
Mel | April 20, 2017 at 10:05 am
At this stage in modern society we can live without meat, resulting in less cruelty, less killing and less environmental degradation. So why not? Why wouldn't you? If someone nukes the world, then maybe we should think about consuming meat once again. This argument along with the 'desert island' argument is at this stage tired and too well versed to be a valuable contribution to the conversation.
Christine Jameson | May 10, 2017 at 12:54 pm
Maria Kunda | April 19, 2017 at 09:35 pm
Eza | April 19, 2017 at 09:37 pm
I believe you have made a successful argument and Tasmania should open its eyes as mona shows us hard truths in different, unique ways. I look forward to the display.
callum | April 19, 2017 at 09:43 pm
I doubt the father who had his child shot down at gunpoint would consider the events at port Arthur worthy of his childs life in the long term, nor would he hail the shooter as a hero. The true hero would be John Howard, with his swift response to make sure these things never happen again. Martin Bryant was just another killer, incapable of the moral fortitude that compassion represents within our world. If you kill the steer, you are no hero, and the greater good will come from those with the compassion to fight against those that kill.
You can sell it however you want David, but you could easily take the animal to brightside rather than slaughter it, and we both know that would make more of a statement in the meat/life debate than to follow through with your idea. A great deal of the world might watch this spectacle, you can do better than to show them that this animal is just another beast to be used for the consumption of the human ego.
I put these questions to you David.
Why do you think you have the right to use another life as a display in morals?
And, if you must make a statement about life and death, then why chose a life that is resistant to participate in this sacrifice?
Now I have a question for Herman.
Since you would like to make a display of death, and there is only one life you own, why don't you show some true courage and instead of taking a life that is unwilling to participate in your "art", why not use your own life?
If the answer is that you want to live, then I call you a hypocrite and a fraud.
After all, art is a creative display of an individuals mind. What you are doing is not art I am afraid, because you have involved unwilling participants, and deprived them of their own unique display of creativity.
Dress it as you like, what you are doing is wrong.
Jo Lane | April 19, 2017 at 11:18 pm
Holly Dwyer | April 20, 2017 at 09:20 am
Amanda Rowe | April 20, 2017 at 11:48 am
KNelson | April 20, 2017 at 05:45 pm
Leeanne | April 20, 2017 at 08:26 pm
Aleena | April 20, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Nalin Arileo | April 21, 2017 at 11:35 am
Anna | April 21, 2017 at 05:55 pm
Mandy Woodorth | April 23, 2017 at 10:04 am
Lorraine Clark | April 19, 2017 at 09:48 pm
Liz | April 19, 2017 at 09:58 pm
Frank | April 20, 2017 at 07:00 pm
The genre is Violent Performance Art.
Nitsch has had his niche market for decades. Anecdotally, there has been no discernible difference to human consciousness regarding our irredeemable savagery since he began his killing rituals.
Kerry Gunn | April 19, 2017 at 10:01 pm
Phil Patterson | April 19, 2017 at 10:03 pm
Ester Gros | April 19, 2017 at 10:06 pm
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 12:02 am
How did most people arrive at their position on animal rights? Their has been an massive increase in the rights assigned to (or earned by) animals in the last couple of centuries, and as you point out, these rights are not universal (some countries eat dog, some eat whale, some eat pork). How did these changes and these discrepancies arise, if not without consideration?
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 12:02 am
How did most people arrive at their position on animal rights? Their has been an massive increase in the rights assigned to (or earned by) animals in the last couple of centuries, and as you point out, these rights are not universal (some countries eat dog, some eat whale, some eat pork). How did these changes and these discrepancies arise, if not without consideration?
Nick | April 20, 2017 at 12:37 pm
Zooropa | April 19, 2017 at 10:09 pm
Cunt | April 19, 2017 at 10:17 pm
SDL | April 20, 2017 at 10:15 am
Emma | April 19, 2017 at 10:20 pm
john Harris | April 19, 2017 at 10:33 pm
sue reid | April 19, 2017 at 10:35 pm
Know1 | April 19, 2017 at 10:39 pm
A trolley full of your loved ones is heading down the tracks and will hit another loved one. If you redirect it, it will hit three strangers, but all of your loved ones will be fine.
However, there is another person on the other side of the tracks facing the same problem. If you both choose to redirect the trolleys, they will crash in the middle, killing almost everyone.
The least amount of people will die if you do nothing and allow a loved one to die, the best-case scenario for you will occur if you pull your lever and the other person does not pull theirs, and the worst-case scenario will occur if you both pull your levers.
Philosophy is evil.
sue reid | April 19, 2017 at 10:40 pm
Simon Holmes | April 19, 2017 at 10:49 pm
Jo Lane | April 19, 2017 at 10:54 pm
I was in an art event 41 years ago, a film called Chopping Block by Ivan Durrant. The same Ivan Durrant who killed a cow at the entrance to Nat Gallery of Victoria .. to make people realise, with the same disdain as this, the act of killing animals for our consumption. (of course he did not kill it there, it was from an abattoir)
In Chopping Block we were faced with pigeons in cages in front of us at the dinner table. Our task was to kill them for the chef. A camera tracked around the guest through discourse and butchery .. of course tragic, chaotic and emotional much of the time.
The point was we were made to face consequences ... not all 'nice'.
Same here .. different way. This conversation would not be happening...
Excellent stuff highlighting consequences.
😊
Adrian Garner | May 4, 2017 at 08:48 pm
George Manganas | April 19, 2017 at 11:04 pm
John | April 19, 2017 at 11:04 pm
Alisa bowerman | April 19, 2017 at 11:04 pm
Frank MacNeill | April 20, 2017 at 09:03 pm
Well, here's my tuppence worth.
The difference between art and life (non-art) is that an artist communicates in some way (using his or her favoured medium) something about the world, something about their inner life. If you had put your post in the form of a poem or a song, or painted it, or created some personal representation of it through some expressive medium, it would most likely be something heavenly, something beautiful, and so a work of art.
It may be a treasure you wish to keep for yourself or something you might wish to share with others. There may be someone who is so touched by the work so much they offer to buy it from you...you get my little drift.
A work of art always represents - even 'copies', like a landscape painting or still photograph (such as Ansel Adams did) - the felt essence of inner or outer experience by means of the unique medium chosen by the artist. Its success lies in its ability to move you, to communicate something in an arresting, perhaps even transformative way, and the artistic challenge is to achieve this without restaging the thing itself - without repeating it or re-enacting it.
In Nitsch's parallel universe he would have an actual person give birth to a dead baby and call it art - on the basis that he is showing the world something he believes the world should be aware of by - in his view - the most powerful (read emotional) means available: that is, not with photographs, or a movie, or sculpted human forms like Patricia Piccinini's, or a play, or novel, or with stage props, but by recreating or restaging the actual thing, experience, or event.
I would not regard Nitsch's kind of 'restaging' as art, because it does not represent as art does, but goes back and does it again. Nitsch uses shock/horror to drive a point home about our destructive natures by engaging in destructive repetitions for a social awareness purpose.
Nitsch's performance art is a travesty of art. It tells us nothing that we do not already know about ourselves, and offers no solutions. It does not uplift or give us hope. It is mere ostentatious, graphic pedagogy. It is a type of exhibitionism that reveals more about Nitsch than anything else.
A great work of art - no matter how hideous (such as Goya's paintings and etchings that also tell a story of human savagery) - is able to communicate a profound experience within the constraints of chosen media and techniques in a masterful way. Goya's paintings did not require restaging those terrible events of the Peninsula War in Spain in the early 19th century; sufficient reminder are those terrible, magnificent works that are an enduring and permanent testimonial to awful truths about human nature and the terrors and pointless tragedy of war.
Goya's horrors will remain to speak to us about something unpalatable about our savage natures long after Nitsch's facile shenanigans have been consigned to the dustbin of history. And art will always be there for us to transform our baser instincts, and our sometimes overwhelming feelings and emotions into forms that express, redeem, and inspire.
Antony Cox | April 19, 2017 at 11:07 pm
Carlo Di Falco | April 19, 2017 at 11:11 pm
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 09:20 am
Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data; Andrew Leigh, Research School of Economics, Australian National University and Christine Neill, Department of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University. (Andrew is a member of federal parliament now).
Their conclusion: In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning house- holds). Using differences across states, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non- firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.
Elsewhere in their text: The effect of the buyback on firearm suicides is clear. Withdrawing 3,500 guns per 100,000 individuals (...) is estimated to reduce firearm suicides by 1.9 per 100,000. This represents a 74% decline from the 1990–95 average of 2.55, or 376 fewer deaths per year...
This study is the only study that uses robustness tests to sanity check their procedures. Their results are conclusive. I, for one, would wager real money on forecasts extrapolated from this study, even at short odds.
Carlo Di Falco | April 20, 2017 at 10:30 pm
The most comprehensive report on the fallout of the 1996 gun laws was published in the British Journal of Criminology and authored by Professors Janine Baker and Samira McPhedron. This was one of the number of research papers that pointed out that the firearms murder rate was falling well before 1996. Of course a number of firearm prohibitionists sought to throw cold water on the report, most notably Professor Simon Chapman. The head of NSW's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research peer reviewed the study and found it's conclusions to be sound. In a forum with professor Chapman, Don Wederburn stated " It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice".
Roland Browne delights in pointing out that there are more firearms in private possession now than at 1996 and yet no mass shootings or increase of suicide by firearm. No mass shootings in New Zealand since 1997 and no mass shootings in Switzerland despite having a 500 year tradition of a civilian militia. No mass shootings in the former Russian republics despite permissive gun laws. According to the UN's small arm survey, there are 28 countries which have a higher gun murder rate than the US. Most of these prohibit private firearm ownership.
Over to you.
Tom | April 19, 2017 at 11:15 pm
Ken | April 19, 2017 at 11:17 pm
SN Irony | April 19, 2017 at 11:23 pm
Max | April 19, 2017 at 11:25 pm
Michael | April 19, 2017 at 11:28 pm
River | April 19, 2017 at 11:29 pm
Jo | April 20, 2017 at 04:13 am
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 08:42 am
SN Irony | April 20, 2017 at 03:57 pm
TBornotTB | April 19, 2017 at 11:30 pm
Nick | April 19, 2017 at 11:39 pm
Just live and let live.
Jason | April 19, 2017 at 11:53 pm
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 08:50 am
Wendy S | April 19, 2017 at 11:59 pm
I don't know the answers you are seeking and I don't reckon Yvette has an answer that even satisfies herself...but I am enlivened to be moving to a place where questions are being asked! Thankyou!!!
Wendy S
Damian | April 20, 2017 at 12:45 am
So according to her this performance will not be good art?
March 2016 Vvette organised a performance at the opening of the duck season on moulting lagoon. Yes ducks were being shot for food as Vvette and accomplices danced in costumes and carried on only meters away from hunters. How is this any different? Vvette openly boasts about how artistic it all was!!
Would Vvette and people who share the same opinion as her sacrifice the bull at the track to save all the people from the trolley or is that reguarded evil?
Jason U | April 20, 2017 at 12:46 am
Steve | April 20, 2017 at 06:53 am
Michael | April 20, 2017 at 12:47 am
I don't "understand" art but I appreciate it serves some unknown purpose, and it occasionally resonates with me, which is why I have visited MONA in the past.
On a separate note, it is refreshing to hear plain-speaking honesty from someone about themselves who are in the public eye. Please keep it (and MONA) going.
Spy Emerson | April 20, 2017 at 01:04 am
Ruth Williams | April 20, 2017 at 01:14 am
Rodney | April 20, 2017 at 05:29 am
Travis Tremayne | April 20, 2017 at 05:53 am
The dilemma in the lead up was fascinating....
It ended up he (the kidnapper) let the Princess go (drugged up) before the 'f#*king', which the whole nation ended up watching!!
He killed himself and left a message that it was all for art. It was the most famous artist of the time!
Now that is art.......
Thing is, we love art, or we hate art, but we live for it.
We live to be challenged how to think, and then how to respond.
We don't know this (of course) yet the 'opinion' courses through our veins.
Our red blooded veins.
Go ahead with it..... See what comes of it.....
What you have done with MONA is nothing short of amazing and an impossibility made possible.
I would love to meet you some day.
Cheers
Trav*
(* a 3 time vegetarian, 1 time vegan, who actually has no idea what he thinks about many things much of the time!)
Adrian Garner | May 4, 2017 at 08:51 pm
Andrea Dahlberg | April 20, 2017 at 06:47 am
Alison Butterworth | April 20, 2017 at 07:12 am
Jemima Duckette | April 20, 2017 at 09:10 pm
Adam | April 25, 2017 at 07:11 am
Asher Bilu | April 20, 2017 at 07:23 am
Lindsay Tuffin | April 20, 2017 at 07:26 am
Sascha | April 20, 2017 at 07:39 am
Jess | April 20, 2017 at 08:00 am
Nick Warne | April 20, 2017 at 08:05 am
Juan Ford | April 20, 2017 at 08:09 am
So that the performance is going ahead anyway, whether you like it or not. like the runaway train. if you try to stop it, you're like Hitler. This blog entry is the product of a very intelligent person, but basically its a heap of dimestore philosophy all jumbled up and spewed out incoherently.
I agree that unless you have your 'house in order' that you cannot criticise this performance. if you eat meat then you are conflicted. This is why I am vegan. Much less inner conflict. of course I'm not bloody perfect, but I try to be a better being every day.
I posit this: all life has intrinsic value, and it should not be tied to the economic value of mosquito nets. Mosquitoes dying in this scenario to save people is merely a ranking of life according to human whim. ie more sentient life is of greater value than less sentient life, so bigger brains win. we have the most powerful brains therefore we should be on top. this is a framing bias we find irresistible
if this bias is removed, then all life has value. not equal value, just value. no mathematics. I'd be fully supportive if Hermann Nitsch offered himself up for slaughter, or another willing participant. I'd go see that, that would be truly radical and coherent with his spiel about lost human traditions of sacrifice etc. But he won't, and neither will anyone else. because he benefits from it.
i ask (and so do you, David) who benefits from this? well, you do. Hermann does, the Tasmanian economy does. etc etc etc. Does the bull benefit? No, he has no choice and will die anyway. and this is the problem.
the Bull is being sacrificed on the altar of marketing, not some mist-shrouded pagan altar from long ago. If it goes ahead then this whole thing is a cynical exercise in marketing. But at least it has gotten unthinking, conflicted people thinking about the morality of murdering and eating millions of sentient beings every day.
I posit this: if the performance goes ahead, then marketing wins. if it is shut down, then harm has not been done, and many people will have had the opportunity to think about the morality of consuming animals en masse. maybe some will even change their ways.
Rosie Cross | May 5, 2017 at 02:46 pm
Maria Rance | April 20, 2017 at 08:09 am
Been a vegan myself,
and horrified at what happens in the slaughter houses,but conviently packaged in neat, bloodless packages in supermarkets is ok. There is such cognitive dissonance out there.
Gary Rowbottom | April 20, 2017 at 08:22 am
Phil Patterson | April 20, 2017 at 11:13 am
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 11:57 am
Most of what goes on at Mona is hard work. But there is also (as Phil just alluded to) quite a bit of my wife and me looking after the kids. She spends a lot of time working on community gardens (and other sordid miscreant miscreations) while I spend time trying to entertain those who care, and also trying to engage those who don't.
You seem like you have a vivid imagination. Anything you care to suggest?
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 01:49 pm
Dan | April 20, 2017 at 02:12 pm
See you at Dark Mofo, I hope.
Pea Phish | April 20, 2017 at 08:44 pm
Tom | April 21, 2017 at 05:02 pm
Melissa Brown | April 22, 2017 at 01:14 pm
Rebecca | April 20, 2017 at 08:24 am
There is, as I know you know, holes aplenty. The HighGround is extraordinarily hard to find and I'm not certain you seek it. I'm grasping at an idea around what offering horror as entertainment/ art really does ...not to our rational minds who can justify the purpose and meaning as you do, but to our guts (or that part of our brain that weaves connections and tells us the story of our lives). Can witnessing horror ever do anything beyond revolt or entice depending on our proclivities? All the rest is conversation which we can have without the blood.
But now I have to chop wood, carry water... otherwise known as make breakfast and get my kids to school
Louise taylor | April 20, 2017 at 08:30 am
But he just didn't get it, he didn't agree. People find it hard to see the complicity, it scares them and so they throw vitriol on a bright target to appear virtuous and thus avoid complicity.
In this case the artist and his act (and you along with it) can be dehumanised by the act of pointless death and people getting covered in blood for voyeristic purposes only. And people can get very excited about protesting a target like this as I think it's part of a process that further distances them the blood on their own hands for countless deaths and travisities of justice at home and around the world. And apparently justifies some pretty ugly speech and behaviour ... but that's ok because the targets are dehuman.
Most close their eyes to the reality of the factory farming and dairy industry whilst eating BLT's and sipping lattes. Most close their eyes to the atrocities of the refugee crises or where their cheap cloths come from etc etc
The proposed performance and its controversy is a stirring rendition of human behaviour and it's flawed unaware nature in the face of what is going on all the time for are own self serving purposes but that we don't want to admit or look at, let alone accept complicity.
The bull was birthed for are own self serving purposes, it is marked for death for are own self serving purposes, the artist is now using its death for his own self serving purposes and people will buy tickets to see it or protest for their own self serving purposes because that's what humans do. That's why we don't sell the car and save lives but have to get up half an hour later ... we are all self serving, it is our biological imperative ... we are all physiopaths!!!!! (I like that word) Was there ever an option to throw ones self infront of the trolley to save the five? How many people would do that?
I think the piece is very poinant, even beautiful whether the performance goes ahead or not because it is illustrating so succinctly our justification and unawareness of hypocritical thought speech and action in our clammer to be good whilst ignoring the blood on our hands. And publicly or not the bull and countless more like him will still be slaughtered..
Louise
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 09:50 am
Phil Patterson | April 20, 2017 at 10:55 am
Not a long book, and very accessible. Illuminating on the subject of our role as accommodators and enablers.
Louise taylor | April 20, 2017 at 05:58 pm
Louise taylor | April 20, 2017 at 06:11 pm
The Muslim is far removed and dehumanised ... the friend is a friend and we find compassion. Although if the friend did some to us, hurt us in some way we may again feel self rightous and label him bad.
The conversation with my friend came about because he loves watching doco's about murders etc and we ended up talking about Hindley who I have some compassion for but he sees as a monster .... I read your reply in apology and explanation to the auchwitz visitors part of your blog ... and I got it because it doesn't appeal to me to visit ... or war memorials ... or the killing fields when I was in Cambodia volounteering as a midwife .... just as I wouldn't see the performance in question, but I wouldn't protest it either. The way in which people consume violence like this and then claim self righteousness and denial to complicity in anything is a strange dark side of our nature as humans ... I am just the same in my way.
D | April 20, 2017 at 08:41 am
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 10:04 am
Brian | April 20, 2017 at 08:46 am
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 10:07 am
Erin | April 21, 2017 at 01:47 am
Jonathan Rabinovitz | April 20, 2017 at 08:49 am
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 09:57 am
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 02:45 pm
My intent was irony, and it was unfortunate. Not only was it offensive, for which I apologise, but it was sloppy, since it was bore no relation to the subject that I was attempting to comment on. Initially the text read "it'd be like a cross between Madame Tussaud's and a Jack The Ripper tour, but with more pathos and a good bar". In attempting the same ironic outcome I changed my text to a reference to Auschwitz, without contemplating the more immediate ramifications of the very many with a potent connection to that tragic place.
David Walsh | April 20, 2017 at 02:45 pm
My intent was irony, and it was unfortunate. Not only was it offensive, for which I apologise, but it was sloppy, since it was bore no relation to the subject that I was attempting to comment on. Initially the text read "it'd be like a cross between Madame Tussaud's and a Jack The Ripper tour, but with more pathos and a good bar". In attempting the same ironic outcome I changed my text to a reference to Auschwitz, without contemplating the more immediate ramifications of the very many with a potent connection to that tragic place.
Rom S. | April 21, 2017 at 06:06 pm
Rom S. | April 21, 2017 at 06:06 pm
Ben Morphett | April 20, 2017 at 09:18 am
Christine Simons | April 20, 2017 at 09:21 am
Rick Marton | April 20, 2017 at 09:22 am
I'm an animal lover. This specific event repulses me and my initial reaction was "this has gone too far"... but what does it take to get people to notice things these days? The barrier reef is fucked while most of us just go on thinking mining jobs are more important than our earth, and somehow more important than what could come with grasping the opportunities of a 'new economy' which we all have access to.
My point being is that our habits run so deep that they hold us back every day. We need shit to challenge those ignorant habits of willful blindness. And for that reason alone, this event should run. I won't be able to watch it or attend, but already as I devoured the leg off a chook the other day I pondered, 'I'm actually holding the carcass of a once living being' and then after I grabbed all the meat it had to give I showed my appreciation by chucking it in the bin.
Clare Nicholson | April 20, 2017 at 09:30 am
I find the gross 'artistic' exploitation and abjectification of animals to make a statement through some time-weary 'shock' spectacle about the gross societal exploitation and abjectification of animals not only entirely unethical, but unintellectual, uncreative, unoriginal and an easy/lazy default for those who lack the ability to think deeply or creatively enough to make work that is nuanced and multifaceted, using humane strategies to convey the same message. This age-old tactic of sticking sharks in tanks, shoving taxidermied (often endangered) animals in displaced poses and environments, pretending to bite the heads off chickens while playing music, or encaging live animals is a regurgitated ploy that puts 'artists' (predominately egocentric white men) on the map.
And as for the argument that such 'art' helps in the plight against animal cruelty is simply the snake oil to quell public outcry. It's the smoke and mirrors endorsed by a gallery and fed to those who need to be told how to think and feel about such exhibits, as they're left wondering what they've just witnessed - and why. Where is the artistic/gallery responsibility in this and where are the art critics in this country?
Will slaughtering a bull within a gallery context make viewers more interested, passionate and proactive against animal cruelty? I very much doubt it ... but I'm sure the fact it's already stirred up media coverage has been good very for business - and will continue to be so.
Mel | April 20, 2017 at 09:35 am
As a vegan and someone who spends much of their (limited) spare time helping animals I found myself at odds with my peers when the imminent slaughter was announced. Not only did I think that this could actually be a good idea - I would ONLY want it to go ahead if the slaughter was onstage.
Animals are murdered every day and myself and many of my peers continue the 'rabble rabble' in the background only to be dismissed as lefist hippies. When you, David, feed your daughter steak, I see a piece of a could-have-been best friend, a piece of a could-have-been free spirit, but instead a piece of a now-is dead, torched and butchered soul.
The problem is that for all the rabble, progress in getting meat eaters (and skin-wearers) to have what we call the 'light-bulb moment' and 'make the connection' is (literally) bloody slow.
The level at which the idea of meat is removed from the beautiful furry beast I see on your Daughter's plate is a problem that I believe would be removed (at least for some) by taking an innocent, sentient individual and making meat-eaters watch it's horrific demise. For I know that if my friends and family had to kill themselves they would be vegans like me. And why shouldn't meat eaters be made to watch this? Why is it acceptable behind closed doors but not in the open?
You can call it art - but it isn't - this is reality, this is every day life. Are we so blind to the goings on behind the scenes that a mundane, daily activity can arouse such disgust, outrage and protest by simply proposing to draw open the curtains?
Lorraine anderson | April 20, 2017 at 09:49 am
Keely | April 20, 2017 at 10:19 am
L | April 20, 2017 at 10:44 am
Chris and Caroline | April 20, 2017 at 11:12 am
Darielle Bydegrees | April 20, 2017 at 11:23 am
Alan | April 20, 2017 at 11:52 am
Reinhard | April 20, 2017 at 01:05 pm
Your essay is quite an excessive approach to cover life an death of animals in art and everyday life etc. A G(o)od question. Unfortunately you're meandering through a many dimensional room. No where to arrive.
I think the reason is, that you stay within the limits of abrahamitic culture and religion, where killing an animal halal, koscher od humanly is so important. Killing a bull publically is seen in the abrahamitic kontext as of l'art pour l'art provocation. Let Nitsch kill his bull. In Spain they are killed in the name of art and entertainment as well.
Getting out of these selfreferentiel circle means to leave Abrahms family.
In Hinduism life as such is not very attractive, for it's a disappointment to be born again. Born at least as human (and not as a bull or worm). That gives a better chance to stay unborn next time. Killing an animal (except a cow, but they can be killed by muslims) is nothing special. Being alive or not who cares. (This is changing now under the influence of Western culture, no question.)
For Taoist killing an animal is no problem as well. Being born at all is unfortunate. If somebody is, he/she should stay away from any kind of public position. There's nothing special in ending (one's) life.
A Buddhist doesn't care much about life either. Every living being is able to become a Buddha therefore it's good to care for them. But not to care is equally good. (The dichotomie of good and bad doesn't exist.) All is as it is.
Buddhists are indifferent to Nitsch's performance.
Art comes out a moment or of lifelong being involved in the craft.
Lot's of Buddhists a vegetarian, but the Buddha ended his life by eating rotten pork meat.
Let me add this.
I loved your museum. I loved most those visitors, obsessed with the guiding device. Only sometimes looking up to see the real "thing" otherwise living in the projected reality. In this way every visitor became part of the performance your mueseum is. Dangerous.
Thank you for building this piece of art. The first time I remember, 3/10th of a billion are spentin serving art, the world, the people.
Reinhard
Mathew | April 20, 2017 at 01:16 pm
Nikki Fuda | April 20, 2017 at 01:39 pm
Georgia | April 20, 2017 at 01:53 pm
Thank you for causing me to wrestle with this topic.
Dan | April 20, 2017 at 02:14 pm
Julia Hill | April 20, 2017 at 02:22 pm
Julia Hill | April 20, 2017 at 02:22 pm
Melegueta Mattay | April 20, 2017 at 02:55 pm
Helen | April 20, 2017 at 03:21 pm
Od | April 20, 2017 at 03:49 pm
John Ingleton | April 20, 2017 at 05:42 pm
Wendy | April 20, 2017 at 05:46 pm
To me it is the uttermost disrespect for all living creatures (humans included) that he would dance in blood and entrails and call it art.
Yes I am a vegetarian and have been for many years.
It sickens me that so many people eat meat and never ever think about the living animal that their steak/chops/snags used to be.
Every now and then, an event or thing occurs that brings to everyone's attention the actuality of where their meat comes from... ie a living sentient animal. But it's usually fairly transient and the controversy fades, and people still eat meat.
An event of this sort might actually lead to some people making the moral choice to eschew meat, but there have to be better ways to get that argument across.
I know that no amount of protesting is going to ever STOP people like Nitsch from doing this type of shit, and that is very sad.
Anna Williams | April 20, 2017 at 05:56 pm
dislasystem | April 20, 2017 at 06:17 pm
its_eclectic | April 20, 2017 at 06:58 pm
… although antiart is, rightly, said to be antitaste, it has to be added that anti-art is fundamentally inimical to art in all its aspects and not merely taste and disinterested contemplation in the Kantian sense. It is a moot point, then, whether [it] gives sufficient weight to the unmitigated nihilism of anti-art in its most extreme forms or really comes to terms with its brutal and uncompromising rejection of all values commonly associated with art, including avant-garde art. Furthermore, the crucial distinction between (Kantian) taste judgements and (post-Duchampian) aesthetic judgements is not at all clear, and we need an explanation of what it means to say, if anything, that we can make aesthetic judgements without exercising taste in some sense or other.
According to the aesthetic perspective, however, art and anti-art are not to be confused, for not only would such confusion, in the long run, undermine our concept of art, it would also deny anti-art its very raison d’être. To use an analogy drawn from physics, anti-art stands in the same relation to art as antimatter stands in relation to matter. They are polar forces incapable of being reconciled.
Humble, P. N. (n.d.). Anti-Art and the Concept of Art. A Companion to Art Theory, 244-252. doi:10.1002/9780470998434.ch20
Q. Do we harangue the Chilean artist whom happily displays her menstrual blood in an Art exhibition? http://gawker.com/woman-puts-five-years-of-menstrual-blood-on-display-at-571337446
Q. Let’s denigrate the band-members of KISS and the publishers of Marvel comics when, in 1977, KISS pricked their fingers and allowed their flowing blood to be mixed with commercial inks to finalise printing of an issue of a Kiss comic? http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/kissblood.asp
Q. And how about we deplore the band ‘The Europeans’ in their music video ‘Animal Song’ when a band member was captured in mid-chomp with a chunk of raw meat product? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAN5xt48KhU
Does not these former ‘lateral-thinking’ uses of human blood to convey artistic emotion from within the essence of the artists’ seem to mean more as they were produced from a human – a human whom has a spirit, a soul, a psyche?
Conversely, does not an animal have a spirit, a soul, a psyche? I think that question is for the veterinarian existentialists as it transcends the biblical realm of which I am not familiar with.
Animals are revered internationally depending on the culture. They are worshipped for years during their nurturing time then, when the time is right as per the specific religion etc, the animals are slaughtered within ritualistic laws. Cannot Nitsch recreate these rituals and then we, the public, can partake of something that is real, special, one-off, terribly fascinating and surreal?
Can an act of perceived disgust be allowed to be performed if it does not transgress the laws of the day.
I am reminded of the Australian comedian – Rodney Rude. Some say he was disgusting and maybe so. He has an audience though.
Take VIZ magazine published from the U.K. It is puerile humour perhaps? It has a market and some people enjoy that sort of humour. It is not illegal to write, read or own this content.
Is this debate about Nitsch really about vegans v meat-eaters?
Is it animal lovers v normal people whom consume meat that needs to be obtained from – usually – a slain animal?
Is the Nitsch performance a religious debate of the social mores of spirituality v radical free-thinking contemporary people.
Is this Nitsch performance going to be a deplorable abasement of the human form by allowing it [humans] to be drenched in the refuse of another animal?
Christo wrapped things in wheelbarrows from way back in the 1960’s. Some thought that was a little weird. Christo wraps islands now. Many rejoice in the irony of wrapping edifices.
Times change through the public being able to accept that art is not always what we think it should be.
SjC
Leeanne | April 20, 2017 at 08:23 pm
Ron Williams | April 20, 2017 at 09:01 pm
It could represent many things. Too many people believe that what they are told is the truth. BS! Believe only that which your eyes believe to be true but firstly Analise your vision and ask what is the truth in an age of Lies and deception?
James | April 20, 2017 at 09:49 pm
lynG | April 20, 2017 at 09:54 pm
Adonis Storr | April 20, 2017 at 10:38 pm
Belinda Price | April 20, 2017 at 10:51 pm
Georgia | April 20, 2017 at 11:24 pm
Michael | April 20, 2017 at 11:33 pm
Regardless of all that, I don't think you need complex ethical arguments to show that factory farming is, to put it bluntly, a 'pretty fucked' practice. It is my hope that simple pragmatism will suffice here. Ignoring animal ethics all together (although in my opinion they're an important factor), there are other issues such as the sustainability and pollution of this industry that we should also be deeply concerned about and perhaps more people can get behind. If people just ate a bit less meat and recognised that it is highly resource intensive to produce then perhaps we wouldn't even need Nitsch's performance in the first place.
So thank you David for facilitating this debate, I found myself agreeing with a lot of the points you made. I think the most important thing for anybody reading this to realise is that it's the majority of people, those that are more or less on the fence when it comes to animal welfare, that have the most power to enact positive change, simply by being a bit more conscientious when it comes to where they source there food from.
IXinX | April 21, 2017 at 12:08 am
Jan | April 21, 2017 at 12:22 am
As for Mr Singer, his thinking has often inspired me - like those mosquito nets, he reckons that if all of us wealthy folk donated a mere 5% of our income towards reducing poverty, the world could be free of poverty within a decade. But after 3 years of doing that, i noticed no discernible change in the state of poverty & decided instead to fund my kids' university educations.
I still care more about poverty and the environment than some artist who wants to kill something in the name of art. So there.
Jez | April 21, 2017 at 12:27 am
Peter D | April 21, 2017 at 12:42 am
Daniel ryan | April 21, 2017 at 12:55 am
Karan Hayman | April 21, 2017 at 08:00 am
The cost $750,000.00 has me completely stumped !
So tempted to say out loud a fool any their money are soon parted but you I know are no fool and I am a poor painter !
Deke Savage | April 21, 2017 at 08:29 am
Josh | April 21, 2017 at 11:12 am
Nemo | April 21, 2017 at 03:29 pm
RAFFO | April 21, 2017 at 05:55 pm
Over time I have learnt that animals in the factory farmed meat industry live quite sad lives. People who buy meat in plastic should know this. I now refuse to buy this meat because the industry shows little respect for an animals life and the customer is deluded (see this MONA blog) into thinking they bear no responsibility for what occurs.
I agree with David - this artwork will stimulate thought which is a good thing. Might wake up a few dormant minds.
Readers will agree - Mr Walsh has an elegant way of turning a subject sideways and revealing new dimensions. His motives are curiously pure.
Rosie Cross | April 21, 2017 at 08:51 pm
Julia Salmon | April 21, 2017 at 09:22 pm
P.S...your words prior to posting So, "you know...don't be a jerk."
If you do not post this response...that is exactly what you are.
Tones | April 21, 2017 at 09:51 pm
tones | April 21, 2017 at 10:25 pm
Alexis Mamacas | April 21, 2017 at 10:28 pm
How about no | April 22, 2017 at 03:22 pm
Michelle Warren | April 22, 2017 at 03:56 pm
Michael Goldberg | April 22, 2017 at 08:10 pm
David Walsh | April 24, 2017 at 11:35 am
When all of the 550,000,000 animals that are slaughtered in Australia per annum are so honoured by those that consume them, I'll be content. Or I'd be happy to see a few less slaughtered. I'm proud to say we are already getting people contemplating lifestyle changes (less or no meat) as a result of this debate, so thank you for your contribution.
Claire | April 22, 2017 at 09:09 pm
And now we wait.....
Claire | April 22, 2017 at 09:09 pm
And now we wait.....
David Walsh | April 24, 2017 at 11:28 am
Ess | April 24, 2017 at 02:04 pm
Displaying a killing at MONA will be decadent, because Walsh has not validated it beyond capitizing financially from it. The killing life moral argument is a sideshow and shows MONAs political weakness, because there is much more slaughter to talk about.
Nitsch : By bringing his acts into Art, he takes them out of the occult, a slight legitimizing framing by do so, hygienization. But if outside of Art, Channel Nine Sixty minutes and other reveal-the-cult sick journalism would be all over it. Those corporate media vultures might still do so.
I've watched all of Nitsch's video-ed works at MONA, several times each. What I missed was the smell and noise and energy of being there. My impresison is, Nitsch does not care whether the act is considered art or not, its the sensorial overload if not religiosity of the act that matters and the socio-poltical historical contexts that matter. So all the blog comments on the morality of killing Bull though important (a live bristling Bull on display would be fantastic) are also missing a point:
Will Nitsch and MONA contextualise the performance to comment on Anglo-Australia's slaughter of Tas. Aboriginal people? Walsh says he beleive in their cause.
To comment on poltical parties scapegoating asylum seekers for political gain?
To comment on specific politicians, political parties and their corporateers greed by denying or stalling on renewable energy policies
To comment on the torture of Salmon, and Salmon fisheries potentially destroying the ecosystems around Tassie. And other similar torture as with chickens.
To comment on slaughter of Syrian people and surrounding regions, especially Turkey, which 'we' wont officially because of ANZAC sacrality.
To comment on making life in Australia a harder meaner place to be in.
And so on...
Blood, in the way of money should be drawn from Walsh in the way of a hefty fine for the cheap Auschwitz comment and the Order of Australia award stripped from his vestment.
Linda Barker | April 23, 2017 at 03:13 pm
Clancy St Hubbins | April 24, 2017 at 08:46 pm
Melissa C | April 28, 2017 at 01:49 pm
Carolyne Milne | April 30, 2017 at 04:34 pm
Christine Jameson | May 10, 2017 at 12:44 pm
David Walsh | May 25, 2017 at 11:43 am
David Walsh | May 27, 2017 at 09:41 am
Christine Jameson | May 28, 2017 at 07:26 pm
Anand OHara | May 17, 2017 at 10:03 am
Stella | May 18, 2017 at 09:17 pm
Amanda | May 22, 2017 at 12:04 am
The animal rights angle appears to be a cynical justification for frolicking about in animal parts, nothing more, nothing less.
David Walsh | May 25, 2017 at 11:35 am
Lyndsey Hatchwell | June 1, 2017 at 08:48 pm
The Histrionics | June 14, 2017 at 11:07 pm
The controversy has created quite a Histrionic response.
Eve Sinton | June 17, 2017 at 08:08 pm
X | June 17, 2017 at 08:51 pm
Marni | June 21, 2017 at 03:37 pm
Factions of humans seeking only to be 'right' and assimilate all social consciousness to the correct one in the name of peace serve only to drive a hefty deunifying wedge. There is no reasoning. Instinct and intuition have been laid aside for socio intellectualism. Pfft.
Aaron Cupples | July 1, 2017 at 08:39 pm
David Walsh | January 30, 2018 at 05:46 pm
LordBoofhead | April 20, 2017 at 01:06 am
leon | April 20, 2017 at 01:19 am
Madi | April 20, 2017 at 01:53 pm
Ess | April 20, 2017 at 02:31 pm