PIG 05049 : Christien Meindertsma

[spirulinai]

I've stumbled across a startling art exhibition. This project, PIG 05049, takes one pig and illustrates in a very sterile and frank kind of manner where every bit and piece of the corpse goes. Here's the description from the artist's website

Comments

[dagda_ollathir]

i agree that dead animals are not art; but i felt that since she followed where a pig ends up and documented it, instead of making the bits part of her piece, that it's ok.

[spirulinai]

In the end, since the animal wasn't actually killed for the project but simply documented, I feel like I agree with you and dagda_ollathir. I can't fathom how the artist would have tracked down every product that would have come from a particular pig, and the products purported to do so are on display in the gallery. That part still rubs me the wrong way somehow - the project claims to track one particular life, but the products on display can't possibly have all originated from Pig 05049. Does this erase or negate the other faces of animal slaughter? I'm not sure!

[bizwac]

I don't thinkthe artist was necessarily saying that it is factually about one pig, but rather presenting it as if it was, to make the meaning more obvious whilst remaining 'approachable' (ie, keeping it simple and small scale rather than "this is what happens to lots of pigs!")

[hallwayjulie]

I actually think this is really cool. I feel like if we had more awareness of how pervasive animal products are, and a way to connect the animal with the product eventually becomes, more people would stop eating/using animal products.

[spirulinai]

I definitely find that regular omnivores are often shocked and mildly squicked out to hear that benign products they don't often think about contain some body part or other. Especially gelatine candies, likely because they seem to benign.

What I can't decide is, will this raise awareness of how scarily entrenched the slaughter of animals is in so many industries, or will it feed the placating argument that "at least every part is being used"?

[jacques_strappe]

>DEAD ANIMALS ARE NOT ART

[spirulinai]

I feel I should clarify. When I say "Dead animals are not art", I'm referring to artists like Damien Hirst, John Fabre ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/698070.stm ), these jerks (http://www.eatmedaily.com/2008/10/meat-after-meat-joy-art-gallery-show/ ), and more ambiguously/controversially, Jesse Power ( http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-85497262.html ).. though Jesse Power is fodder enough to throw this whole debate off-track

[jacques_strappe]

I see where you're coming from. I still don't think it's anyone's place to determine what is art and what is not, though. I personally think Damien Hirst is a complete hack, but that's my opinion. If his work gets a reaction from people (good or bad), that is essentially the art, even if it is obtained cheaply. The links you provide (save for the last one... completely disgusting) are actually kind of interesting and provide social statements that can be interpreted in many different ways. (Not that I don't totally object to covering a building in ham, because that's... ugh.) Again, I personally don't agree with the exploitative, physical use of animals in art, but I can't personally say "this is not art."

I'd post the URL to my blog but I think a fair share of folks here would be very offended and might attack me. D: Send me a note and I'll give you the address?

(And sorry if my first comment was a little confrontational. I'm getting quite emotional about my current project...)

[spirulinai]

No worries! I can absolutely understand how involved you can get in a project that's really coming together. It's all-consuming

[gxxx]

I find it fascinating. There are so many animal by-products in almost EVERYTHING we consume on a daily basis, that I sometimes forget how commonplace it all is. I don't think the artist is trying to support meat eating, but it's difficult to say what his personal views are on the matter, especially since I've only seen 15 images of it. I think there's a nonchalant attitude that's reflected in this piece, which is kind of eerie in a way.

I think it makes the pig seem more personal, since it's just ONE pig. People will rarely react to a large group of something. Instead, it's the smaller pieces that attracts them - in this case, the pig. I think the break down here will cause a reaction from a lot of omnis and they might find themselves caring more (even if just for a moment). But I doubt it will push anyone into veg*nism. People care, but they don't care that much.

[spirulinai]

'Nonchalant', that's a good description. I was thinking 'distanced', but it just didn't sound right.

[etomlef]

if anything, i think most people will walk away thinking: "wow! we sure do use every part of the animal, and animal products are useful for so many things! it's nearly impossible to stop using animals' bodies for our own purposes!"

[miss_bonzai]

That's what I was immediately afraid of. The 'see! nothing goes to waste' mindset. =(

[asmallplanet]

That's likely, I think.

[spirulinai]

agreed, very potential biproduct (heh) of this show. bummer.