http://www.cnn.com/style/article/guggenheim-controversial-animal-artworks/index.html
“Last week New York’s Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum announcedit would
be pulling three works from its next big exhibition, “Art and China
after 1989: Theater of the World.” It did so after angry criticism
from animal rights protesters that the works were — according to an
online petition that has attracted over 700,000 signatories —
“distinct instances of unmistakable cruelty against animals in the
name of art.””
…
“These works have outraged animal rights advocates: the campaign group
PETA fumed that “people who find entertainment in watching animals try
to fight each other are sick individuals whose twisted whims the
Guggenheim should refuse to cater to.
“Only a little more tolerantly, the American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) declared that “the ASPCA
fully supports artistic expression, but strongly oppose any use of
animals in art or entertainment if it results in pain or distress to
the animals, which is clearly the case in this video,” referring to
“Dogs That Cannot Touch Each Other” (2003).”
Exposing the Big Game 
Yes. We don’t need to abuse living creatures who cannot consent to make the same tired points about the human condition that have existed since time immemorial. Surely a sculpture or other rendition could do the same. There are laws against it; and people don’t like it – the idea is repugnant to them. People seem to think that their so-called rights are without limit. This is no different than using animals in lab tests, and doesn’t even rise to that level.
What it shows me is that other countries’ animal welfare laws are abysmal. If that’s the message the Guggenheim wants to send….
To make the argument that it is against human freedom of expression is wrong – we protect innocents from being taken advantage of, and animals are no different.
I’m glad they pulled the exhibits, even tho as I mentioned before, they did so begrudgingly.
I’m concerned that the CNN article is dismissing the animal welfare aspect to make it sound like a freedom of speech clampdown in the West agenda! That isn’t it at all – we don’t allow children to be exploited, and people are increasingly feeling the same way about animals and their care and welfare.
I don’t care what people want to call art as long as it doesn’t involve harming and abusing animals whose rights are not protected. I really hope the Guggenheim’s donors and patrons have made their feelings known, and probably that was the deciding factor.
My rule is simple–art and religion stop as soon as animal abuse begins.
Yes. We got the message out that we won’t give in to offensive “art” just because other countries do.
It’s maddening, some of the articles that just don’t get it – progressive or conservative. They don’t seem to understand the concept of sentience. That video entitled “Man”, by Steve Cutts is just so spot on, on so many levels.
Heh. I’ve heard it called capitulating to ‘the hecklers’ veto’. I love it.
If they want to make art out of elephant dung (non-living, can’t discern sentience apparently), or a crucifix standing in a bucket of p*ss, by all means, go for it. These are some controversial exhibits I can think of. But animal abuse or exploitation is not art.
You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel for your ‘art’ if you resort to animal abuse – its barbaric and savage – we are supposed to be civilised at this stage – the shit that so called artists get away with is laughable – I am an artist and I would give it up if I could not muster up the creativity to come up with something original and animal abuse and buckets of piss and dead cows and sharks like in glass cages like that four eyed wanker damien whatshisface and dirty beds etc a la tracy faceache – it is not art its just weak nonsense that does not impress anyone with half a brain