Simplification is needed here, once and for all. One must really examine how artist's applications for commissions "objectively" arrive and become "objectively" considered before art boards to begin with and ask this: If someone, in the name of "art", shot the dog (or family pet) of, say, the MAG director or one of the MAG staff or curators, let the animal slowly bleed to death while filming it, then looped the slow and painful death in an art show and then applied to the MAG to do an expensive commission, would this individual get a commission from that museum for anything? That is, would the application be seriously considered at all? Alas, methinks not. After all, a defenseless shelter dog is not the beloved family member of a staff member. And besides, the public would never know that such a "brilliant" artist was ever turned away, as the paperwork, let's face it, would never see the light of day. Humans pretty much operate this way, beyond all the tired academic excuses given in this piece. What we all need to face when it comes to animal rights (and environmental rights) is the relationship between human arrogance and what we "own" being better and mattering so much more than what we do not, including wildlife and the "unknown" animals we raise to "eat" in blind, cruelty- based ignorance. Ironically, we are at a point in our environmental survival that we need to get this, more than ever. One looks to our institutions of hire learning and art to lead the way. And it is always beyond disappointing, given our current dire state of affairs, when the connection is not only not made, but disregarded completely.
Website powered by Foundation