I actually wasn't able to finish this book, even after having it for MONTHS, because I just didn't have time once the semester started again. So it might be good to return to it in the future. But here are my notes anyway.
Introduction:
He's talking about a previous version of his text and says
"There was no shortage of literature about Disney animation or about animal symbolism in political cartoons and wartime propaganda, but this book's more idiosyncratic purpose was to suggest that the animal could only be considered, and understood, through its representations. There was no unmediated access to the "real" animal. . . As the original preface concludes, 'it should not simply be a matter of our studying what animals already signify in the culture but rather, through a benevolent manipulation, of exploring what animals mgiht yet be made to signify" (xvi)
Later, he says "Instead, the point is to emphasize that representations have a bearing on shaping that 'reality' and that the 'reality' can be addressed only through representations." (xvii)
He says that keeping questions open about animals, or raising more questions rather than answering them, no longer seems so idiosyncratic, and that this is really commonplace today.
I guess there was a poster, which I can't find online, done by the National Canine Defense League in GB, timed to coincide with the release of Disney's 102 Dalmatians (2000) that used the old phrase "a dog is for life, not just for Christmas" and showed a live dalmatian (labeled "dog" and a stuffed one labeled "toy" which obviously has some relationship to this whole thing of toy and cuddly and [my stuffed animal paintings, etc.] . . yeah.
Zoo photos by Frank Noelker mentioned in the Steve Baker text . . .
Baker also talks about a New York Times feature on "the ubiquity of the animal in contemporary art" which I should probably find and read.
"The second development in the 1990's was that artists began to take animals altogether more seriously, and in doing so found ways of avoiding the familiar accusation of sentimentality. For some artists, such as Mark Dion in the United States and Olly and Suzi in the United Kingdom, their work was driven at least in part by their concern with environmentalism and the conservation of endangered species. Others, such as Sue Coe, Frank Noelker, and Britta Jaschinski, used their art to address the confinement or mistreatment of animals. Then of course there were many others, from Jeff Koons to Damien Hurst, who made frequent use of animal imagery, or of animals themselves, without necessarily having anything to say about them." xxvii
He notes that in the 1990's there was surely and increase in animal art, but that it had precedents beginning in the 70's with the rise of the contemporary animal rights movement (Wegman, Beuys)
Eduardo Kac did a piece where he had a lab in France genetically modify a rabbit to include a jellyfish gene that made her (named Alba) glow green when put under blue light. It was called "GFP Bunny" and was controversial. The caption next to the picture of this rabbit asks "Is Eduardo Kac to be condemned for creating a green fluorescent rabbit in the first place or hailed for his subsequent effort to liberate her from the research laboratory?" xxviii
xxx - Talks about the Marco Evaristti exhibition piece with the goldfish in blenders that offered people the chance to turn them on. Apparently, Peter Singer supported the art as raising the question of the power we have over animals. But a group of Minnesota artists founded the Justice for Animals Arts Guild (JAAG) to question this idea of using live animals in art, and to support the notion that the artist's ideas do not neccessariiy take precedence over the interests of the animals being used. "Alarmed at the manner in which living animals were used in certain art exhibitions, they were convinced that 'much could be accomplished by sensitizing the arts community.' Believing that animals must be understood to be 'beings' not 'ideas,' their immediate goal was to negotiate with state arts organizations and funding agencies for the institution of policies that would prevent the cruel or degrading use of living animals by contemporary artists."
ANIMAL USE IN ART! It's no wonder that there is some similarity in the way that art addresses animal issues and the way science does -- in both cases, animals are USED to further ideas or progress, oftentimes at their own expense.
Robin Schwartz did a book of primate portraits (primates living in people's homes) that I think maybe I might enjoy looking at.
OK. I'm going to put this image here, even though I don't think this is quite the place where I thought of it. But I remember that, at some point, I had it in my head that I should make a dog that was big enough to lay next to or sit on, like a couch. I had this dog in mind:
But then I saw this thing, and this is totally what I was thinking:
Chapter 3 is about hatred of animals, use of animal imagery as derogatory, etc. Which I am not reading right now because I don't have time. :) A term I hadn't heard before is "theriomorphism" . . . a word that I am excited exists because its nice to have a word for this.
Chapter 4, is about the pleasure taken in animals, and in depictions of animals.
It reminds me of the idea of "talking animals" and how they abound in stories and narratives, and how truly strange it is when we refer to real living animals that can "talk" like parrots, or primates, dolphins, etc. Again, this connection to childhood. I think I do really want to make my puppet video. . . hmmm.
More on children and animals, "Received wisdom has it that the tendency to like, to care for and to identify with animals is essentially a childhood phenomenon, or, as it might often be more condescendingly expressed, a childish thing." 123
A love of animals is also often attributed to being "childish" and that animal lovers "never really grow up" (another slam on animal appreciation)
And I guess that's as far as I got.
No comments:
Post a Comment