A Chinese artist who grafted the head of a human fetus onto the body of a bird has defended his work as art after a Swiss museum withdrew the piece from an exhibit.Well, I hope the the artists, philosophers and ethics experts can figure this one out. I wonder which of the three -- artists, philosophers or ethics experts -- will have the strongest objection and which will be most supportive of Xiao. And while you've got those artists, philosophers and ethics experts assembled, please ask them about the sewn-together mice.
"It's precisely because I respect all life that I did this," artist Xiao Yu said Tuesday. He said the bird and fetus "died because there was something wrong with them. ... I thought putting them together like this was a way for them to have another life."
Swiss museum visitor Adrien de Riedmatten, 29, filed a complaint on Monday with the district attorney of Bern, Switzerland, calling for an investigation into the piece, which was on display at the Bern Art Museum....
The work was removed, curator Bernhard Fibicher said Tuesday, because museum directors didn't want the controversy surrounding it to overshadow the rest of the "Mahjong" exhibit, which features avant-garde Chinese works from the last 25 years. The museum is planning an Aug. 22 symposium with artists, philosophers and ethics experts before deciding whether to re-exhibit the piece.
Xiao said he bought the head in 1999 for a few dollars from a man who was cleaning out a scientific exhibition hall. The glass bottle in which it came had a handwritten sticker identifying it as a female specimen from the 1960s. According to Xiao, it had no name or cause of death....
The name of the piece, "Ruan," is a word Xiao invented that combines the Chinese characters for different kinds of animals. Xiao said he added the eyes of a rabbit to the head.
Xiao is known for shocking material. He once paid an assistant $1,200 to sew pairs of living lab mice together at the hip and displayed them in glass bowls.
Don't you understand art?
UPDATE: Creative taxidermy is more widespread than you may realize.
Posts
10 comments:
When an artist or curator defends a controversial piece of art with the kneejerk "It makes you think," I rarely hear the follow-up question "Yes, but think about what?" or a satisfactory answer if it is asked.
Xiao Yu's "explanation" falls into the latter category. Another life?
'fraid not in this instance.
A fetus head on a bird sounds pretty cool... but why does it have to be an actual fetus? Doesn't anyone use papier mache anymore?
"Don't you understand art?"
I think I might be better at understanding what art isn't.
that even surpasses my imagination
Morally I have no problem with the fetusbird, but I don't see the point artistically.
The mice are another matter. artistically I could easily see him trying to illustrate marriage or some other relationship, but morally I think it's cruel and unjustified to sew two mice togethr.
Note to self: I don't need to see that!
Much of what passes for art now in its essence is merely the manifest form of a terrible two tantrum.
The 'look at me'-ism and the 'because I could'-ism can be cute when coming from a toddler, but adults should know better.
And this isn't a rant against abstract 'my two year old could do that' art, cause much of that art can be both transcendant and inscrutable (like Rothko, or Pollock).
Rather I think this stems from the flower power holdovers who hold sway amongst the teaching professionals at art schools who feel the only job for art is to 'trangress' versus some ill defined establishment and any way you manage to upset the 'squares' is all that is required.
(At least with Mapplethorpe's bullwhip photo, it's well composed)
The idea, if there is one, behind the "fetusbird" is repugnant enough. Sadder still, the comments to your posting are even more disheartening.
Yesterday I picked up Elie Wiesel's Night Trilogy, and started reading his chronicle of the death of a soul, a process that to his astonishment took only a few days' immersion in hell. One of the many horrifying images in his chronicle is of a young child hanged on a gallows. Today, your post offers the image of the "fetusbird."
Your commenters write as if this were just another image, just another clever effort at shocking anyone still dim enough to have a conscience. No big deal, and if it's not too much trouble, can you pass the wine.
What is going on? "Fetusbird": it sounds like an object that you could find in the world of Kosinski's Painted Bird. Disgusting, infuriating, depressing, dehumanizing, and in the end, just sad, really, really sad.
Art? Oh, please.
I find this so repugnant on so many levels I am practically speechless.
Post a Comment