ForumGarden

Liquidising goldfish 'not a crime'





Expert witnesses told the trial the fish died instantly

An art display which invited the public to put live goldfish through a food blender did not constitute cruelty to animals, a Danish court has ruled.

The goldfish were placed on display swimming in the blenders, and visitors were told they could press the "on" button if they wanted.

At least one visitor did, killing two goldfish.

Peter Meyer, director of the Trapholt Art Museum in Kolding, 200 kilometres (125 miles) west of Copenhagen, was fined for cruelty to animals after complaints from campaign group Friends of Animals.

It's a question of principle. An artist has the right to create works which defy our concept of what is right and what is wrong

Peter Meyer

Trapholt Art Museum

But a court in Denmark has now ruled that the fish were not treated cruelly, as they had not faced prolonged suffering.

The fish were killed "instantly" and "humanely", said Judge Preben Bagger.

The court had earlier heard an expert witness from the blenders' maker, Moulinex, that the fish had probably died within one second of the blender being switched on.

A vet also told the court that the fish would have died painlessly.

Mr Meyer will not now have to pay the fine of 2,000 kroner (269 euros) originally imposed by Danish police.

The case only went to court because he refused to pay the police fine. He told the court that artistic freedom was at stake.

"It's a question of principle. An artist has the right to create works which defy our concept of what is right and what is wrong," he told the court in Kolding.

The display featured a total of 10 blenders containing goldfish.

After the complaints, the blenders were unplugged and the exhibit continued without the possibility of killing the fish.

It was a protest against what is going on in the world, against this cynicism, this brutality that impregnates the world in which we live

Marco Evaristti

Artist

The exhibit was created by Chilean-born Danish artist Marco Evaristti, who was apparently trying to test visitors' sense of right and wrong.

Mr Evaristti said at the time he wanted to force people to "do battle with their conscience".

The idea, he said, was to "place people before a dilemma: to choose between life and death."

"It was a protest against what is going on in the world, against this cynicism, this brutality that impregnates the world in which we live," he said.

What a load of rollocks! I'm a tradionalist when it comes to art, I think you need to show some talent in creating something that could be considered beautiful. Lining up a load of blenders is something that they do in Comet not an art gallery. Like the grubby bed Tracey Emin put on display, just shoddy housekeeping imo.



As for the poor fish, maybe they didn't feel anything, that's not the point, what gives anyone the right to kill another living thing just for the sake of earning money from gullible idiots who don't dare say 'I don't get it'



Modern art of this ilk - emperor's new clothes, everyone has to pretend they get it just to fit in.

"It was a protest against what is going on in the world, against this cynicism, this brutality that impregnates the world in which we live".

I can absolutely identify with that. Thousands of tons of fish are caught, killed and dumped commercially every year in the North Sea and Atlantic and nobody turns a hair other than to bemoan the reduced standard of living of the fish-killers and the blight of fishery permits being snapped up by the Spaniards. And one guy in an art studio can get an international debate started just by painlessly executing a few dozen goldfish in public in Denmark? He should get a knighthood, he's a genius. And it's not about fish, either.

What gives anyone the right to kill another living thing just for the sake of earning money? It's your question, Immy. It's at the heart of the farming controversies, the set-aside schemes, hedging policies, logging rainforests, Slash and Burn McDonalds, overspending on ineffective pet animal charities, it's even at the heart of the obliteration of Iraqi society and here you are annoyed about a few bloody goldfish dying gratuitously.

Imladris;793988 wrote: What a load of rollocks! I'm a tradionalist when it comes to art, I think you need to show some talent in creating something that could be considered beautiful. Lining up a load of blenders is something that they do in Comet not an art gallery. Like the grubby bed Tracey Emin put on display, just shoddy housekeeping imo.



And to think people pay good money to go see that crap.

As for the poor fish, maybe they didn't feel anything, that's not the point, what gives anyone the right to kill another living thing just for the sake of earning money from gullible idiots who don't dare say 'I don't get it'



Modern art of this ilk - emperor's new clothes, everyone has to pretend they get it just to fit in.


Again i completely agree with you :-6

Spot my dear, it's not the killing animals for food that annoys me, I'm not a vegetarian I have no problems with the eating of meat if that's what people choose to do. Yes, the slash and burn, over fishing etc is wrong and this world has an awful lot of problems.



What I object to is killing animals, any animals, for the sake of 'art'. There is no purpose to it other than publicity seeking. This artist has made his name now, his next exhibition will be watched with interest by a lot of people who have never heard of him before, so he's achieved what he set out to do - make money.



So what will the next thing be? Tossing puppies off cliffs? After all now he's started a trend - animal cruelty is ok provided it's quick and relatively pain-free and done in the name of art.



I'd just like to point out that I don't give to animal charities, never have and never will. I give to people charities especially childrens. I'm not an animal rights fanatic but I am completely and utterly against cruelty in any form.

You changed the key word half way through. You object to killing animals for art, you're against cruelty in any form. It sounds like a moral position hand-crafted carefully to allow the slaughter of tens of millions of thinking sentient mammals every year in the UK alone, you've threaded the eye of the needle just to leave that planet-sized loophole in the middle of it. You can swallow the camel but you kick up at the goldfish. It's not tailor-made for the difficult rare exceptions, it's tailor-made for the 90% of mammal deaths that have any form of human interaction.

Liquidizing those few goldfish is so trivial a matter that gets so many people thinking about so important a question that I'd set up a liquidizer myself if it extended the debate. In the month those goldfish died - entirely without cruelty, I might add - a million other fish died far more stressfully for human convenience in Britain and very few people were even slightly bothered by it.

Do you know Spot, you're probably right, sometimes my thinking is pretty woolly and sometimes quite emotional, I expect that's fairly normal. (yes, I know that's not what you said)



I'd never claim to have all the answers, no-one has, what bugged me with this story is the 'art' aspect of it. I just don't see art in this sort of thing, art to me is about creating, not destroying. I'm old fashioned in this aspect and won't deny it. Some modern art I like, but I just don't get the installation style of art.



You've read a lot more into my words than perhaps I intended but thank you for challenging me and making me think about what I've said.



Sometimes I'm too laid back for my own good, need to be prodded now and again.

I'm sure there's no art involved at all. It's an artist challenging the visitors to the gallery to face up to what he sees as reality. If permanently changing people's perceptions by a single moment of insight is an aspect of art then that's where the relationship lies. Personally I agree that art has to be accompanied by craft to qualify as art. Maybe that's a subset of art - perhaps it's what we'd call fine art? If you can think of a non-art word for that moment of changed insight then that's what he's going for.

spot;795739 wrote: I'm sure there's no art involved at all. It's an artist challenging the visitors to the gallery to face up to what he sees as reality. If permanently changing people's perceptions by a single moment of insight is an aspect of art then that's where the relationship lies. Personally I agree that art has to be accompanied by craft to qualify as art. Maybe that's a subset of art - perhaps it's what we'd call fine art? If you can think of a non-art word for that moment of changed insight then that's what he's going for.


It's more of a political (small p) statement than art, perhaps that's what we should be looking for nowadays with art? But without minced goldfish though:sneaky::wah:

Medieval, renaissance, Victorian art was often a small-p political statement as well. There's a succession of canvasses showing the Catholic Church as a huge ship of the line sailing through an ocean of drowning sinners with the Pope and his Cardinals not even looking down on them as they travel complacently to Salvation, for example. Or "Slavers Throwing Overboard the Dead and Dying" if you want Turner's 19th Century politicization of the same scene.

I think it's absolutely brilliant.

The exhibit didn't kill any fish, it only put them in a precarious position... imitating life. It puts the switch at the observer's fingertips and it was an art patron that wanted to see the death. That is a wonderful commentary on the world.

Reminds me of Dan Ackroyd on Saturday night live doing the bass-o-matic..

spot;795866 wrote: Medieval, renaissance, Victorian art was often a small-p political statement as well. There's a succession of canvasses showing the Catholic Church as a huge ship of the line sailing through an ocean of drowning sinners with the Pope and his Cardinals not even looking down on them as they travel complacently to Salvation, for example. Or "Slavers Throwing Overboard the Dead and Dying" if you want Turner's 19th Century politicization of the same scene.


Hmmm, can you tell that I just look at art and not think about it?:wah:



I think it's becoming very apparent that I know bugger all about art!!!



But I do like the Angel of the North even though my hubby says it's rubbish 'cos it's gone rusty, bless him.

Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Château de Chasselas, eh?

In them days we was glad to have the price of a cup o' tea. A cup o' cold tea. Without milk or sugar.

pantsonfire321@aol.com;793933 wrote:

Marco Evaristti

Artist

The exhibit was created by Chilean-born Danish artist Marco Evaristti, who was apparently trying to test visitors' sense of right and wrong.

Mr Evaristti said at the time he wanted to force people to "do battle with their conscience".

The idea, he said, was to "place people before a dilemma: to choose between life and death."

"It was a protest against what is going on in the world, against this cynicism, this brutality that impregnates the world in which we live," he said.


I can see both sides of this. Sure, art can be interactive and crude at the same time. I can understand that. But, I also see the other side. As Evaristti said, "force people to do battle with their conscience," but why? Every day we are forced to do such battle, why must art continue that battle for us?

Also, why would anyone want to place the dilemma before someone to choose between life and death? To what purpose? We already know by looking at what goes on in the world that there are many, many people who will choose to kill when presented with a situation like that. So, bravo, I guess, Evaristti has proven what is already proven on the nightly news. Does that make the news art?

Another thing I always wonder about.... how can it be a protest against something if you are acting in the same manner as what you're protesting about? Eh, just something I could never figure out.

Sure, it's just goldfish. Big deal, right? But what if some idiot decides to do an "art" exhibit with a loaded gun. I guarantee you there'd be some reject who'd actually pull the trigger in the name of such "art."

laneybug;796585 wrote: Sure, it's just goldfish. Big deal, right? But what if some idiot decides to do an "art" exhibit with a loaded gun. I guarantee you there'd be some reject who'd actually pull the trigger in the name of such "art."
As koan says, it's not the system designer who pulls the trigger. Which is, if you think about it, pretty much the NRA's argument as well. Liquidizers don't kill goldfish. People kill goldfish. How come you're all blaming Evaristti for these tragedies?

spot;796824 wrote: As koan says, it's not the system designer who pulls the trigger. Which is, if you think about it, pretty much the NRA's argument as well. Liquidizers don't kill goldfish. People kill goldfish. How come you're all blaming Evaristti for these tragedies?


I'm not blaming Evaristti for anything, I was just using his own quotes. Nor do I personally believe that killing goldfish is a tragedy.

As you say, or koan says, "it's not the system designer who pulls the trigger." Sure, I can see that point. But, in the legal system, giving somebody the means to kill someone, for example, makes them at least an accessory to that murder.

All events are merely a continuing chain of previous events. Use the manufacturers of guns, for example, since you brought up the NRA. I have no problem with someone owning a gun. But, it's the simple reality of the world that some people will use those guns to kill other people. Now before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm blaming gun makers for murder, I'm not, I'm just pointing out the obvious chain of events that can occur.

Put goldfish in a blender. Someone will push the button. Law of statistics. But, my question is, what's the point of presenting that option of "conscience?" And, how far is an "artist" willing to go to portray that battle for the sake of "art?"

How do you get to "before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm blaming gun makers for murder, I'm not" from "in the legal system, giving somebody the means to kill someone, for example, makes them at least an accessory to that murder"?

spot;797541 wrote: How do you get to "before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm blaming gun makers for murder, I'm not" from "in the legal system, giving somebody the means to kill someone, for example, makes them at least an accessory to that murder"?


spot, giving someone the means to kill another person doesn't have to be a gun. You're getting too wrapped up in my statements of murder/guns. It was merely an example. The legal system comment was an example.

I have to remember that I must be careful when I speak hypothetically or in analogies!

So which side have you decided for, in the end? Liquidizers don't kill goldfish, people kill goldfish, so the man who put the equipment into the hands of the gallery visitors was blameless? Or did you decide that gunshop owners and gun law legislators carry a moral guilt when their customers and constituents blow away fellow students on campus instead.

spot;799175 wrote: So which side have you decided for, in the end? Liquidizers don't kill goldfish, people kill goldfish, so the man who put the equipment into the hands of the gallery visitors was blameless? Or did you decide that gunshop owners and gun law legislators carry a moral guilt when their customers and constituents blow away fellow students on campus instead.


It's case by case, spot. I don't believe in blanket statements or black-and-white morals. But, if you need a definite answer, than this is the only one I can really offer you with any certainty: nobody is blameless. Not the goldfish liquidizers, not the art exhibitors, not the gallery owner, not the gunshop owners, customers, or gun law legislators. Not even the fellow student who gets blown away on campus. We all carry guilt. The only difference is what we are guilty of and what our consequences will be.

As for the liquidizing goldfish in the name of art (which, by the way, the exhibit was probably horribly over-priced) is just plain stupid, in my opinion. It's pointless. And, again, in my opinion, art should never be pointless. Not even in the attempt to prove one.