I've seen all sorts of brutally hateful comments on the internet, directed at this artist. I'm unsure, though, if she actually kills the animals or if it is just an elaborate Photoshopping? It seems to me that she'd be in some trouble if she were openly killing animals for the purpose of art.
When I read the statement from the gallery this sentence caught my eye. Is this a hint to the truth of the pictures?
Her pictures tell lies in front of our faces, but they are not alone in this - the lies exist all around us every day, without us questioning them
Maybe they aren't real animals at all, they are making some very realistic looking toys these days.
Hmmmm
BugbearSloth
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 | 06:49 AM
For some reason, the one with the little white mice on the fingertips really creeped me out.
Maegan
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 | 07:27 AM
I think it's fake. Animals get rigor mortis also...She may be able to stuff an animal to get it to look alive...but taxidermy animals still have that fake look. Their eyes are usually marbles & their fur is just never the same. I think it's clever photoshopping. Besides, some of the photos even look like they could have been made with a live animal & then the picture distorted so that the 'body' disappears into a vase. And if she's doing it in the U.S. & she was REALLY killing animals...PETA would have put up a billboard, or petitioned her about it already.
I bet they're real. Why not? The museum is right: it's not illegal, and we do kill animals for art (or fashion) all the time: leather jackets, belts, etc. Also, they don't look photoshopped.
Nefertari
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 | 11:26 PM
This was also in the gallery statement..
"There is nothing illegal in Nathalia's art. She has killed the animals in as humane a way as possible."
That mice on the fingers one was creepy.
Maegan
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 | 10:23 AM
I don't know. Those animals just don't look dead to me. I know I've seen similar art somewhere before. Even if it is real art...it still looks wholly fake to me.
Also...animals killed for clothing is different. Those animals are bred for the sole purpose of being killed when their hide is needed. There are a few animals not raised for their hides that end up getting killed for other reasons...and THEN their hides are used for clothing. It's not like Louis Vitton comes into your living room & steals your cat to make one of those ugly LV purses!
Not to mention...her art is getting QUITE a lot of attention over this. Hmm...
BugbearSloth
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 | 07:30 PM
No doubt to boost sales and drive prices up, eh Maegan?
Patrick
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 | 02:44 PM
Definatly photoshop 7, I use this regularly, it's not very hard just expensive. Its not that hard to identify a photoshop creation besides the eyes of the animals give it away, pun not intended but they would of turned to fluid being the first part of the body to decompose. Aplause to the people who created this on many counts.
Suki
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 | 05:55 AM
If you put an animal to sleep and set it up like that right away to take to take pictures it's eyes will still have that *alive* look.
It is possible to do with out photoshop.
She was reported to public prosecutors by the Swedish Veterinary Association for failing to have a veterinarian present when killing the animals she photographs in 2003.
She has been featured in a few museums in different places such as London and the country she lives in ... Sweden. I do not know much about how museums pick artists to show .. but I do not think they would want to feature art where some one lied about the way it was made.
Maegan
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 | 07:13 AM
But if it's a contraversy (sp?) it'll get more people in the doors!
Hannah
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 | 11:55 PM
The animals are real. And I think it is wrong and disturbing. I do not wear furs, and I do not wear makeup tested on animals! Some people think all people agree to that stuff, but yeah right! I wish she would move to America and try displaying corpses she calls art. Boy would the animal rights people get on her case.
Maegan
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 10:43 AM
Don't some tribes in south american crush up bugs & use them as make-up? Is that the same as killing for art?
P.S. I still think it's fake.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 11:52 AM
My brother and I have developed an odd practice over the years. When he comes to visit, we frequently take hikes up through the extensive woods around here. At first, we often took pictures of the scenic views, the trees and such, but after a bit we regularly began to take pics of the animal remains we came accross in our travels. This would include deer, porcupines, racoons, squirrels, cows, herons, turkeys, the list goes on. We never disturb the remains, only observe. We've gotten some disturbing shots of cow and deer ribcages and such. We always have that really creepy feeling as we come upon a larger carcass, in the primal fear that it may be a human, but haven't found one yet, thank God(dess). We are also smart enough not to approach what may be a fresh kill by a predator. Don't want to interrupt a meal, and then become one. We have lynx, bobcats, coyotes, bears, hawks, barred owls and other folks I don't want to anger. While it's kinda creepy, we only documented nature, and wouldn't dream of harming an animal or exploiting it's demise for art. That's just sick
Myst
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 04:45 PM
Lynx? Where are you at, if you don't mind my asking, From what I know there aren't many lynx left in the US.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 07:30 PM
North Central Pennsylvania, way up in the woods where we see lotsa animals slightly outside their normal range areas. I have seen both the bobcat, or red lynx (lynx rufus) and the canadian lynx (lynx canadensis). Lots of places for them to hide up here
Myst
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 10:42 PM
Here in Colorado we lost all of our lynx due to encrochment on their space and loss of their natural prey, the snowshoe hair. A few years ago some idiot decided to reintroduce them to the mountains, they hoped the lynx would find other prey since their natural prey was gone. Needless to say one, maybe two died of starvation. I'm not sure what happened to the others, no one ever said. Anyway, I said all of that to say lucky you, I would love to see the lynx here again.
Rex D.
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 01:24 AM
Is that really considered art? The animals could have died natually and the "artist" could then have used the remains. I think it's all just one big lie to promote the "art", cuz' of course words going to spread, aren't we talking about it?
Maegan
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 07:49 AM
Florida has Lynxes...lynxs...(How do you pluralize Lynx?)
A couple of schools here have the Lynx as a mascot.
Rex D.
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 05:20 PM
Lynx is both plural and non-plural. See why I hate this language?
