I’m torn here. One person is forcing 3 piglets to starve, which is evil, to bring attention to a practice that allows tens of thousands of piglets to starve, which is also evil. The potentially 3 dead piglets get the attention the artist wanted, and someone intervened to stop it. Now we’re criticizing the artist, and no one is intervening to stop the starvation of tens of thousands of other piglets. I feel like the point was missed, especially in this comment thread.
Agree. It’s a horrible act to draw attention to a horrible act millions of magnitudes larger. I don’t get how one could be angry at this and not angry at its more widespread equivalent.
This stunt reminds me of the show Bellas Artes, which is about a museum director struggling to cope with his new job.
In the third episode, an artist sets up an installation using a large, dead marine animal as the centerpiece to draw attention to broader ecological neglect. The kicker is that not only is the animal quickly rotting, causing a huge commotion with the press and putting everyone on edge, but a big part of the intended artwork is the shit show that followed—something the artist anticipated. The artist wanted the whale to rot and stink up the place, close the museum, and give the media a field day. All of the artist’s actions and intentions led to the museum director’s epiphany about what the piece was really about.
And that’s exactly how I feel about this. People arguing that the piglets were “left to starve” are missing the point. Setting up the crime scene and rescuing the piglets is all part of the show.
That’s my take, too. I’m not a huge fan of shock art, but it’s a great way of getting a message across and get a discussion started that changes the way people think.
His friend being involved in the supposed theft without telling him is, I think quite clearly a sign that this was set up. Rarer than artists doing stuff for sick value is people breaking into a museum.
“Stolen”. That’s not how you pronounce “rescued from a psychopath”.
Or it was all according to the artist’s plan anyhow.
Not that I would be surprised if the artist never cared about animal rights in the first place.
Yeah, this feels like just another of those artists who want to sow discord for fame, without actually caring about the real topic they throw under the bus in doing so.
Or it was all according to the artist’s plan anyhow.
IMO, that’s still something a psychopath / Batman villain would do.
Agreed.
only correct answer
The piglets were being denied food and water and would have been allowed to starve to death.
Does Denmark not have animal cruelty laws?
“The Animal Protection Denmark welfare group says that sows are bred in the Danish pig industry to produce about 20 piglets at a time, but only have 14 teats, forcing the piglets to compete for breastmilk, leading to starvation of many.”
There’s a difference between being forced to compete with your siblings for food and intentionally being starved to make a point.
Yeah. In one case you get rescued by an activist and have media write about you, and in the other you die in a factory and are thrown in the trash with many others.
Interestingly listening to an article talking about the hollowness of words, making unethical things seem ethical.
I think that was supposed to happen, and the best outcome here. The piece is thought provoking and brings up the question why people would care about these pigs in the first place considering how little we regard the life of a pigglet (imo).
It is imperative that animals used for food be humanely slaughtered. This is horrifically inhumane and the animals are not being eaten.
Is a slow agonizing death really any worse than an agonizing life followed by a quick death?
Animals used for food should be treated humanely their entire lives, not just in the moment of death. However many would argue that raising animals for food at all is already inherently inhumane.
Fuck this pretentious asshole. He don’t give a shit about animal rights. Clout chasing tool.
This is evil. Unmitigated evil.
deleted by creator
