But they aren't Anthros. They're Feral. But, still, quite the leap.

In the furry fandom, yes, but strictly speaking, anthropomorphism means giving human characteristics to something non-human. Not necessarily just physical humanoid characteristics. The kind of eroticism in this piece is very human, making it an anthropomorphic piece.

And after checking the slideshow on the site, those peniseseses are very human.

So, some might interpret it as an Erotic Transformation piece with the couple nearly done changing.

AHAHA! I hope that's still there when I go back home to Madison in 6 weeks! Fuck yeah Chazen, way to be bold.

It's so horrid! Hehe... Their balls aren't anatomically correct...

The horror! :D

Hehe... Goat testes seem to be excessively large.

They're huge! Man if I were a goat I'd constantly be accidentally hitting them with my hooves or something. That can't be too comfortable.

Now the question begs to be asked, where can one find a pics that isn't censored?

The news article has a "slideshow" link that has the adult content

or you can go to her web page: www.followtheblackrabbit.com/Tender.....er_Hooks_statement.htm

Art is filled with porn. Art is filled with animals. Art is filled with anthropomorphism. It was only a matter of time.

This is quiet interesting. I personally dont find this sort of thing...nice , but I hardly feel this is the point of the artwork. From what I can see, she's given them human genitalia. A strange way to make a point of a very debated topic.

Yeah. French kissing is such a strictly human thing that seeing goats do it is disturbing to me, even with my furry tendencies. That's the kind of art I fucking love, the kind that gives me such an unexpected emotional reaction. Hell yes.

Seeing the slideshow the artist did a wonderful job on the details and emotion from the top to the bottom. Its a beautiful piece in emotion.

Yeah, the artist put a lot into making this, whatever it was they were trying to portray. It's very powerful.

Its the kind of thing you have to admire regardless if you can accept what you are seeing as far as your morals.

I agree. Though, I also think that art is completely separate from morality and cannot be measured by those standards, but that's a different discussion entirely...

Oh but I do agree -nod nod- morality should be pushed aside as not to fog your view of true artwork.

With that broad statement, surely you cannot object to this piece of art:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/.....oryId=89830782

You might be surprised by this statement but I can say that if I had been there I would have been able to put my morality aside for both the dog and the miscarriages. However I am not sure what either artist is trying to say by the art itself. So I can't say much more than that.

Interesting. But where does that end? What if it had been a human child tied to starve to death? What atrocities can be committed in the name of art? Mass murder even?

If the killing of one animal is allowed? Is the killing of one human? If the killing of one human is allowed, is the killing of many?

Well I will say that no law should be broken in the sake of art. Saying that neither of the two people broke any laws from where they were from.

Also on a side note the dog did not end up dying and it was in the state it was in before it was put up as art. I believe it stayed like that for 3 days before escaping. Well that is from past reports talking about it.

Either way, it is still a horrible cruelty.

And what laws shouldn't be broken? Decency laws? Laws that censor anything erotic from the public eye? Those are all local laws, you know. Does that mean anything that breaks any local law should never been done for the sake of art?

Laws of the land my friend. In the US (and I think in other countries) it would be considered against the law to leave any animal under your care without food or water while in other countries these same laws do not apply (obviously)...also I don't think anywhere is it against the law to do what the woman did. Respect for laws of the land would keep art within most bounds of what the majority of that land would consider "decent" in the general sense. You can never please everyone so it would be near impossible not to have art that wouldn't offend at least 1 person. Also what is the difference between taking pictures of animals that are tied up and starving than showing it directly to the masses. As for the miscarriages while I do not agree with killing unborn babies it is the law of the land that it is okay to have an abortion (which is more or less the same thing) thus I have no choice but to accept the art put before me and look at it in a more critical light instead of a wholly emotional one.

That is my final word with it as I am feeling tired and not really feeling like debating right now.

I'm no longer fussing over the dog or miscarriages, I'm questioning your statement that art is valid so long as it doesn't violate local laws.

What of the old soviet laws? In which it was illegal to do any art that was not propaganda? Did that mean that in the USSR, non-propaganda art was not art at all? It was against the local law.

-sigh- The USSR (the one you speak of) doesn't exist anymore. Obviously the government was corrupted which is why it died. Give me an example of any government today that has some insane law about art or a law that would somehow affect it. Then I might see your point.

Iran, China, Cuba, ect.. (Half the underdeveloped nations in the world)


Those nations all have laws censoring artwork, the first three far, far harsher than the rest.

But even beyond that. If you try to invalidate one nations laws due to harshness, oppressiveness, etc... Your statement of "Art is Valid only if allowed by local law" is itself invalidated.

So what if USSR was oppressive in it's censorship? So what if China, Cuba, Iran and the like are oppressive in their censorship?

They're the local laws, and therefore they determine validity of art, yes? Not any sense of morality.

But if they're not valid local laws because they're so strict.... Would you not also be able to argue that the local laws of Costa Rica are not valid because they place no value on animal life?

You cannot have it both ways. Either non-propaganda art in the old USSR held no artistic merit, or your logic is flawed.

Either local laws are the final word, or they're not. If you pick and choose, what are you picking and choosing based on? Your own sense of morality?

I thought morality was not supposed to play into art.

Wow, what a debate...
For what it's worth, I'm rather partial to TherianWriter's way of thinking in that I think that production of art should probably not break local laws. However, if it does break local laws, that doesn't mean that it's not art... just that it's not legal.

That being said, the dying dog thing is not art. There is no artist. No one created anything. Maybe several strong images were depicted in that display, like desperation, death, panic, fear.. Those are indeed the types of things that a piece of art would show, but in this case they were the biological and psychological responses of the dog. It's hubris to think that simply having the capacity to cause a creature misery is artistic expression. It's simply cause and effect.
I guess it could be argued that the person responsible created the situation that would produce a starving dog, but I would still maintain that there is no artful expression. It's the equivalent of me cutting a branch off of a tree, putting it in a museum and pointing at it saying "THIS MEANS SOMETHING." In the same way nature cannot be patented, biological growths and processes cannot be art.

Interesting. I take it you're not a fan of Duchamp's "Ready Made" art?

I'm not sure I've ever encountered it.

His most famous "Ready Made" was titled "Fountain". He purchased a urinal, and called it a fountain, and there was his art.

|-:,'
Yeah... I'm not impressed. The only act of creation there was to give it a different name. Hardly museum-worthy material..

Extraordinarily revolutionary for the time. 1920's and all. One of the very first "Modern Artists".

But yeah, I don't like declarative art either. The only art is the concept that that is art. Somewhat inbred and useless to me.

I kinda feel that the term "art" has gotten an unfortunate change in meaning. The old definition was basically "making mark on things that looks like other things", the new definition is a long anky easay about statement, meaning nd that can essentially be reduced to "what I say is art is art".
Fuck that, when a word gets too loaded like that its essentially useless.

As for the condition ofmodern art, I think its sad when you see more artitic skill and creativity in the graffitti on the museum than in the museum...

Have you seen the comment section ? Goats making out makes the world a darker place ? Really ? Really ?

I agree with your earlier comment.. art that makes me slightly uneasy is the best kind of art.

First you see goats making out, the next thing you know, we're all going to catch the gay! D: D:

Well I must say this leaves me with quite a few opposed impressions!

In a way, I think this is very neat and successfully conveys emotion - it's kind of halfway between uneasiness and empathy. Yet, at the same time, this sculpture feels a bit like it's been done already - but I know entirely I'm only saying that because I'm regularly exposed to similar imagery on FA (still, make this a drawing rather than a technically wonderful sculpture, and I think it would be seen as furry porn material, not museum-worthy art).

I'm not offended by it because I think it's inoffensive, but I understand how some people will greatly dislike it - and that's fine, just so long as they accept museums are political neutral grounds which are meant to take as little stance on morality issues as is possible. The persons whom, in the article, mentionned they were offended by it still agreed it was only a personal opinion, so I'm glad to see many are reasonable about that.

The comments... are on another level, but one did raise a good point ; it could have been possible to put the sculpture in its own small room, accessible only to adults, with a description of the sculpture written on the outside walls of the room so people would know if they want to see it or not. That way you definitely let people decide for themselves what level of censorship they want, and the museum still avoids taking a moral stance which it should not be taking.