A controversial artist who planned to allow three piglets to starve as part of an exhibition to raise awareness of the mass meat production processes has had to close the show after the animals were stolen.
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.
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.