After the Article in the New York Times Magazine yesterday.. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/arts/design/03taxi.html?ex=1105784497&ei=1&en=674101f53f9403b3
..the website of this wierd group has been making the rounds. It is unfortunately what many taxidermists are thought to be like.
The Minnesota Association of Rogue Taxidermists web site is http://www.roguetaxidermy.com/index.php There are some truely horrid things on the website and related links - though I thought the squirrel decanter was interesting.
Old Fart - , since you are from Snowland, can you knock some sense into them? Perhaps you could bring the state DNR down on the lady picking up roadkill. Any effort would be appreciated. It all gives taxidermists a bad name.
Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu
I ran this story last year and I was AMAZED at the number of people who didn't see any big deal about this macabre group of misfits.
I remember that thread. I thought for sure this one would be about them Vikings. Favorite team but I'm afraid it's season over this Sunday unless they pull off a miracle. Peace- Jeff F.
Not only am I out of the loop, but the loop has done passed me by...
The article in the New York Times is primarily the aspect I am mentioning it for, plus the website which has quite recent additions.
I call it, "crossing over". Those kids are pushing an envelope into a new art form. I don't see any comparison with modern taxidermy, but I do see a way to compare that to Public reaction of Peggy Guggenheim's promotion of the wild man Picasso.
You wait until the hoity toity New York art buying public picks up on that stuff and it begins to sell for $10k a pop.
I thought Andy Warhol was full of crap when he made screen prints of horse hockey. When Leichtenstein made wall sized cartoons, we all laughed. Hell, I just think they leap frogged into a method of finding public acceptance for a phase.
Let em go for it, thier bizzare art form may open doors for us all........Or maybe the kids up there had too many "snow days"...
That's why when I hear a taxidermist claiming to an "artist" I have to wonder where his real talent lies. LOL
I have been called a lot of things over the years, "artist" among them. The artistry in taxidermy ends when the design phase is completed. Spatial arrangement, cohesiveness of components, and an over-all verisimilitude, all are the domain of conceptual thought and associative use of graphic application of ambiguious visual data. the aplication of that data is creative, and thus applicable to the concept of art, in the difinitive sense. When a complex series of events are mentally connected to provide a design or maquette from which a hylozoistic microsm of life emerges, then that is definitely art as it has been defined for millenia.
Gluing a hide onto a form and grooming it well is not art by any stretch of the imagination. Art reflects life, and many taxidermy works I have seen do qualify as "Art", but to call oneself an "artist" when there is little or no creative process involved in the finished product is ludricous.
An artist conceives form and design first in his mind, then on paper, and finally in form and substance. Are there true artists in this field? Yes, there are, and I have had the pleasure of knowing some of them. They all had one thing in common though, NONE of them ever called themselves "artists"!
Two of THOSE people happen to be ribbon winners at the MN taxidermy show last year so they can't be THAT bad.
So what if they take traditional taxidermy and add a bit of imagination to it. To each his own. If you don't like it, don't look at it.
You need a dictionary to siffer Cur's post
They're laughing all the way to the bank! They've found a customer for their service, and the artisty they've chosen to appropriate. Jeff F.