Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Taxidermy Industry' started by buckfever*, Jul 19, 2015.
Lets just see what the opinions are while refraining from mud slinging ?
Could care less, this is from the NJ show this year, I think
would it still be art if it was a raccoon hanging from a rope ?
Would it be art if was a 6 week human fetus up there ?
would it be art if the same animal in pic was on a rebel flag instead
Any of those could be considered art I suppose, as any of those could be considered hurtful.
Funny how deer with an arrow protruding or a animal in a trap is frowned upon lest we not offend the animal right people. Lets make sure we dont offend the gays, blacks, Muslims , and illegals , (im sorry for those I have forgot to mention) ,but to hell with the christian folks , apparently they are next on the list for extermination.
Allowed - as long as I, as a taxpayer didn't help pay for this crap! Same ol stuff, different era. Maplethorpe-like in shock value and also similar is that is ALL it is!!! Some dip-ship pseudo artist trying to make a name for him or herself. Stuff like this is like turning the channel on a bad t.v. show. Look away and in no time you'll forget who did it. Which btw, WHO did this again? lol!
So what if it were the rebel flag draped behind it? Still art? Freedom of expression or racist?
What about leg hold traps scenes holding a coyote?
I know Jesus is described as the sacrificial lamb that takes away the sins of the world and that appears to be what this particular piece is trying to convey. In my opinion, it's in poor taste. The lamb is posed in human form even with a loin cloth...just doesn't come across well too me.
LOL - that's a lamb??? I Spent SO LITTLE TIME VIEWING IT I thought it was a Kangaroo - lol! I had no idea what the "Artist" was attempting here - lol!
I was at a show in '08 or '09 where a mount was either disqualified or at least had to be deliberated on because the animal's foot was stepping into a trap. The competitor was upset because the foot was not actually IN the trap, but a few inches above, about to be caught. The rule at that show stated that mounts done in poor taste may not be allowed to enter the competition. I doubt the lamb on the cross would be allowed here in a mid-west show, as when the public walked through on Saturday afternoon I'm sure many would be upset by it. I would prefer our state show to be remembered by all of the beautiful and lifelike mounts there, rather than by one controversial mount that offended a bunch of people. That is just my opinion though and I hope the rogue artists are not offended by it.
Dont feel to bad Marty at first glance I thought it was a donkey fowl. :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
That's my whole thought process Codi, Stuff like that's not allowed because we don't wont to up set the animal right people. But give no thought at all to how that may affect the religious people. It may be better to have wrote don't care what the religious people think screw-em seems to be the thought process here.
LOL - I must be losing it b/c I not only thought this was a Kangaroo, I also thought it was in some Art gallery and didn't see the ribbon. I guess the Taxidermy Industry category should have been a major flag - lol! Time to quit working I think and have a Stella!
Yes, in poor taste IMO. But, perhaps by NOT DQ'g it they didn't give the "Artist" the exposure they were looking for?
I saw a nicely done yote with a trap on it foot, caught across the paw pad. That was in the mid 80's at a national convention. The taxidermist was forced to take the trap off or pull the mount. He chose to remove the trap, they wouldn't even allow it on the scenery.
I wouldn't allow the thing in the pic above through the door...
I, too, thought it was a kangaroo. I am very offended by it and I think it should be allowed as is. I'm a big boy and if something offends me, oh well. If I screamed every time I became offended I would be extremely hoarse. The judge and jury is not me in the end, so I am offended by this and I will choose not to look at any longer and for those who are not offended by it can continue to look at. I have never been to a taxidermy competition, so I don't know any of the rules for them. I just feel that because it offends me it should not be removed on account of that.
What's funny is I have posted pics of mounts from AMNH that were deleted because some could find them offensive. Really, on public display at a world famous museum, andthey are offensive. I thought they were funny, not offensive. I guess mating tortoises and snakes are way worse than the mount here.
I don't find it offensive since I'm not religious, but I'm not 100% comfortable with rogue taxidermy at a competition. It's an interesting piece from an art perspective, but I thought our goal as taxidermists was to recreate nature in a respectful and accurate way. Wouldn't really care if rogue people want to go off and have their own shows, just feel things like this detract from making wildlife art. I'm also curious how the rogue category was judged at this show. On what basis were the pieces judged?
Also, to the Christian folks, just curious why you find this piece offensive.
I find it ........
I find it in very poor taste. When regular taxidermy mounts can be turned away for bad taste (animals in traps, bloody mounts, etc) And the Garden State board made a decision on this to allow it?
Because this piece is obviously pointing toward the description of Christ on the cross complete with a "crown". Since Jesus was not a literal lamb, it would be like going to your mothers funeral and above the casket is a picture of Earnest Borgnine. Many people died on various types of crosses, Some were the classic shape of a T, in the shape of an X, a straight post and so forth and to me, the instrument of death doesn't mean much. It was THE DEATH of Christ that means everything. Trying to symbolize that with just an animal , to me, is demeaning. Having said that, there were many men during the life of Jesus who claimed to be the Christ. He didn't go around seeking them out to get them removed because they were beyond offensive, but rather, set out on a great teaching campaign, preaching the kingdom of God. Instead of seeking out offensive material and squelching it out, energy preaching Christ crucified, I believe, is a better expenditure of that energy.
That is not taxidermy. were are suppose to recreate how the animals were in nature before being harvested. never seen an animal on a cross, only when I was a cop would I see that. They went to jail.
a rediculous piece! I dont care for it. Not because of any religeous reasons, its just that im more of a traditionalist and believe that good taxidermy is achieved when you have replicated a live animal. this monstrosity just doesnt do it for me.