Allowed or not ?

X2! Just what I was thinking when I saw it also.

 

If the general public is allowed in to view the mounts, I would send it out the door. It may be art but in my opinion is not taxidermy.

 

That has to be the most disturbing form of taxidermy I have ever seen. There are millions of other ways to interpret the art form.

 

I don't even know where to start here... I guess from the beginning...

I looked at the picture in question and saw a symbolic piece of art. I started reading the comments and found it funny how its ok to see a human being depicted on a medieval torture device, bleeding and with the look of immense pain on his face, but a lamb (that symbolizes the idea of the sacrificial lamb, otherwise known as Jesus, which is not bleeding) is somehow offensive to a Christian. I often wonder if the "offended" Christian ever wonders if the things they find to be commonplace, offend anyone else, or if they assume everyone thinks as they do (I am talking about the idea of human sacrifice as portrayed by Jesus dying a slow death after being tortured on the cross). I think they hide behind the first amendment when it suits them and when they don't agree with another's freedom of speech or religion they claim that there religious rights have been violated. This is not tolerance. You can't have your cake and eat it to. That's the point of the establishment clause.

Anyways let me reply to some of the posts and hopefully shed some light on this idea of censorship that I am seeing as a theme in the replies:

This is just patently untrue. How is a skeletal mount "recreating how the animals were in nature"? Isn't a European mount considered taxidermy? You would send a person to jail for this? What about me, I have numerous animal skulls hanging on my fence and I live in town, should I be sent to jail if I put one of them on a cross and put a halo over it? Does the establishment clause mean anything to you?

Taxidermy is either art or it is not. You can't claim it to be art in one instance and then in another say its offensive, some art is meant to offend and to make you think. Don't worry rogue artists are not offended by your comment, trust me. Art like this is made for the sake of art not to impress you.

In reply to your three questions at the top... Yes that would be considered art whether you like it or not. Read the definitions of symbolic and satire to name only two, while your at it look up the definition of art and see if it complies with your presuppositions on what it "should be". Why would you use the animals you selected for the corresponding names in history? Is that how you view those distinguished people? I do have to challenge you on the notion that you would be just as offended if those three were at the show as you are about the one in question. This is the problem with religion, it is taboo to satirize or criticize it. Artists like the one in question has done nothing but that and for some reason you are offended and think it should be censored. It seems the idea of art is beyond your appreciation, at least when it comes to your religious beliefs. Are you offended because its a lamb and not a human being depicted? The part that I placed in bold in your quote is beyond my understanding. Its like your a Christian and then your not. The last part is just so factually wrong it barely requires an answer... The group of people this is supposedly running over is the majority in the U.S. This group does do harm to others just like any other religious organization, it is a matter of degree of harm. They do not mind there own business as it is a tenant of their doctrine to "spread the faith". This does show how much you know about your own religion. Luckily for the rest of us who don't believe exactly the same as the sect of Christianity you claim, we don't have to worry about anyone forcing us to believe. That is the point of the establishment clause. There is a quote that best seems to apply to this idea of yours that "there not forcing anyone to to believe the way they do ." Christopher Hitchens, "Religion now comes to us in this smiling face ingratiating way, but you have no right to forget how it acted when it truly believed it had God on its side." And to the finishing line of your rant, I sincerely hope it does not change the mind of the people running taxidermy events, because if we start censoring things based on religious beliefs then we set a precedent that goes against the First Amendment, and I don't think even the Christians would want that in the long run.

No sorry that's not the artists thought process. This artist, I assume, didn't do this for the sole purpose to offend Christians. For all you know he could be a Christian. Even if they did do it just to offend it still doesn't take anything away from the piece. Just because it offends you doesn't take away the symbolism of the piece. Artists, even a lot of Christian ones, will appreciate this for what it is... A piece of symbolic art.

Very well stated, thank you for being a voice of reason. And this from a Christian who apparently has a grasp of the spirit of the first amendment and, dare I say, is against censorship for religious reasons.

 

I believe NJ has a rouge taxidermy division, you can correct me if I'm wrong. This was not, by my understanding in the general competition. This is a state show and I feel it should be by majority up to the members whether they accept this type of presentation in their show, not us.

One thing I thing I do have a finger on is maybe a sway in the rogue taxidermists opinion on bringing mounts such as this to a serious show. So many of these young artists have only been exposed to what they see on Deviant Art and other web sites. They really have no grasp on the true artistry and amount of work a professional taxidermist puts into making their mount as close to nature as possible. Once being exposed to the detail and precision it takes to recreate a specimen realistically compared to just using an 'artistic license' quite a few of them come away respecting the natural mounts more and want to produce something 'more respectable' to the industry they are looking at being a part of.

Honestly, how many can throw paint on a canvas with a stick and say 'I'm an artist!' after viewing a Thomas Kinkade mearly a few feet away...... it can be a humbling experience.

I'm not saying this is every case, but I have seen a few eyes opened once they are exposed to the true art taxidermy.

 

Well....I too thought it was a rue........and couldn't figure out the symbolism!! Thought maybe somebody was saying Jesus was an Aussie!! : With that said...its weird.....makes you stop and look.............and somebody is going to sell that for a fortune!!

 

I am actually nauseated by it. Very poor taste in my opinion.

 

I think it's fine. At first glance it's clearly someone making a literal representation of Jesus's well-known moniker Lamb of God, Sacrificial Lamb, the Lamb that was slain, etc. It's just a lamb on a cross. I don't believe it's meant to be demeaning or hateful-- or offensive, for that matter. If anything, the artist may have thought they were being clever. But hey, to each his own.

 

As a Christian, I'm not offended by this. I actually think this is a more appropriate depiction than the fair skinned, blue eyed Jesus of Wester Art. How many middle eastern men from 2000 years ago looked like that?

Jesus is depicted as the lamb of God, who takes away the sin's of the World. (John 1:29) and the lamb who was slain (Rev. 5:12) All of this, of course, is reference to the Jewish sacrificial system, for which Jesus was the fulfillment. In other wards, the animal sacrifices of the law of Moses were symbolically foreshadowing the ultimate sacrifice that would not just cover sin, but put it away. To me, the piece in question is putting those ideas together symbolically. Symbolism is all over the Bible.

 

I think the general public would find this mound dis tasteful why give them a platform to rubbish us?
personally not my cup of tea.

 

Here's my opinion.....I am not going to come back on and argue over it.

GARBAGE--Done in poor taste. I'm by no means a "bible thumper", but I try not to miss church on Sunday's. I consider myself a Christian. I wanted to get an opinion from a "non taxidermist", so I showed the picture to my wife, she was upset by the picture, and didn't even want to look at it after she realized what it was.

As the competition chairman for a small taxidermy competition our state show had a few years back, we had a competitor bring in a coyote mount about to step in a trap, he had to either remove or cover up the trap, or not enter the piece.

Typically, I am what George refers to as the "peanut gallery", I post very little, as at almost 48yrs old, I find myself not wanting to argue with people over anything.... it just doesn't matter to me. After looking at this picture a few times, I felt compelled to post my opinion.

 

Art is meant to stir emotion. I think this piece accomplishes that.

 

call it art or whatever, I think it looks as stupid as those raccoons in a canoe I've seen mounted

 

I think it is junk. It bothers me a lot because my first thought was that it is a gross mocking of Christ and the Christian faith. It is blasphemy and I am sure that is how it is meant to be taken. A in your face insult. It is equal to the infamous "piss Christ" crucifix in a urine jar or Madonna masterbating with a crucifix on stage and film. It is equal to the gay parade where the marchers used bible pages as toilet paper and threw the ass wiped pages at the bystanders like exactly is what took place recently after the supreme court decision to legalize gay marriage. I do not believe this "art" belongs in a taxidermy convention. It belongs in some wacko gallery in San Fransisco where it would be accepted and admired as awesome and normal. I am not for censorship, it is what it is; gabage. It belongs in a garbage can or at best in a place where people of like mind gather and would admire it; I hate to think a taxidermy show would such a place. Let the artist try that with Allah and the entire world would erupt in mass murders by upset Muslims. That is a proven before on several occasions fact. Oh well, that's my take on it.

 

One word to describe it, blasphemy.

 

Crucifixion is one of the most torturous ways to die when it was used.
So knowing that would it be art to mount a labrador on a medival Rack being pulled apart?
No difference. Both were some of the most inhumane ways to die.
It may be "art" but showing an animal being tortured in a public show is in very bad taste. I could see this one making the news on TV. Publicity like this we don't need.

 

Walks Again Taxidermy:
Hi there, since you addressed me directly I suppose I'll respond here:

1: I did not say anywhere that I personally found this piece offensive. I am not religious AT ALL so please do not read into my post something that is not there.

2: I also did not mention the word art, nor whether or not this mount should be considered art, so please do not read into my post something that is not there.

3: It does seem that I may have offended you with my comment, since you made some condescending assumptions about my post. Perhaps when you got to my response you were so riled up by others that you read it in an angry voice (it happens). It was not about whether I find rogue taxidermy impressive or art offensive or whether anyone cares about what I think. My post was simply to address the original question "Allowed or not?" from my own perspective as a taxidermy association member, from recollection of rules being enforced at past conventions, and in consideration of the general public where I live (Bible Belt). The general idea at a show is to be presented as Professional Craftsmen and therefore some will distance themselves from things that seem controversial or offensive. That is a business thing, not personal (some are personal but not all). In a way it relates to the "Ethical Taxidermy" thread from last week. Some may not like the term, but where these "ethical taxidermists" live, the people view hunting animals as offensive, so they distance themselves from that. Many of the rogue taxidermists are urban, and want to distance themselves from the image of backwoods, beer guzzling, deer head stuffing country taxidermists.

4: My favorite rogue mount so far is the kit-sun fox holding the spirit globe. But is it rogue? Or a re-creation of a creature from legend? Or BOTH??


Do you see how there is consideration for ALL here? Basically I am trying to explain other's reactions of disgust with a more respectful tone (that is respectful to the rogue group in case you mis-read that). If you knew me personally you would know that is how I speak. NONE of this addresses my personal opinion of a crucified, stuffed lamb. To me the lamb simply shows that there is another young person hooked on the wonderful world of taxidermy! (Get it? Young lamb.. "hooked on"!? Too soon??)

 

The difference between 6 months and 6 weeks doesn't matter in this context. Your still using a fetus in place of the lamb in order to attempt to draw a comparison where none exists. Unless of course your attempting to, as I said, symbolize the aborted fetus' or trying to make a statement in some other way that has yet to appear to me. The fact remains that the lamb actually symbolizes Jesus. But this is all irrelevant, the problem is that when something disagrees with your sensibilities you begin to draw false comparisons in order to bash them, which you think in turn somehow bashes what offended you.

There is no way to draw a comparison between the Rebel flag and the piece in question either. It would make no sense behind this piece unless I am missing some symbolism that maybe you would like to enlighten me on. Lets be honest you would be offended no matter what was added to this piece so lets not waste our time on that.

So you said that the animals used to symbolize the "gentlemen" as you say were used for a reason and give JFK as a horny dog as an example. Then you say for me to draw my own conclusions on the others? There seems to be an overarching theme to your posts so I'll use that as a guide for my conclusions since you don't feel the need to defend yourself. Tell me if I'm right...

You used the jack ass for Lincoln because you think he was a jack ass. Which is quite courageous of you and very against the grain but at least nobody can claim your trying to hide your true feelings on the subject Lincoln is best known for.
You used a black panther to portray Martin Luther King Jr. because color seems to matter to you.
You used the confederate (Rebel) flag because of what it stands for. It was brought back in the 50's in direct opposition to desegregation efforts. And the confederate flags (because there were more than one during the civil war) stand in opposition to what the "jack ass" Lincoln stood for.
You used the raccoon in the noose for "effect" and because it was the first thing that came to your mind.
Of the 6 so called examples/questions you purported 4 of them can be construed as racist.
Another problem with your examples/questions are that not a single one of them have to do with religion.

How did I do? It really doesn't matter because even though they are racist they are still art and symbolize certain things. I would defend your right to create and display them just like I defend the right of the artist of the piece in question regardless of the religion it represents or the religion the artist claims

The difference here is very simple and I will underline it because it is my entire argument summed up in one line. Religion claims some special right that does not apply in any other area, and that special right is "the right to not be offended". Censorship based on religious reasons is adding to the taboo that it is not ok to criticize religion or religious ideas. I don't think you would want this in the long run for the following reason. The censor would turn into the censored in every case but one, and I doubt highly that the one winner would be you or your tiny sect of Christianity. This is why we need to hold to the first amendment and stop attempting to censor, especially using a religious justification, just because it "offends" you.

Morals have nothing to do with this piece of art and if you think it affects your morality then there is a confusion in terms. I know you think you draw your morality from scripture, but the fact is that you do not. The morality in the Bible has been improved upon immensely over the ages and we no longer, for instance, stone unruly children at the edge of town.
The politically correct thing to do would be to allow this piece of art into the show due to the fact that no politician wants to be seen as disregarding the First Amendment, except the Republican party now a days. When it comes to religious freedoms they lead the way as long as the freedom in question is of Christian origin.
The problem with this quote is you are conflating the word respect with the word offend. In no way, shape or form does this piece of art disrespect the idea of Jesus as the Lamb of God. You can get offended all the while you are not being disrespected. Maybe you are getting offended because you don't understand fully the symbolism or think it is derogatory in some way.

Lets try a syllogism to see if I can clear this up:

The Bible is the unerring word of God.
Jesus is referred to symbolically as the Lamb of God in the Bible.
Therefore Jesus can be portrayed symbolically as the Lamb of God without offense to the Bible or God.

One last thing about this quote...
Why do you feel the need to use "appalling" or "shock and awe" as a means to an end? If your arguments stand on demonstrable footing then people will have no problem accepting them (or shouldn't anyway, there is never a guarantee) and there should be no reason to shock people or appall them into thinking the same way you do.

I'm sorry you think this is mockery when it clearly falls under the definitions of symbolism and art. Even if it was meant to mock it takes nothing away from the fact that it symbolizes the Lamb of God. The "Piss Christ" is a piece of art whether you like it or not, the artist was acclaimed for creating it, even by Christians. Madonna wears a crucifix while she's not masturbating also, does that mean she's a good Christian then? I know some people who have never taken their crucifix off since they bought it and they are not celibate, does that mean that they are blasphemous? You seem to be against a persons right to get married to the person they love. How Christian of you.

This is taxidermy and art by definition. So it actually belongs in either venue and if you attempt to keep it out under religious reasons then you are spitting on the first amendment of the constitution.

This contradicts what you stated in the previous quote only two sentences before this one.

Your scared of satirizing Allah? So apparently the terrorists have won and you seem to be ok with it. I don't know how to satirize Allah when it comes to taxidermy but I can try. I'll read up on it and post something eventually. We will see how much back lash I get for doing so on this site compared to the back lash this artists rendition of Christ has gotten.

I just have to ask really quick what would the Labrador being pulled apart on the rack symbolize? What would be the reason to create the piece in the first place? And how does this compare to the piece in question?