1. Welcome to Taxidermy.net, Guest!
    We have put together a brief tutorial to help you with the site, click here to access it.

Allowed or not ?

Discussion in 'The Taxidermy Industry' started by buckfever*, Jul 19, 2015.

  1. Send it back out the door

  2. Allow it to stay as is

  3. Allow it stay with a covered barrier around it with a warning posted

    0 vote(s)
  4. Allowed as is with a warning posted at the entrance

  5. Remove the christian items from the piece

  1. uncleheff

    uncleheff Member

    You are in essence, although without coming out and saying it openly, saying that because you think others would be offended by it you would therefore not allow it in. Whether you find it offensive or not personally is irrelevant and in no way did I say you personally did in my response which I will quote. You are enabling censorship. It doesn't take any reading into this to see that you would censor a piece of taxidermy/art on the assumption that it would offend others.
    You called the creator of this piece an artist, which would imply the piece being art. That is easily derived from that quote don't you think? Artists create art don't they? So I'm not actually reading into the post all that much to come up with that conclusion am I?

    3.I am in no way offended by your comments and I don't see how my short response was condescending as I have shown above. This part seems to be pandering to the majority:
    This does nothing but mask the prejudices that the majority in question may have instead of confronting them. Also this does not allow the people who would actually consider this a nice piece the opportunity to see it based on what you think is the preference of the majority. And that is wrong. Would you deny access to a book because you don't agree with the thesis?
    I don't see how this is relevant but you are the one stereotyping taxidermists here not me so I'll let you defend this on your own.

    4.I can't seem to find the Kitsune fox you are speaking of but not for a lack of trying I have been searching for a while now. I don't understand why people are so quick to place things in groups, "this is rogue" or "this is traditional" why can't it just all be taxidermy. What does the "rogue" taxidermist take away from the "traditional" one and visa versa? But anyways, what I am really interested in is discussing the reasons for censorship of this piece due to religious sensibilities. And, the idea that these religious sensibilities should be able to claim a special right to be "protected from the chance of being offended". This is specially egregious in an art context. Taxidermy is art by definition, and just like any other art that may be found offensive (for any reason including religious) the person offended has no more right to censor it than this piece in question.

    There is not consideration for all here as you say. By definition you are not considering everyone by censoring this piece. Your personal ideas on this piece are irrelevant just like mine are, the fact that it is being censored based on religious reasons is the problem.

    I do enjoy your pun though.
  2. Brian Reinertson

    Brian Reinertson Well-Known Member

    Poor taste is the bottom line. Wildlife artists don't want to be associated with this piece. Simple...

  3. ortegageno

    ortegageno Active Member

    Dang it Walks Again Taxidermy u all must be smoking some of that good stuff up there in Colorado in order to quote every response on this thread.
  4. tem

    tem Well-Known Member

  5. Walks again since you have all the answers. Please lead us heathens.
    Hell you should run for president.
    Again I'm flattered you think I put that much thought into it.( missing some symbolism. overarching theme. )
    Lmao, Its Random gibberish and it has you all worked up .

    You are correct on the coon analogy only, the jack ass you missed by a mile. The black Panther just seemed to fit as a decrepit , wasn't meant to be positive or negative. That's the reason ( draw your own conclusions) what ever you draw of it is fine, REMEMBER its ART and that is what it suppose to do.

    You say you dont understand some lines, Lets see if you under stand being ignored, because i wont participate into your babbling contest. I concede you win by default.
  6. DL

    DL Well-Known Member

    The cross and the rack were both forms of torture. If you don't think the crucifixion was torture you need to read about it. I used the dog as an example of what someone might think is "Art". Only the creator of the piece would know. I could come up with any lame explanation.
    I really don't care what your opinion is about it. The bottom line is that state shows are open to the public. It's in very poor taste. To nail an animal in any shape or form to a cross is suggesting torture.
    If a piece like that showed up at our state show I doubt that it would be allowed to stay there. I would go so far to say that there would be many here that would demand it. Me personally if my association didn't ban it they would loose me as a member. Taxidermist associations have worked very hard to educate the public about our Art form. Putting out controversial pieces just sets us back.
    Just because a person can create it doesn't mean they should show it.
  7. uncleheff

    uncleheff Member

    Apparently I haven't made myself clear enough on a single point. I have been trying to deal with all the ideas that don't even address the central thesis and it seems I have been spinning my wheels. So I will reiterate it.

    Censorship or outright exclusion based on religious reasons violates the first amendment. You have the freedom to your religion. You do not have the freedom to censor or exclude others due to you feeling "offended" because of something related to your religion. This would violate their right to freedom of speech. Their right to freedom of speech in no way infringes on your right to practice your religion just like this piece does not.

    Don't attempt to patronize me for your own arguments failures.
    You are right about one thing and that is "its random gibberish". I am not all worked up I just don't like the intolerant having an open forum without being challenged. Your arguments failed to achieve the "shock and awe" you were hoping for (especially with me) and after being challenged you allowed them to fall and conceded the argument.
    I don't think you even know you are being racist when you are doing it. And yet you want to talk about being politically correct. It is truly ridiculous. I'm glad you are ignoring me so I won't have to deal with anymore of your condescension after your arguments fail to achieve the desired effect. Although I'll bet you will at least read the posts since you started this thread in the first place. And I look forward to a reply if there are any to be had against the first amendment or toleration.

    I think you need to read or possibly reread my posts. I'll save you the trouble on a couple of points that you are misrepresenting.
    I know the crucifix is a torture device, I actually said so in a post. I have to ask you, are you offended by this solely because it appears a lamb is being tortured or because it offends peoples religious ideas? If it is because of torture then why aren't you mad about the idea of a human being tortured on a cross? This single idea of human torture is celebrated by over 2.5 billion people worldwide...
    A dog in a rack would be completely different from this piece as it wouldn't have anything to do with any major religion of today and wouldn't require a religious reason to censor or exclude it from the show.
    You are absolutely right about the shows being open to the public... The whole point here is Open To The Public. I understand as I have said there are rules to events because of previous grievances. I am arguing against the specific grievance that "religion claims a special right to NOT be offended". It is the only right, guaranteed by the constitution, that claims this "special right".
    I know many people would demand it be removed. A lot of people think the same way you do, which I attempted to sum up in the quotations earlier in this post. This is what I am arguing against.
    Here is a different way to state the problem of censorship or exclusion which responds to your last two sentences... Who should be the arbiter of what is controversial enough to permit exclusion or censorship? You?
  8. Jerry Huffaker

    Jerry Huffaker Well-Known Member

    Walks again, your point is taken and I think everyone sees it . There is one area you have missed , taxidermy associations are private , members only clubs. They set the rules as to what can and can't happen in there gatherings. All private clubs have rules of conduct, no different than a country club, private bar, Boy Scouts , Girl Scouts etc. To answer your question the arbiter who decides what is excluded or not is the owners- BOD of the private club. They can decide who or what walks through the door. They can and do legally exclude items that they think might offend them or others. Freedom of religion , speech, carry a firearm do not apply. It's the same in a private business having the right to exclude certain things in their establishment.
    Yes it is censorship, just like the moderators censor what is written in these pages because it is privately owned.
  9. Rick Carter

    Rick Carter Administrator

    There have always been and always will be people who are on the extreme fringes of common, ordinary, and reasonable behavior. They thrive on pushing the limits of what is deemed socially acceptable. When it involves artists there are many diversified levels of talent. Bizarre art is one way to cause a stir and get attention. It is extremely easy to enrage large groups of people by disrespecting their beliefs and core values. An upside down cross in a jar of urine, draw Mohammed, obscene depictions, etc... The list could rock on forever. It takes very little imagination, creativity, originality, or talent to anger large groups of people and get a huge amount of attention for having done so. The proof lies in the fact that an ugly, poorly portrayed animal with weak anatomy and many technical flaws has managed to stir several pages of comments on this website. If it had been mounted in a normally acceptable pose it wouldn't have gotten any attention at all. The most disturbing fact about it is that it will bring more money on Ebay than a great conventional mount ever will.
  10. Trying to be objective about it...one mans garbage is another mans art. However, I don't really see this as taxidermy nor do I see it's place in taxidermy competitions as we know them. I can see it as an exhibition piece at an art event that features anything from paintings/drawings to the most abstract sculptures or creations. I'm glad I have not ever had to make a decision on or conduct a jury on such a piece...... yet :).
  11. uncleheff

    uncleheff Member

    I understand that private events are allowed to exclude things they or others might find offensive. If someone is paying for the right to run their own show/event then they have every legal right to allow certain things/people in or not. What if only art of the sort in question here was allowed in and traditional taxidermy pieces were not? I would argue that the same problem of exclusion exists there too. The problem here is religion, or the followers thereof, are claiming a right to exclude based on being offended. And that is contradictory to the first amendment and is not inclusive. Just because it is legal to exclude people based on religious ideas doesn't mean it is right or conducive with our constitution. If a Christian was excluded from a show due to the fact that his piece offended a Muslim/Pagan/Hindu/Buddhist then there would be an outcry. I could hear it now... "Go back to your own country", "This is a Christian nation and if you don't like it get out" and the like. This shows the double standard that Christians (in this country) claim and that I am arguing against.
    I'm sure this piece will draw a larger amount of money on Ebay due to the fact that it actually symbolizes something and a "traditional mount" that appeals symbolically to someone will go for more than one that doesn't also.

    Do you know why this piece was entered? You seem to know that it was done to enrage a large group of people. If that is the case, like I said before, it still doesn't take anything away from the piece or the symbolism it shows.
    The cross wasn't upside down in the jar of urine and it won awards and cash prizes. Although he didn't do it for the money, he did it for the sake of art and to symbolize as he puts it the following, "He has also said that while this work is not intended to denounce religion, it alludes to a perceived commercializing or cheapening of Christian icons in contemporary culture." He has also used substances like blood in the place of urine, would this have pleased you more than urine? It sure would carry more symbolism.
    As far as the draw Mohammed point you are trying to make, after the Charlie Hebdo murders the whole world should have aired the cartoons in order to spite the religious censorship that is claiming the lives of decent people all over the globe. If for no other reason than to spread the danger so thin that the extremist group (which is based on a religion) could never achieve its goal. But what happened was the terrorism accomplished its means and we are still censoring the media when it comes to things that might offend Islam. This form of religious terrorism is just an extreme case when compared to the exclusion being portrayed here, but they are using the same mechanism. They both claimed they were offended based on religious beliefs.
  12. Duckslayr

    Duckslayr Active Member

    I showed this to my wife today. Her reaction was that it was cheesy and poorly done. Not offensive. She said that it needed to be well done, as Christ was the spotless lamb of God.

    Question? If Michelangelo did a painting or sculpture of a lamb crucified, done to the same standard of his other great works, would it still be offensive? Curious.
  13. 3bears

    3bears Well-Known Member

    Walks Again, how do you know what this person's intents were? Is it yours? I think it looks like crap. I am not offended by it for religious reasons but for the fact that it doesn't even look like a lamb. It appears that someone decided to insult a lamb by trying to portray it as a crucified human. In my opinion the best way to honor the lamb would be to try too recreate it's likeness as if were still alive, not to contort it's skin into the facsimile of a human nailed to a cross. This does not belong in a traditional taxidermy competition. Is that not the original question here? I am against censorship in a public arena but as was already pointed out, a taxidermy competition is not a public arena. People that feel compelled to create such works are entitled to do so, but they also know creating and displaying them will likely offend others, and I think that may be part of the attraction for them.
  14. DL

    DL Well-Known Member

    If you want to go down that road of 2nd amendment rights go ahead. Taxidermy associations can also pull a persons membership if they choose.
  15. uncleheff

    uncleheff Member

    No I don't know why this was created, I can assume it was made to draw the symbolism that is kind of "in your face" in regards to Jesus being the lamb of god. That's why I keep asking others that seem to think they know why it was created how they know. I don't think you have read my posts on this matter or you wouldn't have to ask if it was mine. But I'll make it clear that it is not mine. If it was mine it would have been only bones since that's all I deal with at the moment. The symbolism wouldn't have been as apparent if I had done one out of the skeleton of a lamb.

    I keep seeing it stated over and over that this does not belong in a taxidermy convention, it is taxidermy by definition. There has to be a different reason to disallow it other than "I don't like it" or "I think it looks like crap". Win, loose or draw it should still be allowed in, otherwise you run the risk of being accused of being biased.

    That's a good question, or if taxidermy would have been around like it is today during his time, and he used it in a way that mirrors this piece, would it still be offensive?
  16. 3bears

    3bears Well-Known Member

    Walks Again, I have read this thread but don't recall anyone outright asking if it was yours. Now it may meet the requirements for the definition of taxidermy, it does not meet my definition of " Traditional taxidermy", as I stated in my post. I am OK with you or anyone calling me biased. What makes them/you think their/your opinion or belief is more important than mine? We are both entitled to our own. I am and I think many folks here are just plain and simple, sick of being forced to accept things that go against our beliefs or ideas of what is right. This politically correct BS has gotten out of control, it is now used to take away this freedom of speech, you yourself have championed, from many that also believe it is their right.
  17. I here wind blowing throw the cracks !
  18. Keith

    Keith Well-Known Member

    You can dress up a turd anyway you want.... it's still a turd
  19. PA

    PA Well-Known Member

    It is interesting to me to see the discourse on this topic. There is certainly a dichotomy of opinions in a number of posts but only one person came out strongly advocating the piece be allowed in. The beginning post suggested that "mud not be slung" but lots of people would rather sling other material at this one advocate.

    The piece was in a Rogue Division of the NJ show, and from what I saw in a few posts, the traditional taxidermists felt very good after the meetings about inviting the rogue category to the show, and the two sides got along well. The poll shows nearly 30% support allowing it in the show but these people are probably hesitant to enter into another debate on this forum. Unfortunately this type of post will potentially lower the chance that there will be another rogue division invite to a future competition. These folks are people who like to use animals and create art - they just have different parameters.

    For the record, in a state competition where there is not a rogue division, I don't think it appropriate to be entered into competition where the primary goal is to create taxidermy honoring the species mounted and the art being the presentation of the piece. The mounts are judges against the standards of live animals.

    It would be interesting to hear the comments that George Dante had on the piece as he co-judged that division.
  20. Tanglewood Taxidermy

    Tanglewood Taxidermy Well-Known Member

    If it was entered into the Rogue Taxidermy competition, then it was were it belonged. I'm good with it as long as it was in the Rogue category. But then, I think rugs are offensive to the animal and bad taste in general and belongs in Rogue taxidermy, but most taxidermists do them, including me.