YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT

giving a dog food doesn't hurt the dog.

So a man who presents a group of people with an opportunity, "push this button and a dog will be given a bowl of food", is a great guy, even if no one pushes the button

and a guy who presents an opportunity, "push this button and the fish will be blended into soup", is an asshole, even if no one pushes the button?

I don't think the first guy is a great guy, he's at zero, he doesn't register on my scale of goodness one way or another.

The second guy, however, could have accomplished the same artistic statement--that is, the viewers are participating in the art, their temptation/curiosity is part of it, their decision affects what the work of art is, etc.--by simply having the blenders plugged into fake outlets and instead when someon pushed the button a big flashing sign that said "Asshole!" came down over the button-pusher's head.

Exactly! OC, where are your morals on this one:confused: One is a good deed, the other is bad. Basic.


--the asshole sign would be hilarious;)

There is a website where you can push a button and give food to shelter dogs. I feel the people that put this website together, are very good people.:thumb:

cmon.

the shitbeard that went to the trouble of riggin that fish blender made it as easy as pushing a button on impulse to end the fish's life.

are you honestly opining that the artist is not just as or more culpable than the button pusher?

really??

I notice that no one has speculated on the potential cost of replacement fish and the labor to rinse out the old one and refill with clean water yet.

Coincidence? I think not!

Who cares whether or not you people think he's an asshole.

Or rather, let me rephrase that: It's awesome that you think he's an asshole.
He certainly doesn't give a shit: He's an artist. He was making art. He was doing it to be provocative, and to get people talking about art, morals, behavior, and god knows what else. He was doing it to see how far he could push the bounds of (some) people's decency.

and he accomplished that, and more.


I guess I have a bigger problem with the iceberg one: They used PAINT to paint it ? WTF... isn't that shit toxic ? I mean, I understand the point he was trying to make, but he did it in a destructive, and possibly illegal manner. It would be like me saying "Public buildings belong to everyone", and then blowing up a federal govt. building.

and what happens when the paint rubs off onto some wild bird or whatever, and they get more easily killed, etc, etc?

The blender art is benign imo: He was giving people a choice.

The iceberg art is the asshole one: He's fucking with an entire region's ecosystem. I'm pretty sure that's illegal in some way..

He didn't just leave the fish in the blenders and stand back to see what would happen. (like that wasn't inviting cruelty enough)
He ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED people to turn them on. ACTIVELY encouraging someone to do something wrong is also wrong. get it?
:angry:


If you really think this is ok,how would you explain it to your kids? I was taught that this behaviour was wrong, just as much as if you stood by and watched the school bully beat on someone. not actually carrying out the act is irrelevant and it doesn't imply innocence.

you two had posted by the time I finished this. I'm all for art and pushing boundaries etc., but there's no need to grind up any live being for art. I may be coming across as a save the world type. I'm not- I just don't like pointless cruelty. (I don't like cruelty with a point either:blush: )

I just don't buy into the whole "weird shit as art" thing. If all it took to be an artist was to be a shit disturber, well, there'd be a lot more rich folks on the cellar.

and I'd be a millionaire

Back to polar bears

You know that they are just rectangular bears that have undergone a coordinate transform?

Tagline.