| |
|
From Melbourne's The Age newspaper.
Director acquitted in liquefied goldfish case
May 20 2003
A museum director in Denmark was yesterday acquitted of charges of cruelty to animals for a controversial exhibit in which goldfish were liquidised in a blender to test visitors' sense of right and wrong.
The exhibit at the Trapholt modern art museum in 2000 featured live goldfish swimming in a blender.
Visitors were given the possibility of pressing the button to transform the fish into a runny liquid.
Artist Marco Evaristti, the Chilean-born bad boy of the Danish art scene, said at the time that he wanted to force people to "do battle with their conscience".
Two goldfish died after two visitors pressed the button, and the Danish association Friends of Animals filed a complaint against the artist as well as the director of the museum, Peter Meyer, for cruelty to animals.
Only Meyer was taken to court over the affair, after he refused to pay a 2,000-kroner ($A478) fine for failing to respect an injunction to cut the blenders' electricity so that visitors would not be tempted to kill the goldfish.
But the director refused to pay the fine in the name of artistic freedom, leaving police no option but to haul him into court.
"It's a question of principle. An artist has the right to create works which defy our concept of what is right and what is wrong," he told the court in Kolding.
The court acquitted Meyer after a technician employed by the blender manufacturer and a veterinarian both testified that the fish did not experience any suffering due to the blenders' high speed, and said they were "killed painlessly".
What I would like to focus on is Meyer's statement that "an artist has the right to create works which defy our concept of what is right and what is wrong".
If this is the case, how far should an artist be allowed to go? Animal cruelty is obviously against the law in Denmark - as in a lot of other countries - what other laws should an artists be allowed to break when defying our concepts of right/wrong?
I was thinking about performance art which features cruelty to humans and realised that in those case the participants are willing - please correct me if this is not the case. What about a piece which uses someone forced to participate against their will, say a kidnap victim at whom people can throw darts.
Is Meyer's statement valid, or a handy quip to try and avoid a fine and/or some jail time? |
|
|
