[url]http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6427013%5E13762,00.html[/url]

Goldfish liquidised in museum show

From correspondents in Copenhagen
May 13, 2003

A DANISH museum director has gone on trial on charges of cruelty to animals for an 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 turn the blender on.

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.

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.

Police ordered Meyer to pay a 2000 kroner ($481) 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 take him to 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," Meyer told the court today.

The artist meanwhile said the idea behind the exhibit was to "place people before a dilemma: to choose between life and death".

"It was a protest against what is going on in the world, against this cynicism, this brutality that impregnates the world in which we live."

The verdict is expected next week.

Other controversial exhibits by the provocateur include one last year in which he created 30 pieces of art using paint mixed with heroin. He wanted to promote the work by giving the drug away free to Danish addicts.

The 'smack art' exhibit was his way of "protesting personally against the idleness of politicians incapable of combating the problems caused by drugs in society", he said.

Earlier this year he had drug addicts create their own canvasses using paint mixed with HIV-contaminated blood, heroin and cocaine.

*************

Don't have a goldfish... but I do have a FROG! (make sure your speakers are on).

[url]http://flymeaway.net/video/frogbender.exe[/url]

[i]edited to change link - orginal site won't allow linking.  Right click above link and Save As[/i]

 Hee hee hee....wish I coulda seen the look on the face of the first person to have pressed the button!!!  I'll bet they thought it wasn't for real!!!

So, who here would have pushed the button? I figure I would have, if they were going for a useful purpose, like making glue or something. If they're just gonna sit there though, nah, I reckon I would have let them live...

Well ... after having seen this a few years ago [url]http://www.joecartoon.com/pages/frogbender/[/url] I may have been tempted to push the button

So WHAT was the moral delimma?  Push the button or WHAT?

Goldfish are useful for several things:

1)  Swallowing to impress chicks
2)  Feeding to larger hungrier fish
3)  Making ponds look a little cheerier
4)  Keeping as a pet if you aren't interested in a REAL animal

All in all, artists are generally stupid, but this display was pretty cool, if it had a point.

As are those who make statements such as yours.

Stupid?:
[img]http://www.idiom.com/~arkuat/trans/davinci.gif[/img]

[img]http://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/ls201/images/michaelangelo_big.jpg[/img]




Regardless...
Not a bad piece of concept-art.

Ok add a poll for who would have pressed the button.

I'm glad we have a FIRST AMENDMENT and that it protects an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

That way, if you think artists, or gun owners, or anyone-else, is stupid you can express your opinion, no matter how stupid.  We don't have to listen.

If the artist truly wanted people to "do battle with their conscience" he would have straddled the blender and put his own nuts in it.  That would have been a more significant and meaningful test. [rolleyes]

Some people just don't read very well.

Artists in GENERAL are stupid.  Sure there are notable exceptions.  Others are insane, many are fruitcakes, some are just plain disgusting!

Cincinnatus gave two examples of non-stupid artists.  I have personnally known MANY artists, and generally they are stupid.

I knew one (1) that wasn't completely stupid.  She was a good friend, and SHE thought most artists were stupid.

Take a pill, folks.

You have never made a generalization?  EVER?

You just did.  Congratulations, you are just as unenlightened as I am.

Well, only SOME gun owners are stupid, therefore I would never say that gun owners are generally stupid.

And what is with that "don't have to listen" stuff.  Not only DID you listen, you got OFFENDED at what some anonymous nitwit said on the net, and POSTED a reply?

God forbid anyone actually EXPRESS an opinion that they have.

Fish breath I bet you are a lonely guy.[:)]

LMAO!

No, my statement was in no way meant as a generization.  
I believe that anyone and everyone who makes such a statement is indeed quite stupid, or at the very least ignorant.

Why is it that in every old drawing, painting, sculpture I see, the guys are hung like hamsters?

You can't escape the fact that above IS ABSOLUTELY a generalization.  The words "anyone and everyone" does indeed constitute a broad brush stroke (nice pun eh?).  This generalization is followed my an action that the generalized take, followed by a disparaging remark about them.

I don't think there is anything wrong with making a generalization now and then, especially on an internet chat board where people hold their opinions to the same regard as their other bodily orfices.  You decried my generalization with another, that's my only point.

You can also decry my opinion all you want.  It doesn't really bother me too much.  I know you are into art.  That doesn't bother me either.  I was more referring to the artsy-fartsy types who take themselves way too seriously.  I have known many of these people, and none of them was even the slightest bit interested in guns, let alone post on a gun board with the handle "Cincinnatus".

Rest easy friend.  There was no offense intended.  Guess what?  I hang art on the wall, when I can afford it.  Pardon my glibness I guess.

I don't "decry your opinion". I just reply with one of my own. [:)]
I've made many generalizations about artists my self.

Are we all over-looking this part:

"Earlier this year he had drug addicts create their own canvasses using paint mixed with HIV-contaminated blood, heroin and cocaine."

What in the hell?  Talk about eccentric...