Ethics: The Use of Animals in Art - Essay Example

Ethics: The Use of Animals in Art 17 March Art has for a long time, been one of the most fascinating things that human beings have created and the works produced have been admired for centuries. Artwork has had such a great influence on people that it has become a part of their daily lives, whether they take notice of it or they do not. The power of art is so great that many have gone to great lengths to acquire pieces of art, which they look upon as being classics. While this has been the case, modern art has developed into something different from the type of art that was previously made. Modern art tends to push at the boundary of what can be considered morally right and what cannot. Of this art, it can be said to be daring, to such as extent that some of it has come to raise a lot of controversy, especially concerning the material used in the making of such work. Among the most controversial materials that artists have come to use are animal parts, which have raised ethical concerns not only among animal rights activists, but also among people with a genuine appreciation of art. The ethical issues that have been raised concerning the use of animals in art have received both support and opposition in equal measure (Koehn 2010, p.213). Some have argued that the ethical issues concerned are not related to the artwork itself but vary according to the members of different societies who come to view it. It is a situation where ethics are judged, not by the universal norms concerning artwork, but according to the society within which the use of animal parts in the artwork for ethical clarification. When one considers the statement above, one will conclude that the morals concerning art are not absolute in different societies because of the fact that the societies involved have come to evolve different tastes in art, which have developed for an extremely long time. The use of animals in art can be considered to be unethical in certain societies, while in others, the art may be seen to be incredibly creative and would be greatly admired and appreciated. It can therefore be said that the use of animals in the work of such artists as Marco Evaristti, Damien Hirst, and Zhang Huan, while ethically wrong in some parts of society, might not be necessarily so in others. The use of animals in art has been a practice in many human societies since time immemorial and it has been greatly appreciated by those who beheld such art. However, in the modern society, with the rise of animal rights activism, the use of animals in art has come to be very much compromised because of the raising of ethical issue concerning it. When one considers the use of animals in art, one has to look at it from the viewpoint of ethical relativism in order to make a judgment of whether it is morally right or not. Ethical relativism is a viewpoint where there is the belief that principles are dependent on the norms of a society that practices it. It is this society, which determines whether the use of animals in art by the various artists who do it is morally right, or wrong (Ulin 2007, p.803). One would go as far as to say that nothing that cannot be considered the absolute truth concerning the morality of the use of animals in art because what is believed to be right in one society may not be considered the same in another one. There are often chances where what is considered morally right in one culture may be considered wrong in another, an example being the use of animals in modern artwork. It is a fact that while there are some who believe that this use is degrading and immoral, others believe that art is an independent subject, whose methods should not be criticized by those who do not appreciate it. While, in the western world, the use of animals in art is a new phenomenon, in other parts of the world, especially in Africa and the Far East, one would find that this practice has been a common way of artistic expression for a long time (Muchnic, 1985). Therefore, when it comes to the concept of ethical relativism in the use of animals, the opinion of what is right or wrong is, not by what a society thinks of it, but by how individuals receive this new artistic expression. One of the advantages of considering the use of animals in art using the concept of ethical relativism is the fact that a broad range of views concerning the various ethical issues involved are taken into consideration. Since there is a wide variety of cultures and viewpoints, it is easier for one to adapt to any situation that one may encounter (Moore, 2007). For example, an individual may choose to react negatively to the use of animals in art because of his or her belief that animals deserve the same level of dignity as human beings. Their stand is based on the fact that respect should be given to the bodies of animals the same as it is for that of human beings. In some instances, artists who use animals tend to treat these animals with brutality, especially in situations where they are killing them for the purpose of including them in their art. This creates an extremely difficult situation for those who appreciate animals, especially animal rights activists, because they would obviously find it difficult to appreciate such art. On the other hand, there are others who do not give a thought to the fact that animals have been used in art. In fact, many of them tend to look upon such art as being exceptionally creative, challenging the set moral expectations concerning art. Among the most controversial work when considering the use of animals is that of Marco Evaristti, whose fans claim to be a challenge to moral expectations. His critics, however, state that his work is unethical because he does not place value in the animals that he uses in his work. Such differences tend to originate from the different social and cultural backgrounds from which the people involved come. When the use of animals in art is viewed from ethical relativism, one will find that there is a promotion of understanding. This ensures that the artists who use animals are judged, not according to the opinions of other people, but according to that of their own cultures and societies. Since it is the society that judges what is right or wrong, the artists who work within it have a clear understanding of what is required of them and, therefore, easily adhere to its norms (Johnson 2007, p.791). If a society looks down upon the use of animals in art, then it is the duty of the artist to ensure that he does not contravene the values of this society. If, on the other hand, if a society does not mind the use of animals in art, then the artist has the freedom to use animal parts as much as he likes in his work. Ethical relativism in art allows artists to adapt ethically as the norms of their societies change over time, and this ensures a smooth transition. One of the disadvantages of looking at the use of animals in art according to ethical relativism is the fact that it does not address the moral issues involved in such use. According to this concept, the truth varies from one situation to another, and this may create a dilemma because this truth can be twisted to serve the purposes of the few who would benefit from it. It can be said that just because some people, or society, think that something is right does not make it right. Despite the fact that there are many artists who have recently come to use animals in their art, the methods through which they have come to acquire the various animal parts are questionable. Some animal rights activists believe that some artists have brought animals to brutal ends for the sake of including their bodies in their art. Even if some artists only use the animals that are already dead, their use of animal parts might encourage other artists to attempt to do the same type of art, only the will not consider using dead animals. Instead, they might end up killing animals for the sake of furthering their own artistic goals. This would certainly add fuel to the moral dilemma that is currently gripping the world of art whether to use animals or not. An example of the disapproval of the use of animal is that made by critics of Damien Hirst’s work when it was stated that his work was just lumps of dead animals (Stevens 2005, p.72). Such criticism shows that despite the use of animals in his work, many art critics still view such usage as being nothing more than unethical. When it comes to the use of animals in art, one would state that the world would be better off without it. This is mainly because of the fact that such artwork might set a precedence towards the further use of materials, which are ethically wrong, in future art. An example would be that of artists daring to use human parts in their art, something that is both morally and socially unacceptable (Johnson 2009). It is the responsibility of artists to form a distinction between what materials is ethically right to use and those that are wrong. This would encourage them to desist from moving towards a trend that would not only lead to controversy, but would also create a situation where the line between the art that is morally right and wrong would be blurred. The use of animals is just a step away from the use of human beings and such a scenario is not an ethically acceptable one (Desmond 2008, p.347). There are, however, some people who believe that such use is part of artistic freedom, as the fans of Damien Hirst often state to justify their admiration, where the artist can use whatever material they deem fit for their work. This creates a moral dilemma because the appreciation of such art is likely to grow and this would further encourage the use of animals in art. A continuation of this practice would also encourage the abuse of animals (DArms 2005, p.433), which might end up being killed in unimaginable ways for the sake of artists getting to achieve the desired results in their work. Furthermore, there might be instances where the animals that are intended to be used might be starved so that they can achieve the shape that the artist wants before he kills it and uses it in his work. The abuse of animals in such ways should not be encouraged and in fact, steps should be taken to make sure that artists are discouraged from using animals in their work. All creatures, whether human or not, have rights and it is unethical for artists to use them in their work because to do so would be to infringe on those rights. It has been a normal occurrence for thousands of years for human beings to use animals for food, and this has always been as far as it has gone. Even the human beings who lived thousands of years ago came to recognize the fact that animals had to be respected, because without them, then one of their most basic sources of sustenance would have been destroyed (Halteman 2010, p.4). However, with the coming of the modern age and the ability of human beings to find diverse sources of food, the respect that was formerly held for animals has come to be forgotten. In its place has come the belief that the human being is at the apex of the food chain and because of this, he can use animals and all other creatures in whichever way he wishes. This disrespect for the ethics governing the relationship between humans and animals has come to reflect itself in modern art. The use of animals in art is an unacceptable practice because it fails to respect time honored ethics concerning art. The artwork that is made up of animal parts does not express the beauty, which art is all about, and it instead expresses the unethical and immoral behavior of the artists involved. Animal parts in pieces of art are nothing more than an expression of death and destruction, and such should not be encouraged among artists. Art should retain its origins through the use of materials that are inanimate those that either do not have life instead of the use of animals. Art is a powerful force in the mind of human beings, and the use of animals might make the image of death become real for some people. In others, it might justify their cruel treatment of animals all in the name of art, not considering the fact that animals are, like human beings, creatures that feel pain and have emotions. It is, therefore, essential, for artists to desist from using animals in their artwork because such use cannot be justified in the name of artistic expression. What is expressed instead is the destructive temperament of human beings, and all for the sake of the admiration of the public. It can, therefore, be said that it is morally and ethically unacceptable for artists to use animals in their work since this is not only degrading to the animals used, but also to humanity. References DArms, J. (2005). "Relationality, Relativism, and Realism about Moral Value." Philosophical Studies 126.3: 433-48. Desmond, J. (2008). "Postmortem Exhibitions: Taxidermied Animals and Plastinated Corpses in the Theaters of the Dead." Configurations 16.3: 347. Halteman, M. 2010. "A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science, and Ethics." The Christian Century Apr 06: 54-7. Johnson, K. 2009. "Art in Review." New York Times: C.33. Johnson, T.H. (2007). "Cultural Relativism: Interpretations of a Concept." Anthropological Quarterly 80.3: 791-802. Koehn, D. (2010). "Ethics, Morality, and Art in the Classroom: Positive and Negative Relations." Journal of Business Ethics Education 7: 213-32. Moore, C.A. 2007. "LDS Urged to Reject Moral Relativism." Deseret News: 0. Mar 03. Muchnic, S. 1985. "Art Review Dead of Southeast Asia Gone-Not Forgotten." Los Angeles Times Oct 31. Stevens, M. 2005. "Has Damien Hirst Jumped the Shark?" New York Apr 04: 72-3. Ulin, R.C. (2007). "Revisiting Cultural Relativism: Old Prospects for a New Cultural Critique." Anthropological Quarterly 80.3: 803-20. Read More