“Animals in Art and the Human Conscience”

The animal in art has the effect on us to engage with our humanness, whether it is a physical
comparison or the investigation into genetics that divide us as a species. It is when the
creature is present within, or used as the actual artwork, dead or alive, that the work really has
the ability to challenge our physical and psychological awareness. Justine Hankins writes about
such issues and argues that the success of these works have been made by harming these
beasts “in the name of art.”

Observation has the potential to impact on the viewers’ conscience. However, their
participation invites them to gain an insight into performance, even if it is just with the flick of a
switch. Hankins’ response toward these particular artworks, strike up immediate compassion
for the animal. Conversely, it does have the ability to manipulate the viewer’s perspective of
work created by the artists that have conformed to ethical conducts. One such work that did
create controversy was, ‘Helena,’ by Marco Evaristti: first shown in 2000 at the Trapholt Art
Museum in Denmark, featuring ten goldfish each housed in a powered blender filled with water.
Visitors of the gallery were faced with the option of interacting with the work by pressing the
button on the machine and ultimately killing the fish (Hankins 2005). The artist’s intention in
producing this provoking work was so that the observer could, “do battle with their
conscience,” which was backed up by the gallery’s director, Peter Meyer who stated that; “An
artist has the right to create works that defy our concept of what is right and wrong.”

Meyer’s philosophy describes that freedom of creation/expression should be encourages in art.

Nonetheless, his theory proposes disregard toward any ethical standards, an increasing issue in
and outside the precincts of contemporary art. In contrast, Hankins’ statement proposes her
support of restrictions on the use of animals in/for art, yet it does not allow the viewer to make
their own conscious decision. By allowing the audience to interact with the components of
Helena, Evaristti’s philosophies are probed, in considering the viewers /participants conscience:
their morals of knowing right from wrong. In a review about the killing of animals by artists,
Chia, (2007) reported that; “There are some who say there may be a case for killing animals in
art if just to push the boundaries of what is acceptable.”

This idea was enhanced by the Contemporary artist, Brian Gothong, who added that forms of
“violence and trauma,” are sometimes seen as a necessity for artists work to be successful,
contributing towards Meyer’s attitude on artistic liberation. However, Chia and Gothong
suggest that art without limitations can prove detrimental, but the word “some” leaves this
open for debate unlike Hankins, who does not allow for open negotiation. Additionally, t
provides us with an idea into Evaristti’s thinking behind Helena, his intentions to challenge the
viewer when faced with his work; a disturbing example of how one’s curiosity can get the
bette4r of them, even if the end result is foreseeable.

Not only does Evaristti’s work have the ability to tap into the viewer’s awareness through the
complete invitation to kill the fish; it also creates associations with culture and humanity,
causing the viewer to; “question assumptions about our society.” Such examples comprise of
the supported act of lawfully killing in particular areas in the world and political operations of
violence and terrorism. In Marina Abramovic’s Rhythm 0, the audience have the option to
shoot the artist with a loaded gun. In Guillermo Vargas Jimenez’s more recent work, Exposition
No.1, which featured a stray dog, the artist was reported to have said that not one spectator of
the work interfered, after the assumptions that the animal was being starved to death (Chia
2007.) The difference with these works is the obvious use of human and animal. Nevertheless,
it is the intervention of the audience in comparison to Helena and Exposition No.1 that
thoroughly challenges the conscience of both viewer/participant and artist/performer, raising
our awareness, our humanness in relation to these controversial art pieces and sociological
perspectives.