Using animals in "art"

[khazlol]

Well modern art have to trigger people to be art

[Kaleredar]

So your strategy to answer my argument is to find something I didn't say, that would be difficult for me to defend, and then present that as evidence that my argument is poor?

I find it interesting that your first recourse is a straw man argument. What it tells me is that you don't have an actual argument.

You're assuming that the mice would adapt to an environment they would otherwise detest; i.e, constant exposure to light, noise, and movement, simply because of a post-hoc reasoning that none of them have died and therefore they must be fine.

I therefore asserted that numerous bodies more qualified at animal caretaking than I presume you are request that people DO NOT constantly harass their animals by merit of "tapping on the glass," a situation these mice are constantly subjected to. Which you assert they just "got used to."


So perhaps you should be less passive aggressive and focus more on reading comprehension.

[Deleted]

It's cruel but what can you do?

Not do deliberately cruel things to other living creatures for our amusement? Sounds like a start anyway.

Who ever funded/displayed this piece needs to get themselves an ethics comitee pdq.

[Deleted]

*Takes bite out of burger with beef, some pork chop and some delicious chicken nugget* - "Yeah man, it is freaking horrendous treatment of animals!"

[HumbleDuck]

Modern art doesn't make something "not animal cruelty."

My bad, I forgot the /s.

[Raelbo]

You're assuming that the mice would adapt to an environment they would otherwise detest; i.e, constant exposure to light, noise, and movement, simply because of a post-hoc reasoning that none of them have died and therefore they must be fine.

You're ignoring most of what I wrote and focussing on one tiny snippet. There is an entire article, with pictures of the mice and even a short video clip. Nothing in there suggests that the mice are behaving any differently to how any caged mice would behave. As I mentioned at the start of my post I am not trying to argue that this isn't animal cruelty, I am arguing that the there insufficient evidence to suggest that there is animal cruelty. In a court of law the requirement would be prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is animal cruelty. I don't even see sufficient evidence to suggest it's likely, just an emotional argument premised on how a human being would feel in the same situation.

I therefore asserted that numerous bodies more qualified at animal caretaking than I presume you are request that people DO NOT constantly harass their animals by merit of "tapping on the glass," a situation these mice are constantly subjected to. Which you assert they just "got used to."

There are multiple reasons why a zoo will request that people avoid tapping on glass:
1) It makes the glass dirty, which requires effort to clean
2) It can break the glass
3) It is annoying to other people
4) It affects the animals - but not necessarily in a cruel way.

And yes, I would expect mice in this kind of environment to adapt. It's the way that animal brains (including human) work. They calibrate themselves according to what the environment normally is and then filter it out, thus freeing up brainpower to focus on the things that are different (and possibly a threat).

So perhaps you should be less passive aggressive and focus more on reading comprehension.

My comprehension is just fine. You opened your counter with a straw man. It was obvious why it was done (lazy, easy argument that you think will score you a quick win). My response was 100% appropriate.

[Surfd]

The goldfish in a blender was more provocative - without actually stressing the animals:
https://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013...-making-waves/

Lol wut? I mean, seriously, Dafuq? Not stressing the animals? I mean, sure, I guess there isn't much stress involved when you go from obliviously swimming in a blender to goldfish puree in a split second. You do end up quite dead though. And I guess his new iteration is pretty stress free. I mean, you don't tend to get terribly stressed out when you are dead.

[Fargus]

But what I do want to point out is that you don't either. My objective here is to present an alternative viewpoint that exposes the weaknesses in your argument which is essentially based on an emotional response that starts with the assumption that you can empathise with mice by thinking of them as humans. That is not what empathy is. To understand the mouse you need to imagine yourself as a mouse, not as a small human shaped like a mouse.

You can't expose any argument if you either don't know what it is, or are misinterpreting it. Which is clearly what you're doing here, because no where did I think of them as humans. I am thinking of them as the nocturnal, skittish creatures that they are. I even explained why putting them in such a situation is a bad thing for them. And it's not coming from a "what would it be like if it was me" situation, it's coming from my knowledge of animal behaviour and how these animals react to such stimuli as someone who has bred these animals as pets, and has kept them as pets before.

I expect that the mice have most likely adapted to their new environment and no longer experience the kind of stress you think they do. Their brains have, without the need to understand their situation, figured out that they are safe and have all their needs met. In many ways it is likely a less stressful existence than living in a field where the threat of a cat, bird or other predator is omnipresent. No evidence in the article suggests to me that the animals are actually stressed, and the only reason we have to believe that they might be is that some animal rights extremist SJW seems to believe they must be.

You expect? And this is based on what kind of knowledge, exactly? Drawing analogies to life in the wild is pointless; we're talking about the welfare of these animals in captivity. They're domesticated mice, not field mice. The person who wrote the article isn't an ASPCA inspector - they are there to write about something that is controversial to generate more clicks. You also have a witness there saying these animals are stressed. Why should they be any less credible just because you give them a ridiculous and arbitrary "SJW" title? All this tells me is that you don't agree with them.

But you have thusfar failed to prove cruelty, relying entirely on using emotional outrage to garner sympathy for your argument, rather than rational reason.

This is like telling someone they've failed to prove cruelty by taking a picture of a dog in a hot car only a minute after it was put in there, despite the fact that we know it's very harmful for the dog. Topics such as this will always garner a range of emotions, so it's a bit of a moot point to say I'm playing the sympathy card. I don't know where your "rational reason" disappeared to, but it is entirely rational to say that constant loud noise and light to a nocturnal animal with no where to hide will stress it out and harm it eventually.

I mean, think about it: you claim that these animals "do not fare well" in these conditions. There are presumably 32 of them. Have any died? Are they constantly shitting themselves? Are they ignoring their food and water and simply cowering in a corner all day? There is plenty of evidence in the article and attached pictures and short video clip to indicate the opposite.

They don't. This is an established fact. Have any died? Maybe, maybe not - still very early to say really. You say there's plenty of evidence to the opposite but I could just as easily point out that in the picture posted, there are a few of them cowering. You can't really tell by the article and video if they're shitting themselves constantly. You need someone to be there personally to see all that... and I recall that there was, but "SJW blah blah" and their first-hand account is void to you apparently.

It seems to me that these mice are faring no worse than any other mouse in a cage, and certainly a lot better than a mouse being fed to a reptile (or living outside in the real, dangerous, scary world). Just because living like this would be torture for a human is woefully inadequate to demonstrate that it would be the same, or even similar, for a mouse.

Except that a mouse in a cage has places to hide if there's a sudden loud noise, or they just want to escape and sleep. Unless, of course, the cage has nothing like that in it at all, which is irresponsible and neglectful. You have to realise that mice are a lot more panicky and skittish than humans are; they're a prey animal, after all (it's instinctual). Even a well domesticated rodent can be skittish from sudden movements and loud noise, but in this case, these animals were bred as snake food initially so they would have not had much human interaction and affection. Which leads to, surprise surprise, a more skittish and fearful animal.

You following yet?

I would argue that she can't understand how the mice feel either because she thinks of them as people.

Did she tell you that or are you assuming things out of thin air again?

- - - Updated - - -

There are multiple reasons why a zoo will request that people avoid tapping on glass:
1) It makes the glass dirty, which requires effort to clean
2) It can break the glass
3) It is annoying to other people
4) It affects the animals - but not necessarily in a cruel way.

LOL, who is tapping the glass, Superman?

You do realise how thick and reinforced said glass is?

Dirty glass... yeah, fingerprint stains are such a big deal... when you have them cleaning the entire enclosure from droppings/prey remains/etc.

[Deleted]

fix't that for you.

Studies show that even rats... treat each other better than humans treat each other. I mean, fucking rats seem more humane than humans (until they get hungry or scared enough)

Mice shit out babies n are immediately raped by several males, even during pregnacy...they are constantly pregnant n like insects they are gross n pests that shit everywhere.

Rats n mice need to die like all vermin

[Burgerberg]

Mice shit out babies n are immediately raped by several males, even during pregnacy...they are constantly pregnant n like insects they are gross n pests that shit everywhere.

Rats n mice need to die like all vermin

"Hurr durr mice are icky they all need to die"

People like you spout more shit than these animals do.

[Better]

I don't understand how it's art. Seems more like a cruel experiment to see how long mice can live under stress. What's the intention of the "art" project when the mice all die? Are they going to endlessly fill these cases with more mice?

[Deleted]

Rats n mice need to die like all vermin

Which will in turn lead to the collapse of whole ecosystems and quite possibly make human live a lot harder. Good times.

What I find surprising is that there are no rules for sort of animal abuse while the usage of lab animals is strictly regulated. Cages like this would get a researcher into serious trouble (at least in most of Europe and the US) but when it's "art" it's fine.

[Raelbo]

You can't expose any argument if you either don't know what it is, or are misinterpreting it. Which is clearly what you're doing here, because no where did I think of them as humans.

Whether or not you think of them as humans has no bearing on what your argument is, it explains why you came up with it.

And yes, I do think you base your arguments on a sense of empathy you have with the animals and that you do (even if not consciously) base your understanding of animal emotions on human emotions.

I am thinking of them as the nocturnal, skittish creatures that they are. I even explained why putting them in such a situation is a bad thing for them. And it's not coming from a "what would it be like if it was me" situation, it's coming from my knowledge of animal behaviour and how these animals react to such stimuli as someone who has bred these animals as pets, and has kept them as pets before.

And yet, the only evidence we have of their actual experience is in the article. Nothing there suggests that the animals are suffering any more than those you kept as pets.

You expect? And this is based on what kind of knowledge, exactly?

Yet you're quite happy to make your own predictions of how you think the animals will cope?

You also have a witness there saying these animals are stressed. Why should they be any less credible just because you give them a ridiculous and arbitrary "SJW" title? All this tells me is that you don't agree with them.

Not sure what clues you missed that she's not exactly your "average" person when it comes to her attitudes towards rats and mice. Hardly a credible source if you're looking for an unbiased opinion.

This is like telling someone they've failed to prove cruelty by taking a picture of a dog in a hot car only a minute after it was put in there, despite the fact that we know it's very harmful for the dog.

This is such a bad analogy. People don't leave dogs in hot cars. They leave dogs in cars that, at the time of leaving the dog there, are fine. So a minute after the dog is put there it is fine, and would continue to be so but for the fact that conditions inside the car are rapidly heating up. The dog is not in distress after a few minutes because it's environment is fine. It's only when the environment changes that the dog becomes distressed.

Mice are pretty simple creatures. If they're in distress, they are going to show signs thereof. There is no evidence of these signs, therefore there is no basis to claim they are in distress or on the path to suffering harm.

I don't know where your "rational reason" disappeared to, but it is entirely rational to say that constant loud noise and light to a nocturnal animal with no where to hide will stress it out and harm it eventually.

If this is the case, you'd expect the animal to be displaying obvious signs of distress. Adaptation is a thing. A mouse's usual strategy when contronted with noise and light is to hide away. It learns that doing so keeps it safe. However if it is unable to hide away, and, in spite of the persistent noise and light it remains unharmed, it learns that these things are not a threat. Thus it stops stressing. Therefore, no, it won't eventually harm it.

They don't. This is an established fact. Have any died? Maybe, maybe not - still very early to say really. You say there's plenty of evidence to the opposite but I could just as easily point out that in the picture posted, there are a few of them cowering. You can't really tell by the article and video if they're shitting themselves constantly. You need someone to be there personally to see all that... and I recall that there was, but "SJW blah blah" and their first-hand account is void to you apparently.

You have decided to fill in all the details according to your narrative. I have merely mirrored that process. I premised my initial argument by stating that I am not trying to prove you wrong by proving the opposite of what you say, simply demonstrating that an alternative version of "facts" fits just as easily in the lack of sound evidence.

Yes, you have your "SJW" animal activist having an issue here. But at the same time the article talks about kids playing hopscotch on the art. That indicates that most people witnessing the art don't perceive the animals to be in a state of distress.

Except that a mouse in a cage has places to hide if there's a sudden loud noise, or they just want to escape and sleep. Unless, of course, the cage has nothing like that in it at all, which is irresponsible and neglectful. You have to realise that mice are a lot more panicky and skittish than humans are; they're a prey animal, after all (it's instinctual). Even a well domesticated rodent can be skittish from sudden movements and loud noise, but in this case, these animals were bred as snake food initially so they would have not had much human interaction and affection. Which leads to, surprise surprise, a more skittish and fearful animal.

Yet in the brief video clip with a person standing on top of one of the glass covers, the mouse appears to be trying to interact with the person, not cower/hide/run away.

Like I say, I look at the photographic evidence and all I see are mice that don't seem to be particularly perturbed by their own situation, surrounded by attendees at the exhibit who also aren't perturbed. The person who is perturbed is a self proclaimed rat and mouse lover, clearly biased in her take on the situation. So my conclusion is simple: There is far too little evidence to support the notion that actual cruelty is happening here.


Honestly mate, you started this thread to gauge people's opinions on a topic you clearly have strong views on. I am trying to give you an unbiased counterview. As I said at the outset I don't even have an actual opinion of this particular case because there is not enough information. And you've had ample opportunity to put together a stronger case, to find more actual evidence with which to convince me, but I see you have chosen rather to affirm my initial assessment - that your argument is based on your own personal bias, and that you'll only accept facts and opinions that suit your narrative.

[Deleted]

Yeah. So art. Fuck off. It's the Emperors New Clothes all over again. Snooty people taking it further and further into the absurd in search of some kind of recognition despite having zero talent and the following that's too afraid to be uncool, so they dare not say that the work is completely nonsensical and void of any significance or artistic ability.

My wife knows this chick who wanted to put on an exhibition in an otherwise empty room. On the floor was an old pallet that had been painted black and a length of rope covered in plaster and dried. Oh, and some weird, ambient sounds in the background.

[lonely zergling]

Modern "art" needs to be forbidden.

[ThatsOurEric]

I'm sure this "piece" won't last forever. Someone will complain enough and it
will get taken down.

[Najnaj]

First of all, are they mice or rats? Mice are incredibly stupid and will probably not understand what is happening. Rats are very, very smart and prone to stress. They look a little big to be mice but it is hard to tell.

It also matters why. Are they there because they match the white squares? If so this is just plain cruel and stupid. How long are they in the installation and what is the point of it? If for a limited time to make a statement about animal cruelty I think most people would be ok with this.

[Fargus]

Whether or not you think of them as humans has no bearing on what your argument is, it explains why you came up with it.

And yes, I do think you base your arguments on a sense of empathy you have with the animals and that you do (even if not consciously) base your understanding of animal emotions on human emotions.

No shit it's a sense of empathy. Great detective work there.

However, you made that assertion that I was treating them as human beings. A ridiculous thing to say, and a blatant misinterpretation to make me look less credible.

And yet, the only evidence we have of their actual experience is in the article. Nothing there suggests that the animals are suffering any more than those you kept as pets.

It has been explained to you (and not just by me) a few times that putting an animal in an environment like that without adequate shelter causes a lot of stress to it. Something that I have seen before from neglectful pet owners. This is not debatable.

Yet you're quite happy to make your own predictions of how you think the animals will cope?

I'm quite happy to because I have a fair knowledge of the behaviour of these animals, and because the fact that they don't cope well if they do not have a proper place to hide in.

Not sure what clues you missed that she's not exactly your "average" person when it comes to her attitudes towards rats and mice. Hardly a credible source if you're looking for an unbiased opinion.

Someone who is knowledgeable about these animals, and concerned about their welfare, has more of a leg to stand on than someone with little to no knowledge and doesn't give two shits. That's why I take their word over yours.

This is such a bad analogy. People don't leave dogs in hot cars. They leave dogs in cars that, at the time of leaving the dog there, are fine. So a minute after the dog is put there it is fine, and would continue to be so but for the fact that conditions inside the car are rapidly heating up. The dog is not in distress after a few minutes because it's environment is fine. It's only when the environment changes that the dog becomes distressed.

LOL yes they do. The point of this analogy is to demonstrate that just because you may see a picture of them in said environment doing fine initially, doesn't mean it's not bad for them. The moral here? You never leave a dog in a hot car in the first place.

Mice are pretty simple creatures. If they're in distress, they are going to show signs thereof. There is no evidence of these signs, therefore there is no basis to claim they are in distress or on the path to suffering harm.

For the last fucking time: loud noise, constant light, without a place to hide = BAD for nocturnal animals. Just like hot car = BAD for a dog, even though there are "no signs" in the first few minutes.

If this is the case, you'd expect the animal to be displaying obvious signs of distress. Adaptation is a thing. A mouse's usual strategy when contronted with noise and light is to hide away. It learns that doing so keeps it safe. However if it is unable to hide away, and, in spite of the persistent noise and light it remains unharmed, it learns that these things are not a threat. Thus it stops stressing. Therefore, no, it won't eventually harm it.

Truly spoken by someone with little understanding of rodents and how skittish they can actually be. You're clueless.

You have decided to fill in all the details according to your narrative. I have merely mirrored that process. I premised my initial argument by stating that I am not trying to prove you wrong by proving the opposite of what you say, simply demonstrating that an alternative version of "facts" fits just as easily in the lack of sound evidence.

My narrative?

Yes, you have your "SJW" animal activist having an issue here. But at the same time the article talks about kids playing hopscotch on the art. That indicates that most people witnessing the art don't perceive the animals to be in a state of distress.

It doesn't indicate anything except some kids being little shits. And what would a child know about this very issue anyway? Goodness me, do the same thing at a zoo and these kids will be scolded by the staff.

Yet in the brief video clip with a person standing on top of one of the glass covers, the mouse appears to be trying to interact with the person, not cower/hide/run away.

And what is this supposed to prove?

Like I say, I look at the photographic evidence and all I see are mice that don't seem to be particularly perturbed by their own situation, surrounded by attendees at the exhibit who also aren't perturbed. The person who is perturbed is a self proclaimed rat and mouse lover, clearly biased in her take on the situation. So my conclusion is simple: There is far too little evidence to support the notion that actual cruelty is happening here.

Attendees? Oh, right. Like the same people who complained about the exhibit. The ones in the photo might very well give less than a shit about the animals, and that's assuming they even recognise what a shit environment they're in. Yeah, I'm sure a toddler is more credible than the "rat and mouse lover". In addition, they were not asked for their opinion on the matter, so you don't know if they're perturbed or not. What we do know, however, is enough people are perturbed and the article mentions this.

Honestly mate, you started this thread to gauge people's opinions on a topic you clearly have strong views on. I am trying to give you an unbiased counterview. As I said at the outset I don't even have an actual opinion of this particular case because there is not enough information. And you've had ample opportunity to put together a stronger case, to find more actual evidence with which to convince me, but I see you have chosen rather to affirm my initial assessment - that your argument is based on your own personal bias, and that you'll only accept facts and opinions that suit your narrative.

People can hold whatever opinion they want, I don't care. You threw down the gauntlet on me, however. You're arguing that a loud and bright environment for a nocturnal animal with no where to hide in the enclosure is not stressful and/or cruel to the animal. Want some evidence? Go to a pet store where the rodents are located, take everything they can hide in and continually bang on the enclosure from time to time while having the lights switched on, for 12 hours, and see what happens. Actually no, that's really bad (and you'll get kicked out).

The only fact here is your complete ignorance about what constitutes a stressful environment for such animals.

[Swalload]

I saw something recently involving an art exhibit using live animals:



In this one, they have a chequered floor where people can walk on it. In the black squares, there are live mice. There doesn't seem to be any kind of little shelter or hide-out for these animals, either, so they're at the mercy of small children playing hopscotch or heavy footsteps.

So are displays like this actually art or is it just unnecessary animal cruelty? Can you think of any other controversial art exhibits involving animals that showed a distinct lack of respect?

Art is creative process, art doesn't have to be pretty by any standard or even be pleasing to look at.

Art CAN be animal cruelty, it doesn't become "not art" if animal cruelty is involved.

I'm not saying animal cruelty is fine, and I don't think these mice are having fun in there, they are probably stressed as fuck.

[mickybrighteyes]

Mice shit out babies n are immediately raped by several males, even during pregnacy...they are constantly pregnant n like insects they are gross n pests that shit everywhere.

Rats n mice need to die like all vermin

you realize that also describes humans in some places >.>