Hi, congratulation to webmaster, regards from Austria! Support us by visiting cozaar side effect webpage devoted to cozaar side effect. cozaar 50mg webpage devoted to cozaar 50mg.

Yes, that would be another effective way of getting the point across. However, the fish were not really at an increased risk of danger than normal. If a goldfish is kept in a bowl in your home, it could very possibly be knocked over at any time. The chance of one of the blenders being knocked over was probably close to just as likely to happen as someone turning on the blender.

And no, the end doesn't necessarily justify the means. The thing he was trying to communicate could have been comprehended regardless of if someone turned on the blender. The point was the power of responsibility and choice, not the action of making that choice.

I agree that not helping people is a crime. As an EMT, I am legally responsible to help people in need, regardless of whether I am working. And if I had been there, I would have tried my best to prevent people from turning on the blenders. Which says a lot not only about the people who pushed the button, but also everyone else who stood and watched. Very similar to people who turn away when they see girls getting harrassed on trains or people being robbed.

As for how I found this thread, there is a link to it on Evaristti's web site: http://www.evaristti.com/work/installation/HELENA/index.htm

He included multiple articles and forums, both good and bad. The Dave Barry one especially made me angry.

What if, instead of using a goldfish in a blender, the artist used little children inside a nice playground with plexyglas windows. On the outside, you put a big red button marked "toxic gas release". Voila! A social commentary on how the big industries are ruining the planet by killing our children. Even better, without our support (our pressing of the button), theses industries could not thrive and would cease production.

You have a) something beautiful, b) you make people realize that we have a responsibility for life on this planet. Since I'm sure that someone would eventually press that button, we have c) something very telling of our society that there are actually people who would consciously abuse that responsibility. Oh, and since it's Art, don't you dare dismiss my example.

I'll give you one thing though, he got his point across. But I always thought that the end didn't justify the means. The fact that people think otherwise is also very telling of our society.

Btw, where I live, failure to help another person in danger is a crime. Granted, people aren't fish...

On a side note, how on earth did you find this thread? :)

Of course...if someone noted that this is a discussion thread on a topic that is what, 2 years old? One would be a better person as well.
As for the pretensions of art...come on! The whole point of modern art is to be pretentious. I mean, duh.

So he didn't set out to kill the fish? Hmmm...he just put them in a place where anyone could push a button. Seems like 'harms way' to me.

"Really, I didn't intend to hurt anyone, I just tied that kid to the railroad track. The responsibility was with the train engineer to stop."
You don't get to set up dangerous situations and then evade responsibility for them.

Of course, personally I could care less about the 'rights' of some stupid gold fish.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, QT - Meg wrote:

>
< replied-to message removed by QT >

First of all, it is hardly surprising that an artist would want to incorporate something beautiful into their installation.

Secondly, Evaristti in no way set out to kill the fish here. The point of the exhibit was to make people realize the responsibility we have for life on this planet. I think it is very telling of our society that there are actually people who would consciously abuse that responsibility.

Thirdly, it really frustrates me how easily people dismiss art. There is a definite "box" that art has been put into in our country, so that many people have a preconceived notion of all art as being pretentious nonsense. If some of the critics of Evaristti's work (especially the more ignorant ones in other forums I've read e.g. Dave Barry's) actually went to his website and read about the intentions behind his work with an open mind, maybe they wouldn't make such iditotic remarks and presumptions about the art. And maybe learn a thing or two (and possibly come out as slightly better people, oh my!)

I am *so* impressed that these threads still exist *and* that they can still generate comments :)

<on topic>

My computer is solar-powered. Take THAT ... Ok, no it's not.

To me, killing is a part of life. You have no choice. You have to eat to live. And for that, something has to die, be it animal of vegetable (they have DNA too you know). It's not that you kill things, it's how you kill things. Respect what you kill! :)

Man, think of all the fishes I killed answering this question.

Did you kill you fish today?

<\on topic>

Well Certainly. We puree far more gold fish when we turn on our computers. Everytime you read a blog, god kills a kitten!!!

And everytime you respond to a QT topic that is more than a year or two out of date, god kills _two_ kittens.


On Sun, 11 Apr 2005, it was written:

>
< replied-to message removed by QT >

it obviously makes viewers battle their conscience by making them decide whether or not to press the button to puree the goldfish.
are you so blind to this fact?
he wasnt cruel to animals in anyway, he only put them in the postition to easily fall into harm, it was soley the viewers decision whether or not to kill the fish.
do you guys also have such contempt for the energy companies which pollute water and kill thousands of fish not to mention thousands of other acquatic creature, to power your computer which you stare at, and bitch about nothing?!?1@?
wow.

There is no heaven but this earth, for humans; who make it hell for the creatures we share it with. I do not understand why we have lost our respect for fish or goldfish. They were here inhabiting the seas long before anything appeared on the land. We evolved from fish, but somehow our fear of water, our fear of the sea now alienates us from their evironment and their ability to breathe water makes them vulnerable in our domain. Goldfish have been won at fairs, they are flushed down the toilet and not buried when dead, they can be eaten in 'A Fish Called Wanda' and the other night on TV one woman swallowed the contents of a fish bowl complete with fish. Goldfish seem to illicit no compasion in many people, but I am sickened by this idiot's behaviour, and I'm sorry he was not fined hard. When I saw this act of mindless murder on television it haunted me for days; that someone could care so little about another life, another soul. The Native American took only what was needed, and thanked the animal's spirit at death. We all live at the expense of something else. I keep fish, and I eat fish. But there is a world of difference between taking what I need only to exist for another day and thanking the soul of the animal, and mindless, cruel, cold blooded murder. As we are at the top of the food chain, we are either guardians of the creatures on this planet, or destroyers. Their fate is in our hands.

I'm reminded of a what Wolverine said to magneto in the first movie when they were up on the Statue of Liberty :

Wolvie : "If you were so righteous, it would be you inside of that thing"

Funny how when a "noble" sacrifice needs to be made, its never the ones making the decisions that make the sacrifice :) Long live our noble soldiers (oh, and the dead fish too).

The goldfish-in-a-blender thing is old hat. It's amazing the things people can get art grants for these days.

I'm pretty certain the artist didn't do it to challenge any sensibilities but to get free publicity. Had he killed a puppy or a kitten, people would be calling for his blood, but very few will get that worked up over a couple goldfish.

$311 and two goldfish? Well worth his money.

In what way is this challenging people to "do battle with their conscience"? Why doesn't Marco Evaristti also put himself in a blender (or some other imaginative death-dealing implement) alongside the goldfish, and challenge people's consciences that way? As it stands, this type of art is only good for generating debate among the chattering classes (=us) and is all a bit pointless and decadent anyway.

Compare the much more evolved human memory:

“Who hijacked those planes?”
“Saudis.”
“But Iraqis are evil.”
“I mean Iraqis.”

I'm still fascinated by the early post that says it is believed goldfish have a memory span of three seconds. An incredible feat of measurement.

"Who is the President?"
"Bush."
"Sorry, didn't hear you, who?"
"What?"

Good idea Horn! Actually, couldn't he have used a fake fish powered by a rat's brain? :)

couldn't he has done it with a fake fish? one with bambi like eyes?

i'm an artist with a minor in art history and even i am disgusted by this guy.
what an asshole.

Lets see, now--we started with a fish in a blender, and now we're talking about the law vs. personal responsibility, murder, respect for life, bastardization of utopic Liberalism, and Jesus in a blender (cross or blender--choose one).
The Iraqi civilians didn't get this much attention.
You don’t suppose we are part of the art?

Hey Cows...

You certainly have a right to self defense, but that is limited to the force needed to stop the aggression.

For the most part, we as a society do not consider it good for people to be killed at the moment in which the perpetrate a crime....

But that is an aside...the problem with 'respect life' as the basis for legislation is that it runs right across the civil liberties line.

Ex. Kosher butchers work in a different way from non-kosher butchers. That difference has become the subject of social upheavel in the past.

Why? Because they 'respect life' in a different fashion from the 'mainstream.'

As for puddles...assuming you are not a troll, from a personal point of view, I strongly believe that people who are opposed to gay rights are not fit to live in our country.

An opposition to the application of our Constitution to GLBT folk is the same is a complete denial of the Constitution.

If, as the Religious Right says, we are in the middle of a 'culture war' then please know that I am on the other side.

Federico (/m12) -- very funny.

the 'degrees of murder' analogy breaks down here.

i really don't get why. i mean, essentially this is about how and why you do something. the artist is making a living just like the hunter would make a living. it's how they acquire their resources that's making people mad. artist blends fish to be controversial and therefore makes a name for himself and will sell work to get money to get food. the hunter just kills the food.

if i was a fish, i'd rather be blended than essentially slowly suffocate after being pulled out of the water.

it's all silly stuff. when we can page down on boing boing and read about scientists being applauded for making robots driven by rat's brains the argument for the artist being cruel makes no sense to me.

m.

It's a shame the immoral perennially-adolescent attention-starved human debris in the San Francisco Bay Area didn't think of this first, and a DAMN shame that Jesus isn't still alive, because there's nothing they would like better than to put Jesus in a blender, once they finally get over their elation at the Mapplethorpe urine thing and the Mary in feces art. You wouldn't be able to hold back the rush to the button by all the frustrated gay-rights liberals at that exhibit. After all, the fight never ends, as long as there's one person on earth left to offend or shove your agenda down their throat. Nice world we choose to live in. Shame about the bastardization of the utopic Liberalism of old!

Rich Gibson : Putting aside state action (war, execution) it is _never_ okay to kill another person.

Wrong here buddy. Someone breaks into your house and you feel threatened, you are within your rights to kill that person. It's in the law, so it must be okay.

But I see your point and I'll draw the following conclusion : "it should be illegal to fish unless the all-mighty State is doing the fishing". There. Problem solved :)

> If it is legal to do something, then it is legal to do
> something...

On what do you base that? I based my argument on the fact that we should respect life, all forms of life. Does that mean I can't kill to eat? If by "respect life", I mean "not kill life", then I won't get very far because if I push my argument to the limit, I can't eat anything that wasn't living at some point. At least not naturally. But I can kill a fish, be thankfull and respect it in its death, knowing that someday I'll be part of the food chain myself. The fish has served a purpose : feeding me another day.

Now, while it is true that the "artist" is trying to give purpose to the life of the fish, I don't think that society thinks that it is so. Laws are based on what a society thinks is right or wrong, and the majority has decided that killing fish in a blender is wrong.

Btw, if you go fishing, and kill your fish in blenders, I think you'll be fined too. Could you kill cows that way for your McDonalds hamburger? It is most efficient! You get your food killed and prepared in the same step!

Oh, and I don't think that the majority thinks that "respect" is the reason we don't kill fish in blenders. Just that they feel that it's "wrong" for whatever reason. But, that is why *I* would not put a fish in a blender :)

I think I would have put an invisible glass barrier between the fish and the blades. Then have a discussion with the individual that presses the button.

That's not art, that's bullshit. Art would be the goldfish being liquefied sometimes, the button-pusher being liquefied some other times, at random.

What's with the contemporary artist's obession with feces, guts, and death? The three things that can still get a rise out of the squares? And isn't the "let's shock the squares" bit getting a little old?

...or pretending to be an artist.

msp: the 'degrees of murder' analogy breaks down here. Putting aside state action (war, execution) it is _never_ okay to kill another person.

But it _is_ okay to kill mice. It _is_ okay to kill fish.

It seems that the only time when it is criminal to kill animals is when you are trying to make a point....

If it is legal to do something, then it is legal to do something...

intent has to count in some degree.

cold-blooded murder is way different than accidental killing.

i'd say maybe it was ok if the guy ate the goldfish shake and made use of his art beyond making a point, but does a 6 year old get a fine when they refuse to eat the fish somebody caught for dinner?

this is reminding me of the art student that dropped mice into hot wax, froze it, then cut the results up into cubes and made a mobile... i think the university of florida kicked him out for a semester. (can't remember.)

m.

We kept goldfish in a thriftshop blender in our dorm room, that was 1988. So when I first heard about the show, I thought, been there done that.

But when I heard this guy was getting charged, it was like hitting the puree button on my nerves.

When liquefying goldfish is criminalized, only criminals will liquefy goldfish

I don't like cases where the legality of the action depends on mental state.


If I kill a fish while fishing it is okay. If I create art and kill a fish, it is not.

Because of respect for life?

If it is legal to do something, then it is legal to do something...

Sad thing is I don't think that this work is even original.

I recall hearing about a similar work called 'A matter of time' in which a small harpoon was periodically shot across a tank inhabited by a single goldfish.

The harpoon was retracted and shot again. I think that was in the eighties or seventies.

Shouldn't the people who actually pressed the button be the ones getting fined?

Fishing for food is different then blending a goldfish in one aspect : respect for life. You can kill for food, and be thankfull that you get to eat another day. That's how nature works. Now what do you gain in killing that goldfish? Increased fish-killing abilities? More like a 5 second happy-trip. No respect there.

"for years fishermen have been telling us that fish feel no pain"

No conflict of interest there :)

for years fishermen have been telling us that fish feel no pain - and recent scientific studies in the UK suggest that actually, they might - now there's a surprise! On the other hand it is a popular belief that goldfish have a memory span of only three seconds - but to be honest I don't know how that relates to being blendered since once you've been turned to mush you're not going to remember anything anyhow yeah?
Hadge - http://www.ogsite.co.uk/ogblog.htm

You're allowed to go fishing aren't you?