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.