Nathalia Edenmont

"I like her use of color: bright yellow surrounded by dark brown stamens. It has a very calming, soothing effect and... wait a minute, is that... an eye at the center?"

Nathalia Edenmont produces pictures not unlike those that appear on Something Awful every Friday; the difference being that she doesn't use Photoshop or any other piece of software. When she needs an eye, a head, or any other body part, an animal loses its life.

On her web pages you can find a larger selection of her work (I'm particularly fond of the mice). A lot of people are outraged over this. They find her work to be a) a needless loss of life, b) disgusting, and/or c) that of a disturbed individual.

Personally, I rather like it. From a technical standpoint, the calm, serine still lifes are beautifully contrasted with the knowledge that the artist sacrificed an animal herself explicitly for the piece. Some art tries to capture life on canvas, but Edenmont goes to the next step by ending it. It gives her photos a more personal, intrinsically emotional quality that I don't think you could achieve with common image manipulation.

From a purely logistical standpoint, I find it very hard to get worked up over the deaths of the two dozen or so animals involved. Every day hundreds of thousands of mice die in traps or from poison because we find them annoying and inconvenient. We kill thousands of stray cats and dogs because they are homeless. So when I see the pictures of several dead mice, or the portraits of the cats, I can't help but think that they were going to die anyways. And besides, through this death they have gained the sort of purpose, attention, and immortality that they could never have otherwise achieved.

The only reason people are complaining now is because what was going to happen anyways has been thrown in their face. They see the cute mice, cats, and rabbits and say "How tragic! How could she do this? This is abominable!" Yet they never think about their own mice traps or what the local humane society has to do to make room for more adoptable pets. As the old saying goes: out of sight, out of mind.

Perhaps that is what attracts me most to Edenmont's pictures: she takes an unwanted, unloved, unknown animal and through its death gives it a beauty and peace unknown in life.

[NOTE: I think I rambled more in this post than I usually do, but I'm finding it hard to collect my thoughts and express exactly how I feel. I certainly don't have a problem with it, find the pictures beautiful, and don't feel that by accepted social standards the killing of these animals was unjust. How's that for a summary?]

Comments

....yes but steve...if you are to tell me that the second picture is a cat head and tail off a cat she killed just to take a picture...i find it more disturbing than anything. why doesnt she cut her own arm off and take a picture?

erm..disturbing in that she is taking pictures of dead animal parts. i do not find it wrong if she gets these parts from animals that were going to be put down either way...just very, very weird.

Yeah, I gotta agree with Laura on this one. Just... eww.

I would like to see a more extensive cat gallery.

I would be surprised if they weren't all fakes. They are all set against a plain background with uniform lighting... nothing too hard to fake given some time with photoshop or maya.

"They were going to die anyway," yes, but what if you used this sort of logic on your next-door neighbor? Okay, I think I'll go on over to his place, hack off his head in a "humane" fashion, and give him a "peace" that he'd never find: atop a vase for the sole purpose of being photographed.

Riddle me this: would it be fair? Did he have a choice? What right would it give you to take his life, regardless of whether you cared about him or not?

Sure, I know you're going to tell me that your neighbor has more rights than a small mouse, correct? But doesn't a living being have a right to live? Would you rather live in a small cage all your life at a euthanizing shelter or would you rather live free, albeit in potential danger? I'm sure you'd hate a small cage. In our lives now we have dangers... we are also mortal. We can walk outside our door right now, into the street, and be struck down to death by a passing automobile... but we are still free.

Don't give me the Darwinian natural selection arguement either, because this isn't killing for territory or for food or survival. This is for something absolutely wasteful, disrespectful, and utterly violent. Violence breeds violence, regardless of which species is in the crosshair of this anger, ignorance, and neglect.

It seems that you find the need to follow a crowd. You mention how we set traps for mice or put companion animals to death in shelters because we have no need for them. Because they are annoying or their numbers are too abundant. Have you forgotten that we as humans are sharing this earth with billions upon billions of other species, and that we've been here only a short time compared to the lot? When you see human beings treating non-humans in this fashion, do you feel like shrugging your shoulders and saying to yourself "Well, they were going to die ANYway." You know something? YOU'RE going to die anyway. I will as well. Our next-door neighbor will. It doesn't mean I have the right to make the decision that he needs the prestige of his lifeless head on a vase.

"...through this death they have gained the sort of purpose, attention, and immortality that they could never have otherwise achieved."

I also love your egotistical thoughts on how animals care about this sort of attention and purpose. Do they give a "rat's ass" about being seen or living forever? Maybe. Maybe not. Most likely not. They have their own goals and feelings that are, again, most likely NOT the kinds of ones you'd like to plan out for them.

I'll leave you with this: who are you to judge how to give someone peace? Who are you to judge what a person's goals are? That they'd actually prefer to have their heads put on display for a bunch of slack-jawed gawkers to peruse instead of living a full, free life. If you'd shut your ego off for a second and observe nature compared with the selfish egotism of the human race for a while, you'll hopefully see what is really happening.

There is still hope if your eyes are open. We can only be so lucky. We're not having our bodies harvested for the sake of art.

1.)

but what if you used this sort of logic on your next-door neighbor? Okay, I think I'll go on over to his place, hack off his head in a "humane" fashion, and give him a "peace" that he'd never find:

Believe me, I would if I could.

2.)

But doesn't a living being have a right to live?

Only if I let it. In addition, animals are all fairly stupid compared to humans.(except for Flipper and Lassie) If I'm willing to let them be killed so that I can eat them, it would be inconsistent for me to care about them being killed for other reasons and I'm far too lazy to be inconsistent. Eating animals brings me a sense of contentment( because I'm no longer hungry ) so why should I complain if someone else gets joy from killing the animal and taking a picture of it's plucked eye?

3.)

Violence breeds violence, regardless of which species is in the crosshair of this anger, ignorance, and neglect.

But violence can be fun and animals are too stupid to get back at you.

4.)

It seems that you find the need to follow a crowd.

It seems as if you just kind of randomly threw this in for fun. While those of us with the intellect of a five year old might be offended by this, I'll assume that those who regularly read this blog will ignore this statement as it isn't explained or justified in a cogent manner.

5.)

Have you forgotten that we as humans are sharing this earth with billions upon billions of other species, and that we've been here only a short time compared to the lot?

Why forget when you can just not care?

6.)

It doesn't mean I have the right to make the decision that he needs the prestige of his lifeless head on a vase.

You seem to be saying that this is an undignified way for the corpse to be treated after death. My question here is who cares what happens to their body after they die. Rape my corpse and use it to breed tapeworms for all I care. If I'm dead, I'm dead. I don't care and I really don’t think that animals do either.

7.)

I also love your egotistical thoughts on how animals care about this sort of attention and purpose. Do they give a "rat's ass" about being seen or living forever? Maybe. Maybe not. Most likely not. They have their own goals and feelings that are, again, most likely NOT the kinds of ones you'd like to plan out for them.

You make the idiotic assumption that animals have the ability to care about what happens to them after they have died and that they have feelings that go beyond basic response to stimuli. The claim that animals have goals beyond reproduction and eating that day is wildly unfounded.

8.)

I'll leave you with this: who are you to judge how to give someone peace? Who are you to judge what a person's goals are?

Who are you to judge him or anyone else unworthy of doing so? It seems to me like you are the one who needs to keep his ego in check. If I was going to pick someone to decide who lives and who dies, Steve would be my second choice (after me).

9.)

If you'd shut your ego off for a second and observe nature compared with the selfish egotism of the human race for a while, you'll hopefully see what is really happening.

This is the kind of thing that rekindles my hatred of the human race. Every once in a while I'm faced with a preachy pseudo-intellectual who thinks that they know better than everyone else. Their false perception of their own better understanding of the world around them leads to a smugness and narrow mindedness that sickens me. Only the truly stupid bother with the "I know better" attitude because anyone with a glimmer of intelligence knows that you make more progress discussing an issue than lecturing like an arrogant ass about it. The only advantage of the "holier than thou art" mindset is that if you really try hard to delude yourself you can actually believe that other people's opinions are completely false and ignore the fact that your personality is based around not having to engage in an argument that would reveal the fact that your aloof intellectualism is a facade meant to hide the fact that you are not intelligent enough to defend ideals that you have made such an important part of who you are.

10.)

There is still hope if your eyes are open.

See #9

I'm sure I forgot a few things that I had meant to say, but I can only be so bitter in one post.

Will, I have one word for you: awesome!
That is by far the best diatribe I've read in quite some time. The calculated, callous cynicism is reminiscent of a good Carlin or Leary rant -- excellent.

that's just so wrong. i mean, of course other people do use animals for articles of clothing, but shit! why would you really kill an animal, using your own two hands, just for your ugly piece of shit? nathalia edenmont is a sikc woman. what kind of disgusting work is this? makes me think about what kind of polluted world we all live in.

Retarded and sad.

Can you all just agree to agree or disagree one way or another. Im trying to write a philosophical essay on the ramifications of the use of animals (killed) for art, and as soon as I think i've formed my argument it turns on me or I'm swayed by the next person's opinion. But dont get me wrong, at the same time I love it, please someone throw another good argument in the mix, to make my job that little bit harder still!

There are many museums that have art made from actual human bodies and body parts. If these animals were being put down, because their owners or the vet just couldn't save them for whatever reason, then it isn't so wrong to me. It's still disturbing, but I don't see it as morally being wrong, just gross to me!

What would make it wrong would be if this artist was killing these animals just to make the art, that would make me just as sick as someone going out to shoot an animal down just to mount its head on their wall.

That eye in the flower picture is very disturbing to me, it sent chills down my back. The cat in the vase picture is also very disturbing, since I know she beat the cat with a stick to kill it. Maybe you people should think about that before you make assumptions on this and decide whether it is "morally wrong." They are just as cruel if she were to do the same to an child.

Just out of curiousity, how do you know she was cruel to these animals to cause their death?

Ok, I'll slaughter a child and give it to you as art, ok? I'll make sure it's one who is unwanted or terminally ill... That'll make it ok, won't it? I'll be sure to make the death a humane one... Oh wait, that would be better than Nathalia... She's under investigation for her practices killing animals without a vet present as dictates the law. Naah, I won't give the child a humane shot... I'll beat it to death to get JUST the right look in it's eye... And, ALL FOR ART!

Ok, I'll slaughter a child and give it to you as art, ok? I'll make sure it's one who is unwanted or terminally ill... That'll make it ok, won't it?

Nice straw man. I never said killing people was okay. Perhaps you are vegan, but the vast, vast majority believes that is an untenable position. A cursory look at nature reveals a definite food chain, of which humans are part. And before you tell me that animals only kill for food I am going to tell you that you are dead wrong. I can even give examples from my own backyard.

Because of our more evolved intellect we recognize ourselves as unique creatures on this planet and thus worthy of special consideration. A look at how we treat animals shows that this special consideration obviously does not extend to lower life forms. That is why killing a cat and killing a baby for art are two fundamentally different actions.

I believe (but have little proof) that even among traditionally cannibalistic societies the action usually has special religious meanings. Even then human life is considered different and special from animal life.

I'll be sure to make the death a humane one... Oh wait, that would be better than Nathalia... She's under investigation for her practices killing animals without a vet present as dictates the law.

Please provide support that Nathalia was killed her animals in a non-humane way. Every credible source I've read contradicts your statement.

As far as the investigation is concerned, it appears to be a minor technicality in Swedish law. It was started in 2003, and I couldn't find a website with any updates whatsoever. Being almost two years later, I'm going to assume the investigation went nowhere.

Naah, I won't give the child a humane shot... I'll beat it to death to get JUST the right look in it's [sic] eye... And, ALL FOR ART!

Again, no one credible has asserted that she beat her animals to death. Unless you can provide proof...

And why not kill animals for art? We kill them for food, for medical testing, for learning, for fashion, and for pure logistical reasons. If art truly is our most pure form of expression, why is it not acceptable to kill animals for this reason too?

Dead humans also make good art:

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/home.asp

And no I'm not joking, it's actually pretty interesting

"If art truly is our most pure form of expression, why is it not acceptable to kill animals for this reason too?"

Because art doesn't provide anyone with any tangible benefits. Killing something for pure pleasure is inarguably wrong.

"Because of our more evolved intellect we recognize ourselves as unique creatures on this planet and thus worthy of special consideration. A look at how we treat animals shows that this special consideration obviously does not extend to lower life forms. That is why killing a cat and killing a baby for art are two fundamentally different actions."

Is it better to kill a very intelligent animal than a very dumb human? How intelligent does something have to be before it becomes morally wrong to end its life in the name of art?

I find the places some people choose to draw their moral boundaries to be very odd.

Because art doesn't provide anyone with any tangible benefits. Killing something for pure pleasure is inarguably wrong.

Pure philosophy, mathematics, physics, and astronomy often don't provide any tangible benefits either. Does that mean they are not worthy of pursuit? If humans were the simple sum of their tangible parts then psychiatrists wouldn't be in such demand. I find your view disturbing and myopic.

Is it better to kill a very intelligent animal than a very dumb human? How intelligent does something have to be before it becomes morally wrong to end its life in the name of art?

Show me a species that contemplates the past and dreams for the future. Show me a species that can grasp the infinite, the abstract, and the intangible. Show me a species that is even self-aware. It would be wrong to kill any member of that species in the name of art.

Do I think those are arbitrary qualities? No. All of the animal kingdom is essentially the same, except for humans. If out of billions we are fundamentally unique then shouldn't those things that make us unique hold special importance?

The very fact that we can discuss this should give you pause.

"Pure philosophy, mathematics, physics, and astronomy often don't provide any tangible benefits either. Does that mean they are not worthy of pursuit?"

Ummm... they almost always provide tangible benefits, and even if they didn't, they don't involve killing anything. I don't think your comparison here works.

"Show me a species that contemplates the past and dreams for the future. Show me a species that can grasp the infinite, the abstract, and the intangible."

My point was that not all humans are capable of grasping all these concepts. I know some. Is it ok to put them to death? There may be animals that are capable of these concepts... we really don't know.

Evolution holds that we are not fundamentally unique, just a little farther ahead.

Its disturbing that anyone feels that they can decide that a creature is unworthy of life based solely on their (probably inaccurate) estimate of that creature's intelligence.