Why using the dead bodies of Nonhumans for art is not okay

If you consider yourself an anti-speciesist:

Using dead nonhuman animal bodies in art and for design, displays, etc. can never be consensual, because you don’t understand enough what a nonhuman individual might want or not want, to be able to definitely claim that he/she was okay with you using his/her body.

Don’t use nonhumans bodies in arts.

Why can’t you make vegan arts if you call yourself a vegan? Where should veganism unnecessarily end?

Check out alternatives, like the technique of artists like Keng Lye, for example, who creates realisitc 3-D arts.

A vegan economy? Where to start.

Human society annexes every ‘natural’ space, primarily through societal economic processes.

‘Nonhuman Animal Rights’ thus have to cover all spaces on the globe – within human communities and within the natural environment overall.

In regards to creating a ‚vegan economy’:

1. First of all we should address the history of ‘rule and possession’.

a.) Different economic models have been historically existent. Which components came into play for forming current economical models (i.e. the capitalist economies and socialist inspired economies) in pure economic terms, politically, socially?

b.) Which forms of political rule went along with ‘ownership’ and ‘dominion’ (annexation of ‘nature)? And what created the basis of legitimization in rule, such as in: monarchies, democracies, tyrannies, as grounded for example on: religion, ideology, philosophy?

c.) How did forms of ‘rule’ and ‘authority’ interact with exploitative contractualist agendas such as imperialism, colonialism, nationalism?

An aspect to highlight: Legitimization falters or ends where the ‘entitlement’ for ‘rule and possession’ excludes and comes into conflict with interests / rights of other human beings, other animals and the ‘natural’ realm / ‘nature’.

2. Secondly we should see how ‘economy’, as a societal material construct, and ‘nature’, as an borderless/undefined space, conflict.

a.) What stands at the centre of the conflict between our human-centred economic matrices (as systems of ‘rule and possession’) versus ‘natural’ and autonomous life? What are core reasons for conflict? (The reasons might stand alongside the questions of legitimization.)
b.) Society’s inability for groundbreaking political change, and the inability for change on the private scale (in the individual’s life in society) as being part of society, extends the need for the legitimization of ‘dominion’/’rule’, exploitation and destruction – it otherwise leads to rebellion.

What can be alternative forms of economic societal organization?

3. How does veganism – as entailing some of the key aspects needed to form a pacifist eco-consciousness – offer ways out of economic systems that utilize ‘nature’, nonhumans and “powerless” humans, in different degrees, as resources or as in the case of humans, as partly involuntary collaborators?

a.) Discuss the need for veganism to become aware of its own politicalness, in problem-solving and problem-creating terms.
b.) The core of veganism, taken as a social revolutionary ‘movement’, mainly differs from other liberation movements because of its primary focus on nonhuman animal exploitation and nonhuman animal murder / zoacide … .

Economic ethics or non-ethics:

Where does profiteering from (or/and voluntary collaboration with) ecocide and zoacide mainly begin?

How are humans affected today by the consequences of economically driven ecocide and zoacide, ethically?

How do you think should ethical vegans work against ecocide and zoacide, despite the “vegan revolution’s” minority constellation within society?

Besitznahme durch Abwertung und Definition. Beraubung tierlicher Autonomie.

Wenn Nichtmenschen nicht autonom wären, und nur der Mensch es wäre, wann in der Evolution und womit hätte diese menschliche Autonomie dann angesetzt, und warum sollte tierliches Handeln und Denken nicht als vom Menschen und seiner Objektivitätswahrnehmung autonom anerkannt werden?

„Seinen eigenen Gesetzen folgend / early 17th cent.: from Greek autonomia, from autonomos ‘having its own laws,’ fromautos ‘self’ + nomos ‘law.’“ – Zoe Autonomos

Besitznahme durch Abwertung und Definition. Beraubung tierlicher Autonomie.

(Fragment)

Wir sprechen eher den Tieren ihre tierliche evolutionäre Autonomie ab, statt dass wir an totalitäre Strukturen in der Menschheit im Bezug auf Nichtmenschen und die natürliche Umwelt glauben. Unser Blick auf Nichtmenschen und die „Natur“ ist in einer Art verstellt, dass unsere Abwertungen vor uns selber akzeptabel erscheinen.

Der Missstand der Ungerechtigkeit ist, dass wir versuchen die tierliche Autonomie zu zerstören (physische Eingriffe und Maßnahmen) und mittels Speziesismus (geistig ideologisch) zu unterminieren.

„Besitz“ ist die Folge der Absprache tierlicher Autonomie.

„Tierverteidiger“ die für die physische Unversehrtheit von Nichtmenschen plädieren, den Nichtmenschen aber weiterhin ihre eigene tierliche Autonimie (vom Menschen und an und für sich) absprechen, betreiben eine unbewusste radikale Form des Anthropozentrismus und des Speziesismus.

Wir verbinden den Würdebegriff mit der Fähigkeit eines eigenen, unabhängigen Daseins (Autonomie).

Durch speziesistische Kunstgriffe bereiten wir den geistigen Boden in einer Gesellschaft vor, um den Besitzstatus eines Lebewesens zu legitimieren und als vertretbar erscheinen zu lassen.

Was ist unserem allgemeinen Verständnis nach Autonomie, siehe z.B. Wikipedia (für den vielleicht breitesten Allgemeinplatz) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomie?

Wenn Nichtmenschen etwas haben – „the wild and tamed beast“ – dann ist es Autonomie. Sie leben „von Natur aus“ in der Natur autonom – wenn wir sie nicht ihrer Freiheit berauben. Wir behaupten, Nichtmenschen seien Instinktbestimmt, und genau da setzt die Besitznahme durch arbitäre Abwertungsmechanismen ein: Wir machen uns Tiere nutzbar und „Untertan“, indem wir sie ihrer Existenzautonomie mit der Behauptung des Instinktverhaltens (kausaltiätsbestimmtes Verhalten) zu berauben versuchen.

Die Abhängigkeit von Lebensnotwendigkeiten als Instinktgeleitetheit zu interpretieren, ist eine Form der Minderbewertung der Angreifbarheit, der Verletzlichkeit und Bedingtkeit des Lebens – jedes Lebens. Jedes Lebewesen ist abhängig und bedingt, aber gleichzeitig auch autonom. Autonomie ist der zarte Keim der Verletzlichkeit tierlicher und menschliche Würde … .

Da ein Tier autonom handelt und denkt, ist es autotom. Der Vesuch der Eingrenzung tierlichen Denkens in anthopozentrisch definierte Parameter, ist eine Besitznahme durch die definitorische Interpretation tierlichen Denkens und Handelns.

Tierautonomie – tierliche Autonomie; ein paar eklektisch ausgewählte interessante Aspekte

Animal Autonomy:

In Veterenary Care:

Here I would simply suggest that “animal autonomy” is worthy of careful attention from philosophers and scientists and veterinarians. Animals are self-governing and make meaningful choices, in ways very similar to humans. As with our fellow humans, we should strive to understand and respect the preferences of other creatures. Research in ethology is continuing to explore how to understand animal preferences and how these preferences are expressed in observable behaviors. It is worth noting, too, that although the language of “autonomy” has not yet been strongly present in the veterinary literature, the concept has been important in the animal ethics literature more broadly. Tom Regan, for example, talked in his ground-breaking The Case for Animal Rights(1983) about animals as autonomous beings, with their own interests and desires. Regan even includes a very interesting discussion of what he calls “preference autonomy” and explores some of the ways in which autonomy in animals is different from autonomy in humans.

Animals and Autonomy. Can this vitally important ethical concept be meaningfully applied to animals? Jessica Pierce, Ph.D. in All Dogs Go to Heaven

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-dogs-go-heaven/201303/animals-and-autonomy

 

Animal Sanctitiy and Animal Sacrifice: How Post-Dawinian Fiction Treats Animal Victosm by Marian Scholtmeyer, Dissertation, 1989, pp. 57.

Animal Ethics:

Kantian ethics is normally not the place to look for an account of  direct moral obligations towards animals, as Kant claimed that we only owe animals indirect moral duties, out of respect towards the rest of  humanity. In chapter four, I consider modern reinterpretations of Kant’s arguments to provide support for the claim that animals should be  considered ends-in-themselves. I argue that despite the strength of these accounts, the concept of agency and selfhood that I support provides a better foundation for claiming animals as ends-in-themselves, and that respect for animal autonomy can be grounded on a Kantian argument for the respect of autonomy more broadly. I claim that in virtue of their agency and selfhood, animals should be considered ends-in-themselves, thereby including them in the moral community. My view is novel in that it includes agency, selfhood and autonomy as those features which make anyone, human or nonhuman, morally considerable.

Agency and Autonomy: A New Direction for Animal Ethics by Natalie Evans. Dissertation.

https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/8158/evans_natalie.pdf?sequence=1

Animal Rights / Animal Liberation

How can I save an Animal today or stop these atrocities now? Even for just a few critters. Because that’s the context we so often miss. It’s about Animal autonomy, not about how the government turns on the people that care about the Animals. But while I’m on the subject, it’s nothing new!

Walter Bond, Green is the New Rage, http://supportwalter.org/SW/index.php/2011/06/24/green-is-the-new-rage/

Animal Caregiving

Kerulos Center Caring for the Caregiver  Project. The project’s overarching goal is to foster awareness and support for animal care organizations and caregiver wellbeing to help achieve the vision of a compassionate, ethical, trans-species society founded on mutual wellbeing.

http://kerulos.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kerulos-Caring-for-Caregiver-Report-Final.pdf

Alle Links: 25. März 2014.

 

Why speciesism is evil

Why speciesism is evil

Palang LY

We don’t need to discuss whether a person or group is evil in all aspects, when we want to evaluate if an act of speciesism (committed by a person or group) is evil and condemnable.

In general often people who commit any type of evil, do not seem to their social environment like they would hold an “evil” potential, meaning, that a person can have different aspects about them, or also purposely mask their not-so-good sides. Another thing to keep in mind is that every chapter of human history taught us, that what some might have felt as beneficial to them, was plain evil to others who were negatively affected by a “gain” of someone else.

Speciesism is a (specific) form of oppression – and as such it is evil:

A.) Assuming that speciesism was merely a historical accidence, would mean to deny that nonhuman animals could have ever been perceived as something else than “objects”, and with that as “objects of speciesism”. Acts of speciesism are conscious acts of violating other (animal) individuals. Nonhuman animals are not automatically only viewable as objects.

My position is, that our degrading views of nonhuman animals today and in our shared history (i.e. the arguments with which we mark the nonhuman animal world as less- or non-relevant), are kinds of attitudes based on a totalitarian layer that society continuously enacts and that is functioning by society’s willingness to accept this form of a system; we compel and force members of our society to adopt speciesist attitudes, that however we can step out of such a system and resist, like we can equally resist to take part in other forms of oppressive structures.

B.) To assume that speciesist acts could be done without any conscious form of evil will and behaviour, means that we rule out the quality of evil which we face in the given oppressive context that speciesism marks. Every “procedure” done, that violates the physical and mental integrity of a nonhuman animal individual (directly or indirectly), is a conscious act and an act of will – even when the human individual who commits this act, finds and is offered and taught excuses to rationalize his or her deeds as necessary or non-evil.

Speciesism is evil because it masks as being an acceptable form of viewing nonhuman animal others as:

ownable, definable, edible, usable, ignorable … as passive objects.

I do think that as an Animal Liberationist one is accountable to tell the facts about the forms of conscious human evil that we face in speciesist oppression.

Marseille based vegan band Velvetine

We asked Stef from the Marseille based French band Velvetine about how they would describe themselves as a vegan band:

Ethically / politically: The members of Velvetine are vegan, antispeciesist, antisexisist and antiracist. Our third opus “Un jour ordinaire” is dedicated to animal liberation. Velvetine plays in places militant as in not militant places, to spread the antispeciesist message as widely as possible.

Velvetine’s style: using guitars, voices and machines, distilling an electro-rock blend of savage poetry. Colored by subtle harmonies, Velvetine draws up a tormented and powerful mood from deep running roots in ethnic and noisy music. The release of our next album is planned for spring 2014.

Un jour ordinaire

Des oiseaux empalés rôtissent dans les vitrines.
Des corps démembrés garnissent les étals.
Sur le pont des bateaux, des poissons tressaillant
Lentement s’asphyxient

Dans des hangars fétides, de mornes vies s’écoulent
On coupe à vif, des becs, des dents, des testicules
On enfonce des embucs jusqu’au fond des gosiers
Partout roulent des camions bourrés de condamnés
Ceux qu’on va égorger, saigner.

En ce jour ordinaire, ceux qui ont peur et mal
Se comptent par millions
En ce pays en paix, la torture et le meurtre
Sont le lot quotidien
Et maintenant, et maintenant
Ça dure encore
Et maintenant, et maintenant

From Velvetine’s album Septembre which also thematized Animal Liberation.

Connect via

Bandcamp: http://velvetine.bandcamp.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Velvetine/377544125513

Dr. Vandana Shiva: Wie das Wirtschaftswachstum zu etwas Lebensvernichtendem geworden ist

Die Göttin Ma’at von Farangis G. Yegane.

Wie das Wirtschaftswachstum zu etwas Lebensvernichtendem geworden ist

Eine Sucht nach Wachstum hat unsere Sorgen über Nachhaltigkeit, Gerechtigkeit und menschliche Würde in den Hintergrund gedrängt. Menschen sind aber keine Wegwerfware – der Wert von Leben liegt außerhalb der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung.

Dr. Vandana Shiva (http://www.navdanya.org/)

Dieser Artikel ist im The Guardian vom 1. November 2013 veröffentlicht: How economic growth has become anti-life, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/how-economic-growth-has-become-anti-life.

Übersetzung: Palang LY, mit der freundlichen Genehmigung von Dr. Vandana Shiva.

Unbegrenztes Wachstum ist die Fantasie von Ökonomen, Unternehmen und Politikern. Man betrachtet es als Maßstab von Fortschritt. Hieraus hat sich das Bruttoinlandsprodukt (BIP), das angeblich das Wohl einer Nation bemißt, sowohl als die mächtigste Variable als auch als das herrschendste Konzept unserer Zeit hervorgetan. Dennoch trägt das Wirtschaftswachstum verborgen in sich die Armut, die es durch die Zerstörung der Natur verursacht, die widerum zur Folge hat, dass Gemeinschaften außerstande sind, für sich selbst zu sorgen.

Das wirtschaftliche Wachtstumskonzept wurde als ein Maßstab eingesetzt um während des Zweiten Weltkriegs Ressourcen zu mobilisieren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Gross_domestic_product_.28GDP.29). Das Bruttoinlandsprodukt fußt auf der Schaffung einer künstlichen, imaginären Grenze, die unter der Annahme funktioniert, dass, wenn einer etwas produziert das er selbst konsumiert, er eigentlich gar nichts produziert. Tatsächlich bemisst das „Wachstum“ die Umwandlung von Natur zu monetären Werten und von öffentlichem Gut zu Handelsgütern … DIESEN ARTIKEL ALS PDF WEITERLESEN (Link öffnet sich in einem neuen Fenster).

 

Band of Mercy, Texans, Veganocrats


Band of Mercy, courtesy toomanyweapons.com

Band of Mercy, Texans, Veganocrats

Singer, guitarist Daniel from theHoustonTXbased vegan hardcore Animal Liberation Band of Mercy told us about vegan effectiveness, possibilities of leading by example and basic intersectional veganism:

My main concern, at this point in my life (after being vegan for 8 years, and being an animal rights activist for more than 5 of those years), is the issue of promoting vegan culture. Of course, the basis of why someone stays vegan throughout their life usually comes from maintaining veganism as a philosophy based on ethics, as opposed to being a  lifestyle that affords them the most personal pleasure (let’s face it, most dietary vegans will make exceptions to what they feel is a restrictive lifestyle). Unfortunately, the ethics of veganism aren’t the most appealing aspect of veganism to most people. So what is our best approach to help the most animals and reduce the greatest amount of cruelty to them?

As activists, we must consciously remind ourselves that most people DO care about animals to some degree, and that most people do not wish harm upon them. Most people accept animal cruelty as an obscured part of our food system, fashion industry, clinical fields, and so on, simply because they think things have always been that way, and that they are powerless to change things. It’s not that they wish cruelty onto animals–rather, they feel their personal sacrifices to help animals would likely not be worth the effort.

What I have found has worked best for me, in my personal life with friends and family, as well as in my activist life, is to be an educated example of personal empowerment. I have taught myself how to thrive as a vegan, and I have made it a point that all those around me see how I am thriving as a vegan. After all, everyone wants to thrive in their lives. We must aim to show people that veganism requires more discipline than sacrifice– and more importantly, that the discipline we teach ourselves to live by will enhance and benefit our lives, not wear us down or limit our potential to have fun and be happy.

I have become stronger and healthier on a vegan diet. It requires some education to learn how to eat optimally as a vegan, and it does require some planning and discipline, but my physical and mental gains from eating optimally make my life more enjoyable, as I am able to do more activities that I enjoy for greater lengths of time, even as I get older. I eat a wider variety of foods, and I enjoy the rituals of eating more now than I did as an omnivore. Food is now a celebration in my life, not just something I must consume as a matter of hunger and convenience. Not only this, but many variations of vegan food and clothing are in fact cheaper than animal-based alternatives. Through veganism we all stand to gain physically, mentally, financially, as well as knowing the peace of mind that comes with thriving while causing the least amount of harm to others.

We must empower ourselves with the knowledge of how to live vegan in an optimal way, and then we must share that knowledge with those who are curious about veganism so that we may build vegan culture. For those who are not yet curious, we must live so boldly that we invoke their interest. We can not tear down the ways of old without offering the population newer, better ways to live. They will join us when they see us laughing, when they see us succeed and lead in the workplace, when they see us staying lean and healthy into old age, when they can see that our intellect is not just one dimensional–that we read books and make creative contributions to the world outside of the concepts of animal rights. We must show that we are well-rounded, well-developed individuals who have educated views.

While the ethical arguments are always abound in the world where people want to question us or be skeptical of us for not eating animals, and in this world of cruelty as the norm where protest is so often necessary, we must be able to shift our focus beyond the ongoing debates when necessary. We must become leaders who shed the light on a better, healthier, more positive way to live. In the end, that is how we will save the most animals.

Band of Mercy – Eat to Win

There is a war, and me must fight
But we won’t win if we don’t eat right
Billions are suffering, so we must prevail
You want Vegan Power?
You better eat KALE!!

Tofu, rice, and beans – BEANS!
And dark leafy greens – GREENS!
Fruits and nuts and seeds – SEEDS!
Partake of these to smash enemies

War is upon us, like it or not
No hippies or weaklings, we need juggernauts
‘Cause change never comes from asking nicely
You want Liberation?
You better eat broccoli!!

Tofu, rice, and beans – BEANS!
And dark leafy greens – GREENS!
Fruits and nuts and seeds – SEEDS!
Partake of these to smash enemies

Born to lose, eat to win!
Toughened by tempeh, strengthened by seitan
Born to lose, eat to win!
We scoff at the phrase “protein deficient” (HA!)

(“Where do I get my protein? What, are you a fuckin’ idiot??”)

Show them a vegan like they’ve never seen
Primed to deliver one million ass beatings!

Tofu, rice, and beans – BEANS!
And dark leafy greens – GREENS!
Fruits and nuts and seeds – SEEDS!
Partake of these to smash enemies

Connect via:

FB: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Band-of-Mercy-the-band/130053330369316
Bandcamp: http://bandofmercy.bandcamp.com

 

Animal Thealogy: Man-Machine? Animal Reason! (Part 2)


Io – Farangis G Yegane

Animal Thealogy:

Man-Machine? Animal Reason! (2)

(And this was part one of that text.)

Palang LY

A geometrical image

Imagine two abstract groups. Group A consists of triangles and everything that surrounds them becomes mathematically relevant to their own triangular form. This happens as all that either resembles or does not resemble a triangle appears in a certain colour.

Group B are circles.

Now group A says that group B aren’t triangles (because A are triangles) and that B also weren’t squares or rectangles.

Does any reason follow from this that would mathematically legitimate for the circles to be excluded as equally valid geometrical figures?

The triangles are different compared to the circles, but both are geometrical figures and insofar of an equal value.

They can be correlated due to each of their geometrical qualities, even when the circles do not match the characteristics of the triangles!

Let’s take this as our metaphor

Sociology does not question the social interaction between humans and nonhuman animals. They don’t scrutinize that relation from their viewpoint, because the view held on the human relation towards animals is already set in its core by the natural sciences.

The hierarchical empire built by the natural sciences though [and along with it the humanistic knowledge on which the natural sciences base upon] rules every need for any further examination and consideration of this relationship out. We do not see the direct relation between humans and nonhuman animals.

A most typical exemplification of that inability to relate on a basic and fundamental level of ‘common sense’ can be pinpointed in the difference between relating to nonhuman animals in terms of “joy” versus “love”: as in “animals equally feel joy” or “we can both love”, and “pain” versus “violence”: as in: “animals can equally feel pain” or “we can both experience violence”. Love is a intermittent sentiment, violence also basis on social interactivity (though in that negative sense), where as “joy” is located only in the subject we attribute the feeling to, and the same goes for “pain”.

We – nonhuman animals and humans – understand the questions of LOVE and VIOLENCE. Whereby “joy” and “pain” are reductionary names for the “same” thing.

Regarding the question whether animals can be regarded in any way as moral agents, one has to ask, does moral exist outside the human concept of morality?

When we discuss morality we presume that the substance matter which the term comprises came into life through our perceptions, and because we define what „moral“ means, we can claim a described phenomenon as solely ours.

What does morality consist of?

Does morality solely exist because of a theoretical framework? One can doubt that. Morality on the one side has something to do with basic social interaction, through that morality gains value.

On the other side are the superordinate agreements about morality, which are declared and decided upon by an elite or defining group/process, but through that the agreements about morality only contain a forced validity, which is disconnected from its own basis, that is: the meaning of social interaction between beings (i.e. the construct about morality excludes that what lays outside of its hierarchy, other forms of interaction that contain „social values“ ).

On the individual plane exists that what any “I” perceives and experiences in her lived interactions and experiences as „morally okay“. And that can be between nonhuman animals or humans in the whole environmental context – seen from a common sense point of view if we take the human view.

When we discard the human decorum that surrounds and sticks to the word morality, we can say that every action has a moral implication, non-anthropocentrically seen.

It’s always the same: otherness. We have to accept it.

Animals have a very different philosophy-of-living in a neutral comparison to our philosophy of life, and I believe one can use the term philosophy here to describe the yet unnamed phenomenon in nonhumans animals of how they structure and perceive their own lives.

I ask myself whether the human problem with nonhuman animals isn’t rather to be found in the differences of their philosophies-of-life when compared to our typically human ones.

The problems lie much more in this radical otherness from us, than in the reasons of gradual biological differences or in the often assumed moral impotence on this other one’s (the animal’s) behalf.

The problem thus seems to fluctuate around the scope of difference and coinciding similarity. In many aspects we equal nonhumans animals a lot, but in the aspect of our dominance claim finally, we see nonhuman animals as „the losers“, the bottom of the evolutionary or divinely ordained hierarchical order on which we can postulate our violent and hypocritical sense of power.

That nonhuman animals are the losers amongst the biological animals is even an attitude that some of their advocates purport. I often meet people who won’t reckon a unique, self-sufficient quality seen to be in the closeness and distance amongst the different animals (including human animals). In the forefront of every argumentation there is always: how are they in comparison to us. As if humans and nonhuman animals had to compete on an „equal” scale … and another related argumentation goes: how much of their „instinct“ could possibly entitle them to be granted rights; right that would protect them from humans (whereby it is highly questionable whether those who have prejudices against you, can really grant you your own rights.)

Human society, it seems, will always consider the „us“ and the „we“ as objectively more important, insofar as the „we“, the how „we are“, is the criterion, and nonhumans animals are measured against it.

The crucial point is to accept others and to accept the validity of otherness. For the others and maybe even for us!

Reaching far? Animal Thealogy – female animal deities, female human deities, on the terms of such angles.

 

Risa on intersectional veganism and the impacts and effectiveness of individual action

We have asked Risa about what intersectional veganism means to her in terms of impacts and its further reach:

Veganism is an economic boycott of products and services that disrespect the lives and rights of other species to be free. Since I value freedom and doing the things I love to do, I would feel hypocritical supporting the suffering, confinement and death of other living beings who all have the desire to live free.

So, with the energy that money is, I choose to support farmers and products that are congruent with my philosophical beliefs. I try to minimize suffering and harm through my vegan lifestyle, while realizing that no lifestyle except growing all of your own organic food, etc. is a ‘perfect’ choice; I do the best I can to live in harmony with nature.

Veganism has worked for me for more than 13 years. I consider it a spiritual practice, as living with integrity in a way that’s consistent with your beliefs gives you peace.

Risa talking about her writing the song STRANGE FRUIT, as an Animal Rights song inspired by Billie Holiday‘s famous song:

Listen on Bandcamp:

Connect on

Bandcamp: http://risa.bandcamp.com/
FB: https://www.facebook.com/risamusic
Twitter: https://twitter.com/risatweet
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/selectahhrecords

Ein Nichtmensch, ein Objekt, ein Mehrzweck?

Palang LY

Tiere als Nummern

Dieser Text als PDF (der Link öffnet sich in einem neuen Fenster)

Das kontroverse israelische Projekt http://269life.com emphatisiert und subjektifiziert das Tier, das stellvertretend für das Tieropfer einer karnistisch-speziesistisch funktionierenden Gesellschaft steht. Während solch ein Kunst- / Designprojekt wie das „Pig 05049“ der Niederländerin Christien Meindertsma, das in ihrer Arbeit tokenisierte nichtmenschliche Tier entindividualisiert und objektifiziert.

Ein Nichtmensch, ein Objekt, ein Mehrzweck?

Der Guardian veröffentliche am 27. März 2010 ein Essay des amerikanischen Autoren und Journalisten Bill Buford [1] über eine Arbeit der niederländischen Designerin Christien Meindertsma, in der sie Fotografien von Nebenprodukten aus der Fleischindustrie, als all das, was aus einem Schwein so gemacht wird, zentriert auf ein Tier: „Pig 05049“, als Rohstoffquelle, darstellte.

Aus Tierrechtssicht halte ich die Arbeit von Meindertsma für bedenklich, aus Gründen, die ich weiter unten anreißen will. Der Artikel aus dem Guardian jedoch, sowie auch ein Artikel aus dem Stern über eine Ausstellung Meindertsmas im Jahr 2008 zum „Pig 05049“ [2], machen aber bereits klar, warum die Arbeit der Designerin eine zweischneidige Angelegenheit ist, wenn sie problemlos in der Weise, wie in diesen beiden Artikeln, rezipiert werden kann, als eine willkommen geheißene Ermutierung zur Objektifizierung von nichtmenschlichen Tieren im agraindustriellen Komplex.

Der Tierrechtler und Vorstand des europäischen Zweigs des Animals and Society Institute (http://www.animalsandsociety.org/) Kim Stallwood, hält zum Artikel Bufords aus dem Guardian fest:

Das kleine Schweinchen beim Guardian

Ein interssanter Artikel im samstags erscheinenden farbigen Wochendmagazin des Guardians. Er bestand aus einem Fotoessay als Auszug aus dem Buch Pig 05049 von Christien Meindertsma und einem Essay des Autoren Bill Buford. Interessant aus zweierlei Hinsicht.

Zuerst: Das Fotoessay dokumentiert 185 (naja, einige) Produkte, die aus einem geschlachteten Schwein hergestellt werden, einschließlich Apfelsaft (Gelatine), Puzzleteilen (Knochenleim) und Sandpapier (nochmals Knochenleim). Was immerhin beweist welche Herausforderung es darstellt, vegan zu leben. Einige würden behaupten es ist eine sinnlose Übung. Eine Unmöglichkeit. Ich würde sagen, dass der Weg zum Veganismus wichtiger ist, als die Ankunft am seinem Ziel.

Der zweite interessage Punkt ist dieser: warum müssen Menschen, die darüber schreiben, dass sie bei der Schlachtung eines Tiere teilgenommen haben, den Akt immer romantisieren? Und das Ganze mit sentimentalem Quatsch aufladen, um den Anschein der Profundität zu erwecken? Buford schreibt zum Beispiel: „Das Blut sammelt sich in einem Eimer. Ich rührte es damit es nicht koaguliert. Man gab mir eine Kelle und sagte ich solle mal probieren. Ich war vom Geschmack überracht, der vital, energisierend und glücklich war.“ Was genau ist glücklich am Probieren des Blutes eines Schweins, das man gerade getötet hat? Und dann folgt diese pseudo-moralisierende und nichtssagende Entschuldigung für die Missetat. [3]

„Der Aufwand benötigte vier Mann. Das Schwein wusste was geschah. Sie war stark. Sie kämpfte. Da gab es kein Schweinequieksen. Es war ein weit offener Schrei. Sie schrie laut und hörte nicht auf, bis nachdem für einige Sekunden, und nicht mehr als einige Sekunden, in ihr Herz gestochen war. Der Schrei ging bis in die höheren Klangregister; ein hochstimmiges, bellendes Klagen, das mein Gehirn nicht als normal herausrastern oder empfinden konnte. Dann, gerade als ich das Seil am Bein des Tieres festmachte, schaute sie mich an, ganz genau, und sah mir in die Augen. Warum mir? Vermittelte mein Gesicht unter den andern Gesichtern dieser abghärteten Traditionalisten etwa Unbehagen? Der Halt funktionierte wie eine Klampe. Ich wollte mich abwenden. Ich tat es nicht.“ [4]

— — —

Wie konnten die Fotografien aus der Designarbeit von Meindertsma so problemlos in diesem Zusammenhang ihren Platz finden? Ist eine Auflistung und Darstellung von Tierkörperteilen und der Stoffe, die aus ihnen gewommen werden bereits eine Stellungnahme in der einen oder anderen Weise?

Meindertsma sieht in ihrer Arbeit „grundsätzlich den Produktkatalog [eines] Schweins“. Das „schönste“ findet sie, in einer TED Rede unter dem Titel: „Wie Teile vom Schwein die Welt zum Drehen bringen“ (vom Juli 2010), ist die Verwendung der Herzklappe des Tieres, die eine Operation am menschlichen Herzen unter nur minimalstem Eingriff ermöglicht. Abschließend sagt sie, dass sie am meisten an Rohmaterialien insgesamt intersssiert sei, und ein bisschen auch an Schweinen. [5]

Die Ästhetik der Objektifizierung

Randy Malamud, Fellow am Institut für Tierthik der Uni Oxford, formuliert ein wichtiges Argument im Kontext mit einem Werkzyklus der türkischen Künstlerin Pinar Yolacan (Titel: „Perihables“), in der Hühnerkörper als künstlerisches Ausdrucksmittel und Accessoire verwendet werden:

„Ich frage mich, wenn ich durch Yolacans Linse auf eine Frau und ein Huhn blicke, eine Frau in einem Huhn: Wo ist das Huhn? Ja, das Tier ist da, aber da gibt es kein „da“. Das einzige huhnhhafte in diesen Bildern ist ein Negativum: die Abwesenheit eines Huhns, die Verhöhnung eines Huhns, die Zerstörung eines Huhns, die perverse menschliche Transformation eines Huhns.

Ich möchte damit nicht sagen, dass es die Last jedes Kunstwerks sein müsse, das huhnhafte des Huhns zu hinterfragen, aber ich bin ökologisch empört über das durchdringliche Versagen menschlicher Kultur […] dabei, die Intergrität, das Bewusstsein, die echte Gegenwart anderer Tiere in unserer Welt ernsthaft anzuerkennen.“ [6]

Wie weit darf eine ästhetisierende Objektifizierung gehen, insbesodere auch dann, wenn sie unter anderem der Veranschaulichung dient, wie im Fall des Buches Pig 05049 von Christien Meindertsma und bei anderen Designern, Künstlern und deren Arbeiten, im Allgemeinen.

Was Meindertsma anbetrifft: Als Veganer kennen wir Alle, Listen tierlicher Inhaltstoffe und ihrer Derivate. Eine partielle Liste im schöngemachten Format ist eigentlich nicht zweckdienlich, auch wenn sich über Ästhetik streiten lässt.

Das Buch Pig 05049 wird aber für 44 Euro bei enem veganen Onlinehandel feilgetobten. Aufmerksam wurde ich, nachdem ich sah, dass die VGD es auf ihrer FB-Seite bewarb und keine Veganer_In dort Anstoß am Ganzen nahm. [7]

[1] Bill Buford: From one pig: 185 products, The Guardian, Saturday 27 March 2010 http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/mar/27/from-one-pig-185-products. Der Text wurde inzwischen wegen Ablauf der Nutzungsrechte von der Webseite des Guardian entfernt.

[2] Albert Eikenaar: Eine tierisch versaute Idee, Der Stern 23. Juli 2008, http://www.stern.de/kultur/kunst/ausstellung-eine-tierisch-versaute-idee-632030.html

[3] Kim Stallwood: Little Piggy at The Guardian, http://www.kimstallwood.com/2010/03/29/the-little-piggy-at-the-guardian/. Übersetzung der Blogeintrags (ohne dem Zitat aus dem Guardian) Palang Y. Arani-May, mit der freundlichen Genehmigung von Kim Stallwood. Siehe hierzu auch: This little piggy… Christien Meindertsma photographs the 185 products that came from one pig, The Guardian, Saturday 27 March 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/gallery/2010/mar/27/185-products-one-pig-gallery

[4] Bill Buford: From one pig: 185 products, a.a.O. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/mar/27/from-one-pig-185-products

[5] TED, Christien Meindertsma: Wie Teile vom Schwein die Welt zum Drehen bringen http://www.ted.com/talks/christien_meindertsma_on_pig_05049.html

[6] Randy Malamud: Vengeful Tiger, Glowing Rabbit, in: The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 23, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/Vengeful-Tiger-Glowing-Rabbit/132951/?cid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en

[7] Vegane Gesellschaft Deutschland, der betreffende Eintrag auf ihrer Facebookpage https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=589879337720155&set=a.159698390738254.28272.154920631216030&type=1&theater

Alle Zugriffe vom 17. September 2013.

Eventuelle typografische Korrekturen werden noch vorgenommen.