While I enjoy your blog, I was taken aback at your support for
a raw chicken hanging senselessly from a wire. 'Fantastic...?' Not so much for the chicken. We should have more respect for
other beings.
Mindy Marin
Los Angeles, CA.
Actually, I don't think the chicken minds. It's kind of already dead... I think the chicken stopped being a "being" when it died. Now it's food.
Great work by photo and by interior... and very interesting blog!
Ella from Milan (Italy)
Love the blogg! <3
I agree with Mindy! I don't get it...what's so great about a dead animal hanging? I think it's poor taste.
The greatness lies in the unexpected.
Would you have been equally upset if it was a tray of minced meat? If not, what is the difference? Both are just food.
love the first picture.
raw material vs soft material
camilla
I really enjoyed this post. The concept of the photos are funny but creatively done. Thumbs up to the photographer and creator of the concept.
I really like the idea..until I read this is a raw chicken I was thinking it is a toy one.)
världens bästa inspiration! tack emma!
Det var skikkelig kult !
Wow! I love this post! what a wonderful colours!
I don't know if I can agree that it is just food. The chicken is there to create attention and it sure does but we need to be aware of why we are doing things and how. I think the chicken is not needed in the otherwise beautiful picture. But at the same time it raises our attention and we get to think about our point of view. I think we should always pay respect to all living creatures, even after they are dead. So if you eat meat you should always cook it the best way you can and choose the meat that you know is coming from an animal that was living a good life.
Disgusting, and not very cool
AWESOME shoot this! love it love it love it!
This is quite something!
Can some of you that don't like it tell me what is so horrible about a raw chicken in a beautiful setting? Why is it disgusting? Would it be equally disgusting if it was some other kind of meat, for example a sausage?
Tina, I don't see what is so disrespectful about this picture. The body of the dead chicken gets to hang in beautiful surroundings, and as it seems, it raises questions and opinions. Wouldn't it actually be more disrespectful to eat it, when you think about it? If it was a human, I think most would agree that it would be better to put the body in a beautiful room instead of eating it?
Hi, wonderful but strange pictures =) Hava great one!!
I did not expect the chicken - that was a different touch to say the least! Love the two last pics! :-)
I get the art on this, but wouldn't do it myself!
Respect any form of expression guys!
Like I said it is a beautiful picture and I did not say that the picture in itself was disrespectful. I also said it was a way to raise our attention like you also think it is. It would be interesting to hear what the guys that made the picture has to say:-). It is also interesting that an interior blog is inspiring to a moral and philosophical discussion.
And I think that in a raw chicken you actually see the animal and if you compare with a sausage you don't, that is why it raises attention and emotions.
Which probably was the idea.
With all due respect, British shock-artist Damien Hurst has already done this, exhibiting a a wide array of animals from sharks to sheep in formaldahyde.
Shock for shock value alone adds nothing to the uplifting of humankind.
Metaphor is necessary for art to to resonate within our souls.
A dead chicken is just a dead chicken.
haha, fint, sjukt fint :)
AL xx
Vakkert!
Personally I think it does not add anything to the picture..It kinda annoyed me that the colors I so love seem to be associated with dead! (if that is the idea behind it) I also think it is not 'nice' to play with dead animals not even for the sake of art .. but then I am a vegetarian ;)
i really like the pics you post, good scandi inspiration:)
/silje
http://siljeohlala.blogspot.com
Otroligt vackert!
I really doubt that someone took the chicken home and ate it after the shoot, so I wouldn't call it "food". To me using a chicken's body as decoration is as distasteful as wearing a fur coat.
120 million chicken slaughtered in Denmark annually. One of them became "art" in this amazing picture.
Å, jag är sugen på grått!
These pictures are beautiful! I love the subtle, stylish shades of grey and the contrast of the black & white adding a more dramatic edge. Lovely urban, industrial feel. Not sure about all the chicken comments...seem to be missing the point a little..
Having been a photo stylist, I have to say that I think the plucked chicken is a bit of a cheap trick. It's obviously there for shock value and to get attention (which it has done admirably) but it's totally overshadowed the product. You also have to wonder about the mindset of these two. There they are setting up a shot and they step back to have a look. "Hmm", one says to the other, "it's a bit bland." "I see what you mean", says the other, "but what can we do?" "Well, I do have this chicken that I was going to use on another job. Why don't we just hang it in the middle of the shot and pretend we're really edgy." "Awesome!", says the first one.
Katy: I haven't seen anything like this from Hirst. Can you show me? I know he used dead animals in his art, but not at all like this.
Mel: Of course noone ate the chicken afterwards, they would get sick after eating food that's been left in room temperature for hours. But this is the same for any photo including food pieces. Noone eats the ingredients used in food shots, but it's still food!
Hi Emma,
Re your statement that Hirst didn't use animals in in the way that that the chicken was used in the style shoot.
I provided the example of shock-artist Hirst's use of dead animals, to convey the idea that the "other" has been used both in the arts, and communication to unsettle. He is far from alone in this practice.
I would suspect that if Hirst were a stylist he would juxtapose the "other", the dead animal against objects to disquiet the viewer.
It has been said that in art there are no virgin births. Artists, and I would define a stylist as an artist, requote the art that went before.
In the Pronk painting of the Dutch Renaissance artists painted the spoils of the hunt. Deer,hares, pheasants et al were arranged to create visually rich tableaus which signified the wealth and power of a privileged elite: the land owning patrons who had the sole right to hunt on their land.
I would suspect that if Hirst were a stylist he would juxtapose the "other", the dead animal against objects to disquiet the viewer.
Our humanity is compromised when sentient beings are sacrificed to convey shock and power.
Thankyou for your inspiring blog, Katy
ps:
The following post succinctly critiques Hirst's work without artspeak. Please scroll down past the ads:
http://www.bizarrebytes.com/damien-hirst-bizarre-art-commercial-vanity-or-genius/
See also, Pronk Painting:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/nstl/hd_nstl.htm#slideshow1
varför ha en kyckling hängandes?
Learn more about Emmas Designblogg, Scandinavia's oldest and most read design blog
URL: http://bluewaterranch.com