Many moons ago when I was an art student in Switzerland, we would often go to the Natural History Museum in la Chaux-de-Fonds to sketch some of the animals. Coming from a school in the UK where trips would invariably end up in the Natural History Museum in London, this Swiss equivalent was somewhat underwhelming.
More a collection of flea-bitten dead animals than a museum, these trips were enough to turn me off taxidermy for good. However, some part of my subconscious was obviously paying attention because now I find myself very intrigued by these taxidermy diaporamas.
Definitely morbid and without doubt very bizarre, what's your take on these pieces of dead art? For me, I love the look and composition of these pieces, but does using actual dead animals really bring something extra to the table?
Walter PotterLes Deux Garçons Amanda's Autopsies
They are all -except the standup dead doggy!!- replaceable by anything/anybody else, so somewhat funny to look at but not art
ReplyDelete@Jetty Bindels
ReplyDeleteExactly! It's funny and a bit strange, but using real animals is just for the 'shock' value I think. No real artistic reason at all.