Speciesism sells for a reason. Just an / any example:

Joanna Newsom – kinda speciesist … ppl feel SO natural with dead nonhuman animals around them http://bit.ly/an78qx http://bit.ly/c8OAPr + http://bit.ly/bWbhAh The aesthetics of a living human showing herself with dead nonhuman animal life. Speciesism sells for a reason …

What is that reason? Speciesism seems to give people a feeling of the or a human ‘principle of power’ to be superior over a principle of a animal vulnerability. If we take a closer look at what makes nonhuman animals more vulnerable, we can see that their ways of living reveals major aspects of where our own drawbacks lie.

All life is diverse. We all live either varying or fundamentally different forms of live. Sociology has put a veil over the fact how much human societies are fundamentally diverse in themselves. Nonhuman animals take and live an own position in how they are, and thus in how they are being different to us (THE OTHER). They have their own form of diversity amongst their own animal cultures.

Both humans and nonhuman animals relate their lives to their environmental contexts. And all life shapes the world.

If I, as a human, put a nature around me – aesthetically – that consists of dead animals, then I, as a human, am the only active part in this world. The animal might be “dead and beautiful”. Still I am the only active part in this world … . I consider this “aesthetical” stance to be dangerous, because it ignores the politicalness of animal existence as an active agent that is conjoined with the rest of nature.

The view that animals and nature are passive “non-agents”, is a view that has been long time established, by the rulers and intellectual elites, by most major and minor religions and cults, by the natural sciences, and by human civilizations, societies, tribes, groups and individuals.

Human might nevertheless has been established on a wrong basis.

P.S. I forgot, I think it’s my right to criticize a star (or basically anybody who is praised and “redeemed” in society) on the basis of putting somebody into question instead of accepting their ideas / arts / opinions whatever. If you find such an attitude disagreeable, and you if you think everybody has to follow the mainstream, then it is basically your concept of might that conflicts with my concept of right.

Long time no speiciesism I’ve been writing about … and no, of course there isn’t any lesser speciesism in arts than as badly as we had it before too. An awkward incident took me to land at the daily poisonous dose of speciesism in art recently …

I was googling the net for the “For Example Mithras – Part Two” exhibition by Farangis Yegane which the Museum Schloss Fechenbach currently hosts, when I found an article that – and this just besides – showed a false image of a lady who was wrongly introduced on the picture as the artists Farangis Yegane: This: http://bit.ly/d6L2CE is not Farangis Yegane! We uploaded some photos of Farangis now to make any possibly remaining error clear … because, (yippee yeah) by now that newspaper has corrected the erroneous annotation of their photo, after our request to do so (they made the correction on the 15th of March.) Anyway, I had looked up the author of that article with the wrong person shown in our exhibition as “the artist”, and this is where speciesism threw itself into my face – at the second glimpse though. So, hence this post:

The author of the article generally writes about her local arts scene in Darmstadt it seems, and links her favorite artists on her site. There are two of the artists she links as recommendations, so to say, who really match the misfortunate image of the typical artist-speciesist. Let’s get to see what I’m talking about: … here http://bit.ly/coDy6A on the site of the speciesist-friendly journalist Anja Trieschmann the visitor is introduced to:

A. http://auslender.blogspot.com http://bit.ly/d3913M the displayal of the “aesthetics” of the forced death of an animal as arts,

and

B. http://www.monikagolla.de http://bit.ly/d32yYG sexual organs and intimate body parts of nonhuman animals being displayed , and http://bit.ly/bxEYd7 somewhere else the human body is is being bereft of its dignity and its dignity of intimacy, via a negative for of “generalization” evoked by an exhibitionist type of a “behavioral act” by her “models” who display their rectal ends (?) for the camera; both artist and the model are into some “break-a-taboo” arts with those “arts objects” it seems. Then, more speciesism again, http://bit.ly/95snvM images of meat / sausage as arts. Not really any more spectacular than what we usually encounter, but any such spectacle that seeks attention with the degradation of life (especially by intentionally showing the degradation of life and it’s dignity) is what it is: a prolongment of the destruction caused by speciesism, by homocentrism and by a form of arts that feeds the markedly destructive mainstream-machinery.

Destructivism often tends to have a self-accumulating effect, where people create their own epistemplogical apories. Speciesism and homocentrism in arts only have one main factor where I as an Animal Rights person strike the alarm: Speciesism and homocentrism in arts infringe with the Rights of Animals.