Suffering And Art

Art that makes you think has undeniable value even if provocation of thought comes through controversy as is often the case. Fusing bullets with crystal to create jewelry is unconventional but falls short of being labeled unethical like bio art. Both are about "social reflection, conveying political and societal criticism". The defining line that separates one from the other is the use of living cell and tissue as material to create works of art.

When PETA says "We're all in support of creativity but we're opposed to all suffering." they are in denial of the fact that most if not all art is derived from suffering. From the child labor involved in bangle making in Varanasi , to the Afghan refuges in Pakistan toiling in inhumane conditions to create Persian rugs to the Dali and Picasso wannabes starving to feed their passion, the theme of sadness permeates all art. Even the story of Thomas Kinkade and his uber happy paintings of light has a darker side.

Sure, PETA can argue "Transgenic manipulation of animals is just a continuum of using animals for human end," regardless of whether it is done to make some sort of sociopolitical critique" but the goal of disjoining artistic creativity from suffering eeen if laudable, is largely unrealistic and to that extent unrealizable.