http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/17/pai....ap/index.html
Painting an elephant as art? :(
Printable View
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/17/pai....ap/index.html
Painting an elephant as art? :(
Well, it does say
" Tai has done many, many movies," owner Kari Johnson said. "She's used to makeup." But what make-up covers one's whole body, and besides, why would elephants need make-up for a movie???
At least the paint was nontoxic, and elephants enjoy baths - but wouldn't having a beautiful just-as-she-is elephant been just as effective? YES!
I just know what "non-toxic" camo paint feels like when I'm covered in it, and don't think the elephant feels much better. Just don't think a painted nuffalump counts as art.
I don't think that's animal abuse. When I took riding lessons, our instructor would paints parts of the horse for our theory classes.
It's an abuse against common sense. A really dumb idea.
I don't think it's abuse... We used to(and still can) paint our horses in 4-h for Contesting Day. It's quite fun and none of the horse mind. Heck we'll even paint ourselves, so we match the horses!
Fun times! I remember doing that for Halloween contests at the stable. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by animal_rescue
I would think paint over some fur (such as on a horse) would feel different than paint directly on the skin. The paint is clogging the skin pores it would seem like, on the elephant, whereas on a horse, the paint is over the hair and not directly on the skin so much... I could be wrong though. I don't know much about the elephant's situation, but my first inclination is that I don't care for it.
Technically, I don't think this is abuse. But I'm sure the elephant doesn't favor this...
Gah, what a pointless thing to do :rolleyes: Paint is for paper, not elephants.
My argument against this is simple. Wouldn't the artistic statement have been served just as well by a fiberglass elephant instead of a live animal?
I know what it feels like to have most of the pores on my body (Arms, legs and face) clogged with camo paint. I can't see the elephant feeling much better.
Good grief, I just saw this on the CNN site - and my first reaction was WHY, WHY, WHY, do you need to paint an elephant.
Completely unnecessary and outrageous.
An elephant as art? AN ELEPHANT 'IS' ART - IN ITS NATURAL STATE - YOU IDIOT!!
Sorry for the rant, but these kind of things really get me going............in the wrong direction.
Wow, thats stupid.
Does anyone watch "Myth Busters"? They did a show based on the girl from the James Bond movie "Goldfinger" where the girl died from being painted gold. They painted the one Mythbuster with gold latex paint. He had some serious physical reactions, mainly alarmingly high bloodpressure. His body reacted badly to not being able to breathe. Wouldn't an elephant's body also do the same?
They used "body paint" which, like make-up, does allow the skin to "breathe" more than a latex paint would, but I don't even tolerate make-up, and cannot image te elephant was very comfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by catnapper
Exactly! poor thing looked really fed upQuote:
AN ELEPHANT 'IS' ART - IN ITS NATURAL STATE - YOU IDIOT!!
I think its ok to paint a few small hearts or somthing on animals but there entire body... now that is not needed this elephant would look much better with its natural skin colour.
This was not Abuse tho....
Body paint or not...it serves no purpose but to entertain humans, which is ridiculous. I know I don't like having my skin painted, and like LH, I don't think the elephant was very pleased.
People have to understand that animals are not on this earth to entertain humans and satisfy their every whim... :mad:
Apparently, this Artist took his creativity to a new level!!! Too bad he doesn't know how to actually create ART!!!
( Hey, why not paint a live elephant?) :rolleyes:
While it may not be "abuse", it certainly reveals that this artist(for lack of a better definition) must have been educated beyond his intelligence!!!!
He was lucky that he chose the "Asian elephant."
An African Bull or cow "might " have reacted differently!!!! :eek:
;)
I thought I was going to save my liver.... :eek:
This is not even CLOSE to animal abuse. Work at a shelter for a while, and you will see REAL abuse.
We will never know if it bothered the elephant a little bit or not. But it most certainly not abuse.
I have heard the same thing about poodles dyed pink ... "Poor dog! That's abuse!" No, it's not even close. Dogs love their new hair styles, actually, because of ALL the attention it brings them. As a groomer, I've seen it time and time again.
There's a difference between dying an animal's fur and applying paint directly to the animal's skin. Dying fur is no different than dying your hair.
True. But painting an animal's skin is no different than applying makeup for Halloween (last year my son was completely green!), for a play or movie, a paintball competition, any number of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
I wasn't implying painting skin and dying hair are exactly the same thing, I was just giving another example of something that people scream "Abuse!" about, which is NOT abuse.
I'm not saying it's something I would do, or that it's wonderful. But it's NOT abuse. I have personally seen, and we have all heard about, horrible cases of animal torture and abuse, things that I can't even type here without feeling physically ill.
I tend to think, just MHO, that people who are interested in the animal rights/protection fields need to pick their battles. I think the general public hears animal rights groups shouting "Abuse!" about a painted elephant, and roll their eyes and think, "Sheesh, that's a bit of overkill. That's not really abuse." Then when the animal rights groups shout "Abuse!" about something that truly IS abuse, the public is over-exposed and cynical about it, and assumes that whatever is going on isn't really so bad, again. It's the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome.
I think PETA is a perfect example of this. They "Cry Wolf" over every little perceived violation of an animal's rights, even something as simple as a horse being ridden. The public, for the most part, has discounted and written them off as the "The Sky is Falling" extremist animal rights group. Therefore the good things they do in exposing TRUE abuse gets lost.
Not saying I'd go paint an elephant. But I think there are far, far bigger more serious and exteme cases of animal abuse that need everyone's attention far more than this.
I've been covered in non-toxic body paint for a number of hours, not a fun experience. Ask the army how many soldiers are in dermatology clinics for precisely that reason on a daily basis. There were MANY other options the "artist" could have used to get the same effect, among them being using a fiberglass elephant, or leaving the elephant in it's natural state. When it's just being done to make a statement, there's no reason for it.
Exactly...Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
wonder how much money goes into that.
when the money could go for helping people out..
instead of spending it on a bunch of stupid paint. :rolleyes:
Hardly animal abuse. it may be stupid but it is not abuse. I mean people dress up their dogs in CLOTHES for crying out loud. I doubt it feels really good to have an extra layer on and it probably messes with their hair but no one screams abuse about that. Sitting pretty is probably uncomfortable for Teddy but he still does it if I ask. Is that abuse? NO.
I think people are being a little sensitive about paint on an elephant. he may not be jumping for joy but how do you know the paint feels the same to him as it does on your skin. maybe it feels like a mudbath. You don't know, you are just assuming.
Like I said painting an elephant for art is stupid but not abuse.
Vette, that's a wonderful thought. putting the money towards something good instead of buying paint BUT painting is what gives him the money to buy the paint in the first place. if he doesn't paint he doesn't make money.
One, the artist had to rent an elephant. Not cheap. Two, he had to get the paint. Assuming it's body paint, again, not cheap. It was a piece of "performance art". the painting wasn't sold, he essentially rented out his time.
Again, a fiberglass mockup would have been just as effective.
Lizbud,
Check out this book on painting cats. I got it as a gift and it's a hoot. Totally harmless as they use food coloring. Some of the cats are gorgeous!!!Quote:
It's an abuse against common sense. A really dumb idea.
http://www.whypaintcats.com/
THIS is my favorite. Too bad they didn't paint Bush's face there instead. How apropeau (sp?) would THAT be??
http://www.whypaintcats.com/Chaplin.jpg
I agree. I may not like it or think it's art either but abuse??Quote:
Originally Posted by sparks19
People "paint" dogs and cats and horses, I see no one screaming abuse about that. Some of them can be quite gorgeous, as per the link posted above
:) hi how r u and stuff im keekee and i would like to see if u would add me to your buddy list that would be grawet ok see love kee
Once again, the difference between painting or dying the fur on a dog, cat or a horse and what they did to the elephant is that on the elephant the paint was applied directly to the animal's skin, as opposed to painting or dying the fur.
I would consider it abuse it if were a substance that did not allow the skin to breate or restricted movement at all or even caused pain, harm or discomfort, but from my understanding, that was not the case?
Yes. Everyone is assuming the elephant is extremely uncomfortable.
how do you know? Just because paint may not be comfortable for people (yet people do it all the time) how do you know it doesn't feel good to the elephant. It could feel like a mud bath. You don't know. You are just assuming the worst.
Hardly abuse.
Whipping it, hitting it, kicking it, pinching it, not feeding it. THESE are examples of abuse. painting an elephant for a couple of hours is not.
I doubt that the elephant was screaming in pain from be painted..And they do have hairs on them.. being non toxic paint that lets the skin breath it is not a problem. You are your own person and maybe to you it bothers you. To some people the feeling of a cotton t shirt bothers them dosent mean that it bothers everyone or every animal in that case.So you dont know if it bothers the elephant or not. And to make a painting like that and have to lines so straight that obviously shows the elephant wasnt putting up a fight.
I dont think its animal abuse though..
IMO, i dont think this is animal abuse.We have no idea of knowing if the elephant is uncomfortable, or doesnt mind it at all. Its not like they used spray paint or regular house paint.
I think there are worse things to worry about with animal abuse. Torture, neglect,starvation, beaten, etc. Just my opinion.