The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum is under fire for its exhibition ‘Art and China after 1989: Theatre of the World’.

​

  Three works from the exhibit were removed due to claims of “animal cruelty.” Protesters marched outside the museum and a petition for “cruelty-free exhibits” was signed by more than half a million people.

​

The first artwork was called “Dogs that cannot touch each other.” It was a video of 4 dogs trying to fight one another but struggled to touch one another because they were on nonmotorized treadmills.

​

The second artwork was called “Theatre of the World,” it was the signature piece of the show in which hundreds of live insects and reptiles were placed in a clear dome under a heat lamp. The complaint was that some would be eaten and others would die of fatigue.

​

The third artwork was called “A Case study of Transference” which was a video of 2 pigs having sex before an audience. The pigs had writing all over them in English and Chinese which was supposed to make people consider the relationship between the West and China.

​

Guggenheim removed the works “out of concern for the safety of the staff, visitors and participating artists.”

​

I think this case is morally difficult because I’m very much for freedom of speech and expression. I think as long as no one is being harmed, people should be able to express what they want freely. Based off the information I read, the pigs didn’t seem to be harmed in any way. Some people may not like the fact that they were being displayed mating but as long as they weren’t being hurt, and that the paint or substance used on them wasn’t harmful to their skin - it’s ok.

​

With the dogs, the backlash was because of the stigma with “dog fighting” and I agree. But again based off what I read, they didn’t seem to be in any harm. If they were actually fighting that would be different and the morality of the display is questionable but if the dogs were well kept before and after, it’s hard to say the display was ‘cruel’ if no dog was hurt.

​

However the insect and reptile display is a little different. There was clearly room for harm because reptiles eat insects.

​

At first thought I would have agreed that it should have been removed but at second thought - I thought about zoos. I don’t like the concept of zoos but I couldn’t help remember the reptile and insect exhibits and how a lot of them had bugs that were alive crawling around ready to be eaten. It was the animal’s food and that didn’t seem to be a problem to anyone.

​

So it made me wonder if the dome could be justified the same way, whatever gets eaten is at the bottom of the food chain and that’s just how it is. But I think the immoral aspect of it is putting them all together for it to happen, instead of letting nature take its course. Whatever gets eaten in the wild is natural, but humans putting animals enclosed together to see what happens is not. So I think the removal of that particular work, and any work that causes harm, is a good idea.