viz. - animal rights

Creaturely Rhetoric in Early Nature Films

Matthew Reilly — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 02:00:10 +0000

Video Credit: youtube.com

Percy Smith’s The Acrobatic Fly (1910) offers a time capsule into a genre of nature documentary that may seem unfamiliar to many of us today. In contemporary media, bugs are often mobilized for their visceral shock value. In the early-twentieth century, Smith’s singular flies compelled sentimental and conceptual interest. Upon the initial release of his film, The Strength and Agility of Insects (1911), audiences were repelled by its seeming cruelty toward the blue bottle fly. Thankfully, Smith only secured his protagonist with a thread of silk, and no animals were harmed in the making of his film. Audiences were also struck by the uncanny anthropomorphism of Smith’s portrayal of insects’ performances with wood-chips, lint-balls, and dumbbells. His anthropomorphic irony is even more striking in his Romance in a Pond (1932), a nature film tracing the aristocratic courtships and unhappy marriages of “gentlemen newts.” What is so interesting about Smith’s creatures is that they conform to an older natural history in which curious and exemplary specimens played a role in social thought.

Video Credit: youtube.com

Image Credit: charlesurban.com

Smith’s insect represented a natural capacity for labor and an innate mode of creativity. On one hand, satirical prints from the era adopted his insect as an embodied metaphor for conservative politicians. On the other, Jussi Parikka has suggested links between Smith’s insects and post-Gilded Age discourses that run “parallel to the logic of inventive capitalism and the production of novelty” (31). Parikka argues that the optimized productive labor of insect communities offered an emblem, which fused concepts of intelligent and corporate design. As Giorgio Agamben has suggested in his theoretical reading of Jakob von Uexküll’s “Tick,” scientific reflection on insects during this era generated some of newest paradigms post-humanist and inter-species philosophy.

Video Credit: youtube.com

Smith’s films were part of a larger visual and intellectual culture in the early twentieth-century entomology, which stands out for its incorporation of insect and human worlds. Some of these films explicitly foreground the social and cultural contexts of the insect. For instance, Wladyslaw Starewicz’s The Insect’s Christmas (1913) begins when an ornamental “Father Christmas” falls off of a tree, eludes a sleeping porcelain doll, and escapes into the forest, where he invites the critters to a celebration and introduces a tree. As Christmas visits bugs and frogs, they perform acrobatic tricks in stop-motion time, and engage in quaintly surreal feats of skiing and ice-skating. After his nighttime adventure into the forest, Father Christmas returns home, sneaks past his owner, and reassumes his place on the Christmas tree. As much as this film might suggest pastoral irony or social critique, I am most struck by Starewicz’s sympathetic portrayal of insect forms.

Image Credit: roberthooke.org.uk

From Robert Hooke’s Micrographia (1665) to Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis (1915), scientists and writers have introduced insects into their speculation on human existence. Conversely, there has been a dearth of interest in the actual preservation of such creatures. Our society has come little closer to appreciating (if not sympathizing) with the existence and importance of insect life. Over the past summer, Channel 4 (UK) ran a fascinating exposé, entitled “Conservation’s Dirty Secrets.” The documentary focused on the tendency for corporate conservation firms to promote large, fluffy, marketable animals, when less aesthetically-pleasing ones offer greater potential for scientific and sustainability benefits. Not only does the documentary critique the visual rhetoric of sentimental and fluffy creatures, but it also investigates the impact of such policies on the human populations who live alongside the animals. The film shifts emphasis away from the large animals themselves, and toward their participation in human ecologies of neoliberal ecological imperialism. While the slogan, “Corporations are people, my friend,” finds few sympathizers, many are susceptible to corporations who employ the sentimental appeal of large animals. “Conservation’s Dirty Secrets” concludes by investigating new models of sustainable conservation, but it does not explore persuasive strategies for attracting interest and sympathy for beings remote from our own existence.

Video Credit: youtube.com

Image Credit: ingenious.org.uk

On BBC Radio 4, one can find a thirty-minute vignette on Percy Smith’s career. The part of this broadcast that I find most compelling is the legend concerning the disappearance of his house. While filming his “Secrets of Nature” series, the newts, moss, mold, and insects proliferated throughout a series of rooms equipped with stop-motion cameras and elaborate set designs. After Smith’s death, the curious creatures are said to have overtaken the house of this innovator of the natural history documentary. While Smith’s unique insect films crossed into spheres of human life and society, they also attracted surprising attention to classes of creatures difficult to promote in persuasive rhetoric.

Video Credit: youtube.com

Works Cited

Jussi Parikka, Insect Media: An Archeology of Animals and Technology (Minneapolis, MN: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 2010).

Giorgio Agamben, The Open: Man and Animal, Trans. Kevin Attell (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 2004).

Meat is Couture? - Lady Gaga's Meaty Message

Cate Blouke — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:38:12 +0000

Image Credit: Lady Gaga at the VMAs, Designer Franc Fernandez

I realize that I may be a bit behind the times to be addressing (ha!) Lady Gaga's fashion stunt of last fall, but meat's been on my mind this week as I'm about to embark on 30 days of eating vegetarian - largely as a result of the text we're teaching in our introductory rhetoric classes here at UT: Colin Beavan's No Impact Man. But that's another story. Gaga's appearance at the Mtv Video Music Awards sparked controversy that dissipated rather quickly, and though this may have been due to the singer's own inability to adequately (or logically) explain the reasons behind her wardrobe choice, the images left behind offer a really interesting opportunity for varying and disparate interpretations.

While I was surprised (and a bit disappointed) to discover that Jezebel didn't have much to say about the dress, my immediate reaction was to think of the outfit as a commentary on female objectification. The dress literalizes an all too familiar trope - that women are just pieces of meat - and the contrast between the female body and the hunks of beef strewn about it seemingly negates the metaphor by calling attention to it. Yet considering Gaga's videos and her ethos in general, it could also easily be argued that the outfit does just the opposite (reenforcing the trope/idea/attitude instead of negating it), especially considering the precursor to the dress - her appearance on the cover of the Japanese Men's Vogue in a meat bikini. They say we are what we eat, perhaps we are what we wear, too?

Image Credit: Vogue Hommes Japan

Now, while Gaga argued that she meant no disrespect to vegetarians, that didn't prevent a backlash from animal right's activists and environmental groups. PETA was predictably outraged by her VMA outfit, though their response was surprisingly brief. Ecouterre.com, a website devoted to sustainable fashion, instead used the dress as a conversation point, exploring the environmental impact of designer Franc Fernandez's 50 lb. creation. I'm sure both organizations would disagree with me, and perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I can see how one might argue that the dress is in fact an argument for vegetarianism and animal rights.

Image Credit: Designer Franc Fernandez

For one thing, looking closely at the dress certainly doesn't make me want to run out and eat a steak. But it also opens up space for an argument through analogy - how is wearing leather any different from wearing pieces of beef? Vegetarians are often critical of those who abstain from meat but still wear animal products, and the dress seems to call attention to this complaint. It also calls into question what constitutes acceptable use - if we can eat it, why can't/shouldn't/don't we wear it? And vice versa? Would the fur trade somehow be more palatable if we ate all the animals we wore?

Gaga's dress wasn't the most appetizing wardrobe choice, but it certainly got some attention. Everyone should be please to note, however, that the dress won't be going to waist - according to People Magazine, the dress is slowly turning into beef jerky that will be preserved for posterity (not eaten).

(Apologies for the rampant puns in this post, but I simply couldn't resist).

Documenting a Dog Fight

Andi — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:27:21 +0000

Screen shot of narrated slide show, Shelter for the Scarred

featured on Washington Post website

Photographer: Carol Guzy

This past week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments considering the constitutionality of U.S. v. Stevens, a case that makes it a federal crime to make and sell visual images of animal cruelty. Although originally created by Congress to curb the market for "crush videos"--images of people in high heel shoes stomping on small animals for the purposes of titillating the viewer--the statute contains language so vague that it led the justices to propose a slew of bizarre hypotheticals ranging from the artistic value of images of force-feeding fowl for foie gras to the possibility of a pay-per-view human sacrifice channel. Now I have to admit that I am slightly shaky on all of the legal issues at stake here, but this transcript of the oral arguments certainly made for some interesting reading. Moreover, and not surprisingly, many of the questions raised within the oral arguments align with issues we often consider with respect to documentary studies and visual culture.

At several points within the discussion the justices probed the question of whether the presence of the camera, or the act of taking the picture encouraged the violent action documented. Or conversely, they considered whether classifying images of animal cruelty as unprotected free speech might dry up the market for the images and thus reduce the instances of violent conduct. Justice Scalia pressed Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katal to distinguish between the attempt to limit the activity (dog-fighting or crushing small animals) from the attempt to prevent communication about those acts (images of dog-fighting or images of small animals being crushed). Katal linked his argument to an earlier decision in New York v. Ferber in which the Supreme Court ruled that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. Justice Ginsburg suggested that Mr. Stevens was only filming the dog-fighting and that the fighting would occur whether or not he was present whereas the "simultaneous abuse of the child, it occurs only because the picture is being taken." She went on to urge Mr. Katal to confront that "the very taking of the picture is the offense. That is the abuse of the child" (Transcript, 25). This line of argument prompted several key questions about whether the images of animal cruelty were staged solely for the camera--a set of questions that is often posed about the ethical obligations of photo-journalists and documentary filmmakers.

For me, one of the most intriguing moments in the oral arguments, however, occurred when Justice Scalia chastised Lawyer Patricia Millet for engaging with the language of the statute that provides for exception in the case of educational, artistic, journalistic, or scientific depictions. Justice Scalia notes, "I really think you should focus not on the educational value for -- to make people hate bullfighting and things, but on quite the opposite, it seems to me. On the right under the First Amendment of people who like bullfighting , who like dog-fighting, who like cock-fighting, to present their side of -- of the debate" (Transcript, 45). One of the key components here is the multivalent nature of images of, say, dog-fighting. These images--as Ms. Millet pointed out--can be used by documentary filmmakers or by PETA activists as in the images above to argue against dog-fighting but--as Justice Scalia indicates--may also be used by advocates for the activity. In fact, because of the slippery nature of the caption, the very same images can be used to argue any number of interpretations. And they were in this instance--Mr. Stevens argued his images were historical and had value as documentary. The jury saw otherwise.

While the vague wording of the statute will probably lead to its being overturned, it also led to some fascinating moments in which the justices tested the legal limits of the language. In addition to the gripping discussion about whether the depiction of modern men and women dressed as gladiators fighting to the death would hold historical value, the court also considered the distinction between images of dog-fighting and staged images of dog-fighting. After mulling over these debates about the reality of the referent, the justices considered whether there was a difference, more generally, between images of violence and images of simulated acts of violence. This discussion continued until the question was raised whether images of violence lead to an increase in the number of incidents of violence within a community. And this point brought the court back to the consideration of whether regulating the image will restrict the act depicted and whether restricting the act depicted justifies restricting free speech.

There is more to be had within the transcript for scholars of visual studies and we'll hear more from the justices when their decision is released in a few weeks.

Shirts deemed in bad taste because of "Animal rights, stuff like that"

Jillian Sayre — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:21:31 +0000

Earlier this month, a Texas Tech fraternity found themselves victims of their school's solicitation section of the code of conduct. One of the students in the fraternity was selling t-shirts to raise school spirits for the A&M game. The shirts echoed the (strange) A&M motto "Gig 'Em!" with the more timely "Vick 'Em!" The back of the shirt had a football player wearing the number 7 (Vick's number) hanging the Aggie mascot Reveille by a rope:
Texas Tech halted the sale of the t-shirts; citing the code of conduct, the school said it doesn't allow the sale of material that is "derogatory, inflammatory, insensitive, or in such bad taste." The student in question argued that he planned to donate part of the profits a local animal defense league because of "Animal Rights, stuff like that." I guess when it comes to obscenity, like Justice Stewart, those administers "know it when they see it."

This reminds me of the Aggie's "Saw 'Em Off" campaign, ended by a UT lawsuit alleging copyright infringement and solved by the following alteration:

and then there's UT's reprisal:

I think the "Vick 'Em" case is an interesting move in the string of violence against mascots because the case is the first one that deemed truly offensive. Fed by this cartoon violence, this shirt crossed the line in referencing the very real abuse documented in the Vick case. The threat indicated in the other shirts reference real animals (Bevo and Reveille) but somehow the mascots themselves remain at the level of representation. It is the Vick in Vick Em that has everybody in an uproar.