Black House (animal welfare)

[flossiebear]

We were invited to join our Thai friends to see the Black House. What we saw disturbed me enough to write our views on this house to highlight how humans once again continue to cause distress to animals. The art was 'disturbing' and 'macabre' and the large spreads of animal skins no doubt placed to add to this 'atmosphere'. These animals are now long dead and that is sad. However they have now added two live species to the collection, to continue the theme set by the artist intent on titillating the public. We saw a beautiful python or maybe anaconda kept in a very small cage next to a wonderful wide eyed owl! We saw one tourist teasing the owl, and others making loud noises, the owl was in obvious distress, and kept growling and turning his head to each loud noise. All in all in bad taste.

[toybits]

We don't have anacondas in Asia, so that snake is probably a python. As for the owls being taunted, that is indeed a sad thing for the Black House to allow to happen. Unfortunately, the taunting is probably done by visitors and is not the intention of the Black House to put those birds there to be taunted. You should have alerted the Black House management about what you saw so they could do something about it instead of rant about here on Thai Visa Forum on how this is being "allowed" to happen.

[Fiddlesticks]

Wow! I think toybits was right, that was indeed a rant. When one visits the Black Temple one is certainly struck by the macabre collection of bones and skins which the artist uses in conjunction with dark woods to convey his interpretation of hell. The artist has indicated that all the animal remains that are part of the exhibition come from animals that died from natural causes. I guess the visitor has the prerogative to believe this or not. Having been there several times to photograph this unusual place, I certainly was not "titillated" in any way, nor do I believe this is the artist's intent. I guess I just don't find animal remains titillating.

Now as far as some idiot scaring a poor creature, that surely is immature, unacceptable and, I am sure, not the intention of the artist. I guess my question to the OP is, why did you not bring it to the attention of the 'idiot' or even to the management since they are almost always on-sight? Perhaps this is why the poor bird endures the taunting of an idiot because you complain here rather than where it would do the most good.

[flossiebear]

The point of the blog was to bring it to the attention of forum members regarding distress to animals at this venue not to 'rant' A valid point about informing the management at the time regarding the tormentor. I am still of the opinion that these two animals were caged here, an owl and large snake to add to the macabre atmosphere. This is using animals for the titillation of the public for no other reason I could see. The large numbers of people around the cage and noise were very distressing for the owl. I doubt the management have the resources and time to watch every member of the public.

I am entitled to express an opinion without being accused of 'ranting'. An overused cliche on this forum to anyone who expresses an opinion.

[Fiddlesticks]

This is using animals for the titillation of the public for no other reason I could see.

Flossibear, everyone is entitled to an opinion and to express that opinion, within the realm of good taste, here on TV. I guess the reason I referred to your original posting as a 'rant' was that I could not understand the purpose of the posting except to express an opinion that appeared to be based on emotion and not much fact. You use of language such as 'titillating' seemed (to me) to be pregnant with distaste not only for the caged animals but for the exhibition in its entirety. I for one can not understand why the artist would choose to titillate anyone! For what purpose? To make more money? The exhibit is FREE! It is on private property! Visitors are welcome as guests. They get to spend a few hours amid the work that the artist spent time and money to create. Perhaps, the inclusion of the owl and the snake were to lend substance to the overall artistic intent.

Do you want others to boycott the exhibit? If so, there will be no impact on the artist since the exhibit is free.

Do you want someone else to do what you should have and bring the plight of the animals to the attention of management? OK maybe someone else who feels strongly about this will put action behind their beliefs.

Do you simply want to let others know how sad you felt about the plight of the animals? If so, good for you but why do so by taking potshots at the creator of the exhibit who allowed you to visit his exhibit for free!

All I can think is that this was a pure and simple rant!

Edited April 6, 2014 by Fiddlesticks

[flossiebear]

Fiddlesticks I think you expressed my opinion perfectly in your reply ' Perhaps, the inclusion of the owl and the snake were to lend substance to the overall artistic intent' . This 'intent' was at the expensive of inflicting distress on animals for the sake of human 'art'. The artist's ego has been satisfied. Amen