Critical Reflections Unit 1

In the first unit, I want to study the difference between humans and animals. I explored the relationship between animals, movement and landscape, and the body and physical behavior by investigating many artists who study people and animals. I find that the feeling of people imitating the shape of animals or animals imitating the appearance of people seems to conquer me. There is no big difference between people and animals in this act of imitation, which is almost the same, but they can show a lot of emotions and differences from their actions. So my research is more about painting the mutual imitation of human and animal movements; About how props and landscapes are shaped by our own thoughts and feelings, not just what we see in front of us. Through this, I think about the relationship between animals and people. I will discuss these themes throughout the article by reflecting on the relationship between humans and animals.

 

Historically, animals have played a vital role in human society. They are not only used for practical purposes such as labor or food, but also have symbolic and cultural significance. However, with the rise of industrialization and the separation of humans from nature, animals became more remote and commoditized. Modern society has largely reduced animals to objects of spectacle or consumption, rather than creatures with lives of their own. As John Berger writes, "Why Look at Animals?" Observing animals implies a position of power because humans have the ability to examine, classify, and objectify animals. He believes that observing animal behavior is often motivated by a desire to control and dominate, rather than understanding and empathizing with them(John Berger, 1980). This power dynamic is evident in a variety of human practices, such as zoos, circuses, and trophy hunting, where animals are objectified and exploited for human entertainment. We should acknowledge their intrinsic value and consider their experiences and suffering in our interactions with them.

 

But in the process of research, we have to admit that one problem is that even if humans can imitate animals, their brains are not connected to the animal from birth, so they can only experience the life and behavior of the animal, not the mentality. As Nagel explores the subject of consciousness and subjective experience in non-human animals in what is it like to be a bat? He believes that although we can study the physical and behavioral aspects of animals, we cannot fully understand what they are like. Nagel uses bats as an example because their sonar-based perception of the world is fundamentally different from our own sensory experience. According to Nagel, consciousness is subjective and cannot be reduced to a purely physical process. He believes that any conscious experience has a unique "what it's like" aspect that is unique to the individual experiencing it (Thomas Nagel, 1974). Since we can't objectively know what it's like to perceive the world as bats do, Nagel thinks our understanding of the consciousness of other animals will always be limited. Nagel's article raises important questions about the limits of our knowledge and conscious understanding, and highlights the challenges of empathizing with creatures whose experiences are fundamentally different.

 

I also further study the results of human-animal hybridization, human beings will always resist the appearance of such monsters, because the problem of hybridization is that they disturb the moral compass of human beings, human beings will forget that they are animals, and think that animals are inferior, and the appearance of this hybridization will remind us that human beings are animals, and animals are just like us. This is the power of mixed creatures. When we gaze into its human eyes, we see ourselves looking back from the animal body we deny ourselves. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is mentioned in The exhibition My Monster: The Human Animal Hybrid. Shelley’s seminal monster novel explores life and death and reanimating flesh. It is also the story of a hybrid outcast,  for Frankenstein’s creature was made as a new species,  from a combination of both human and animal parts. Mythology and fiction have long entertained the fantasy of the animal  and human fused into one being,  and the metaphorical hybrid is embedded in mythology and folklore (Mary Shelley, 1994). The hybrids that appear in art can be whimsical,  alluring, and confrontational. While hybrids shock and jolt with their appearance,  they also offer an unsettling recognition of the disquieting unease we all feel about our place in the world. Hybrids  are the ultimate metaphor for the outsider(Mary Shelley, 1994). Their very existence is a political act, an affront. Like monsters of old,  they are harbingers of a future we may not like,  but are intent on creating through each twist and tweak of our species through biotechnology. Our fear of hybrids stems  from the historic view that such creatures are unnatural and monstrous and should not exist,  and this revulsion extended to Frankenstein’s ‘hideous creature’ manufactured by science.

 

Finally, through a preliminary study of the relationship between humans and animals, I decided to complete my work through a hybrid species of painting form, but not necessarily in a hybrid way. I have researched the illustrations of Japanese artist satoshikawasaki, trying to change the bones of humans or animals to make animals behave like humans or animals. Through hybridization, I remind humans that they are also a kind of animals, and animals, like us, try to pull them back from the marginalization. Through the perception and feeling of the hybrid, the design imagined the chair behavior to be used by the hybrid, and tried to elaborate the relationship between human and animal through this absurd scene and behavior. I'm trying to address a sense of boundaries between humans and animals and a desire to be close, to feel connected and oneness, but also a sense of trying to get away from each other. Laura Ford's sculptures faithfully express the quality of fantasy, sometimes mixed with bitterness, sweetness and menace. Her keen observation of the human condition and her clever combination with animals gave her a deanimalistic feel, but I wanted to increase this animalness, so I adopted more animalistic movements.

 

In short, the first unit is my preliminary research on the relationship between humans and animals. I try to study the relationship between humans and animals from the two aspects of animal marginalization and hybrid animals, and strongly depict this relationship through painting.

​

​

​Bibliography

Berger, J. (1977). Why Look at Animals. In About Looking (pp. 3-28). Vintage.

Nagel, T. (1974). What Is It Like to Be a Bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450.

Shelley, M. (1818). Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor, & Jones.