Idea Essay #1 Bug Art

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081700603.html

Steven R. Kutcher uses insects such as flies, cockroaches, and beetles to create his pieces of art. He takes the insects into his hands, dips their feet into paint, and forces them to walk around on his canvases. By doing this, he creates something that Kutcher believes is art. Should this be considered Kutcher’s artwork, or the insects?

The linked article describes artist Steven R. Kutcher and how he has worked as an insect wrangler for Hollywood films such as “Arachnophobia” and “Spiderman”. The article also labels him as an environmentalist and explains how he influences the bugs to move the ways he wants them too.

He dips the insects into water-based, nontoxic paints that can easily be washed off, and lets them loose onto a prepared canvas. According to the article Kutcher says he takes good care of his little “artists”. He influences where the bugs move by using instruments such as hair dryers, electrical tape, wires, chemical repellents and other form of lights. Some people would argue that these forms of influences are cruel and unnecessary, but Kutcher clearly defends that he takes care of the insects. Therefore, the problem does not lie in whether he is committing animal abuse, but whether this is really his art?

Because Kutcher is not the one actually putting the paint on the canvas, I do not believe that this is his art. However, he argues in the article that he “does inject some human creativity into the works by applying external stimuli to influence his living brushes”. I disagree that his explanation is justified because he cannot fully control every step of an insect. Although he may claim that the bugs express his emotions on the canvas, there is no way to know for sure that the bugs know how he is feeling, and that they can precisely convey his real mind-set. On the other hand, the artwork is not necessarily the insects either because insects lack emotion and self-awareness. As young humans, our mothers and fathers teach us how to draw and how to paint. Bugs do not acquire that skill at any point in their lifespan. In this case, the insects are using instinct to get away from the light, wire, etc. It is not by their own will that they are making these designs and patterns.

Thus, this type of artwork remains trapped between the emotion of the artist and the instinct of the insects. Neither deserves full credit for the beauty of the paintings. But, the artist ends up getting full credit because the insects cannot accept their portion and defend themselves. Art should be a representation of passion and emotion that the artist has for whatever he or she is trying to portray. The article quotes Kutcher, "When an insect walks on your hand, you may feel the legs move but nothing visible remains, only a sensation," he says. "These works of art render the insect tracks and routes visible, producing a visually pleasing piece." Therefore, Kutcher does not control how the bugs walk, but rather where they walk. Furthermore, the insects cannot convey their emotion nor his emotion, so the question remains, whom does this art belong to? I think it doesn't belong to either.