Banner Sponsors
For artists and collectors sponsored by Intercal...your mohair supplier and Johnna's Mohair Store
Chaska, MinnesotaRandy of Us Bears said it very well. We live in a world that lead some to want to "shock" because the teddy bear is so sweet, cuddly and comforting. The dichotomy of cute and horrifying somehow is appealing to, ummm, shall I say, certain types of minds. I wonder if they get some kind of thrill making others say "ewww" when looking at their bears. Though I think that is exactly the response they want to evoke. I am surprised there is a market for this. The world is very diverse and if people want to decorate their environment with this sort of stuff, more power to them. Thank goodness I don't have to live with it.
Germany
I have found them on eBay....
Incredibly that there is really buyer. I would not want such a thing in my house.
It is maybe art, but it is not Teddy for me.
PennsylvaniaUs Bears wrote:What's worse, it tramps all over the symbolism in the Teddy Bear Code.
Please indulge me, Id love to hear a Teddy Bear Code recital :lol:
Okay, I get the joke but let me ask a question.
Where is the Christmas Tradition codified? Can you quote a book or document that specifies we must have a Christmas Tree with presents underneath?
Christmas tradition is just something we all grew up with. That tradition is laced with symbolism and meaning passed down from generation to generation.
What would you think about a Christmas tree decorated with dead kittens or a Santa Clause who wields a Samurai sword dripping with blood? I bet a lot of people would be outraged. There's nothing wrong with being iconoclastic but there is a line that ought not to be crossed in polite society and that would tramp all over the line. Wouldn't it?
My gosh! People got all bent out of shape when Elvis Presley released a Christmas album in 1957! Of course, times change but, if people have the right to set limits on what should or should not be considered Christmas tradition, do we not have the right to set a Teddy Bear Code? (Or better stated, "Teddy Bear Tradition?")
Teddy Bear Tradition started when Theodore Roosevelt refused to kill a bear cub. People took that little nugget and built a tradition of love and caring out of it. Through the years, Teddy Bears have become faithful, loving and steadfast companions who would never hurt anybody, just like Teddy Roosevelt refused to hurt the bear.
Roosevelt was a strong man. He was President and he was a Rough Rider at the Battle of San Juan Hill during the Spanish-American War. On the other hand, he showed compassion and caring for others. Aren't those good symbols for Teddy Bears?
There is nothing wrong with updating tradition. Where, once, "Blue Christmas" was considered sacrilege, it is considered a classic in many circles, today. However, there are lines that don't get crossed and I think we would all agree that they shouldn't. We don't see Christmas trees decorated with rotting flesh and we don't have killer Santas.
Why would killer Teddy Bears, covered in rotting flesh be any less sacrilegious?
Miser BearsIt wasnt a joke, Im really interested! Sorry if it came accross badly 
Teds have got me through MANY hard times, and i find their faces very calming ( I have an anxiety disorder ) The zombie teds actually make me feel worse!
PennsylvaniaI'm not put off at all. :)
No harm, no foul. Right?
I just like to debate. As long as people don't put each other down, a little, friendly jab in the ribs, doesn't bother me. 
Well the ironic thing is that this subject has stimulated a conversation ..it also has got them a whole article in a national newspaper. I don't think they are stepping over any line to be honest. Who draws the line? If there is a line I think it's there to be stepped over.
Now I don't like them and I will tell you why I don't, of you are going to do something attention seeking like that then make the bears yourself. Then it's art with a bit if integrity. What they are doing is taking ready made bears and doctoring them which to me is not part of the deal. If the person had made the bear then done this anatomical jiggery pokery to it then I'd be happier. But they just took a Build a Bear from a charity shop and ripped it apart to sell it.
The clever bit is that it's done the trick..created the hype. But to be really a piece of impressive art ..in my mind anyway...there has to be 100% input from start to finish. So can I now get a build a bear...doctor it a bit , stick a Three O'clock Bears tag on it and sell it on eBay ? No...so that's my issue with it...
As for stepping on the teddy code..I do understand the tradition but no matter what you do you can't destroy that aspect...the mere fact that this causes outrage re-invigorates the tradition....makes us aware of it.
I agree with Jenny here when she says that it is not art to take a Build a Bear teddy and doctor it like that. They should at least do the Teddy themselves. I might add that the idea also is not totally original. I might lay money on what gave them the 'inspiration' for such creepy stuff. Has any of you ever heard of- or seen any of Gunther von Hagens work? I bet you have. The man who takes dead people bodies and do plastification and show them to the public.
I don't want to open a new debate about it, but I'm pretty sure that the idea came to them that way. They just took a teddy and did something that they were sure would shock. Big success with it. I'm sure they are making money and all, but somehow I don't think they enjoy it like we do! 
Or maybe they do....uhm....that gives me really the creeps, thinking one would enjoy doing that to a Teddy! 
Posts: 233Of course sensationalism will always sell whether it be newspapers , fashion or art . The status quo in comparison is boring .
Therefore these people have a result , a very clever marketing ploy , and will make money, so for them , job done.
Still makes me sad to see though.
PennsylvaniaArtists like Picasso, Dali and Chagall certainly pushed the limits of what people thought was art but I don't think they set out to shock people. French Fauvist painters whose styles derived from Neoimpressionism certainly got a lot of push-back in critical circles but neither did they produce grotesque and shocking works.
There is nothing wrong with experimentation and creativity but there is a difference between expansion and building on established concepts and extremism.
Fauvists built on and expanded from other painters like Picasso and Seurat. They were accomplished painters in their own right who took what they knew as the norm and built it into something new. Without this derivation of styles we wouldn't have had artists like Matisse.
I don't remember, exactly, but didn't some of these nuveau artists even collaborate with established guys like Picasso? I'd have to look it up to be sure.
My point is that I don't think that taking an already-made product, tearing it apart and turning it into something grotesque should be considered as building or expanding on previous art. I think it is pure iconoclasm for its own sake. Had they built their own Bears from the start I think I would be less critical.
I am certainly willing to let others do as they wish. Live and let live. However, I draw the line at the suicide Bear.
I don't like the grotesque Bears but I can understand the idea but the concept of suicide shouldn't be associated with Teddy Bears.
We wouldn't accept the concept of a killer Santa Claus. I don't see suicide as being different.
