Banner Sponsors
For artists and collectors sponsored by Intercal...your mohair supplier and Johnna's Mohair Store
All I see when I look at taxidermy is a sentient being who's life has been deliberately taken, only to be reconstructed as an inanimate trophy. What a waste of life.
SueAnn
Wow, SueAnn, Such a powerful statement of truth!
Karen
To me the difference is the same as that between a cartoon cat like Tom or Sylvester or whoever, and the real thing: as bear artists we have the freedom to exaggerate and create character that most taxidermists do not use. Now of course there are many bear artists who make more realistic designs, but their skill lies in replicating nature, not fabricating it. For me it's like drawing: I can draw pretty well and can copy a photograph with a lot of precision, but I cannot draw from my imagination to save my life: in the 'bear world' this means I am a drawing 'taxidermist', I replicate nature but do not add any twists because I don't know how.(I see I am paraphrasing 'Us Bears' here!)
As an aside I'm wondering how people feel about teddy bears made out of real fur? Just becuase a lot of the posts are centred on 'taxidermy is real animal skin, teddy bear is mohair' theory, but there are a lot of bear artists that use real fur too...
I think a lot of modern taxidermy in the UK uses roadkill and farm waste (I'm referencing a BBC film from about... two years ago so I could be wrong! In it there was a bird taxidermist who used a lot of road kill birds that he seemed to have freeze dried in storage 
There was also someone who reconstructed an extinct Irish Elk using farmed Elk skins) and in those cases I don't think the fur use can be taken as a morally wrong choice: especially as those much loved vintage coats used to make lovely teddies are probably made from animals that suffered far more!
For me there is a lot of art in taxidermy: I wouldn't want to own any but I can see a lot of skill in it. It's like the reborn dolls: too close to dead life for me! Having said that I am a vegetarian and I own a South African Impala skin: his name is Arnold 
I bought him whilst volunteering on a range in South Africa a few years ago, he was one of a few Impala bucks who weren't sold at auction but were surplus to the ranges maximum population and had to be culled. The meat eaters volunteering with me much enjoyed eating stew made from him, and I much enjoy having him around as a beautiful reminder of my trip...the way I see it if the animal is going to be killed for human consumption then the rest of the animal should be used too! As a result I think our judgement of taxidermy in comparison with bear artistry is difficult to judge based on animal welfare alone.
After all... how many of us know how the goats that make our lovely mohair are treated? I am definitely guilty of not researching that at all...
(sorry about the massive reply: it's a topic that confuses me at best and has to be over explained so my point makes sense! 
)
sorry about the massive reply: it's a topic that confuses me at best and has to be over explained so my point makes sense!
You made a lot of interesting points. I know that many people here have strong feelings about how animals are used by people, so there may be another thread in the making here! (I may stay out of this one since I opened the last can of worms. 
)
In terms of our craft, I have wondered how much pollution the mohair mills emit as they create the beautiful textures and colors, or how much water they use. Does anyone know? But I've always sort of assumed that the goats themselves lived happy lives on little farms, and since they're raised for their wool, maybe those lives are fairly long? I could be wrong about all of that, I know.
Becky
dangerbears wrote:Karen wrote:Hmm, what about realistic human dolls and sculptures? Becky, could they be considered taxidermy?
Um, no? (Not sure why you asked this.)
Becky
Becky,
Not picking on you. I've heard this before from some traditional bear artists. I just find it a little ironic that these same artists have no problem with realistic human art pieces yet complain that realistic animal designs are not art, but taxidermy.
Exactly Karen!!! Here Here!! :clap: :clap:
This is very interesting to hear the views, and i would like to say I consider the animals that I create works of art and collectibles just like I consider artist teddy bears to be works of art.
Taxidermy is a whole other ball game, so I guess it would really be like comparing apples to oranges.
The animals I create are created no different than a Teddy Bear other than their finished apperance, they are made from a pattern then cut out of fabric, stuffed, and then sculpted with needle and thread, and details applied, whereas taxidermy it has been mentioned is made over an existing form from the skin of a dead animal, which alread has its shape and proportions, no pieces to cut and shape, no thought to how to shape a leg or head, no stuffing in just the right place to give a certain shape etc.
Now for R.J Wright he may be closer to taxidermy than the rest of us artists, because he does use a form in the heads of his bears instead of stuffed and needle sculpted, at least the Three Bears set I have are made that way. I do love his pieces, and will buy more, but was sad when I recieved my bears to discover that this was how they were made.
Krista
SarchieIn my opionion I do not believe soft sculpture is much like taxidermy. They are usually created for two different reasons.
Soft Sculpture - is made from love and inspiration for artistic value. - in the sense that we value the particular creature and are inspired to recreate it. In this train of thought it is very much like painting a landscape. (I'm not trying to compare soft sculputure to painting by any means but alot of art is about recreation no matter the medium). it usually has a unique spin on it (the artist's interpretation).
Taxidermy - is made for "preservation" (for lack of better word) and trophies
Taxidermy can not add things that were/are not there to begin with. They're more like taking a photo of an existing creature and preserving it in 3D. - I hope I'm making sense
I guess its like comparing a house painter and an artist painter...
one is making a living and one is art form. I'm sure there are Taxidermist out there who believe they are creating art. But to me its more like forging god's work. There is no unique value...
I hope I am not being offensive to anyone. That is not my intention at all. :redface:
I'm not a fan of Taxidermy either.
do you think their should be different category in bear shows?? such as a realistic / more detailed category maybe?
I think there are many different types of work created and some may get overshadowed by the more detailed sculptures. for instance anime bears are not supposed to look realistic and therefore should not be compared to this. - I am not saying they are but maybe there should be another category to give the less detailed bears a chance. they are all magnificant aswell.
I love bears of all kind.
Taxidermy can not add things that were/are not there to begin with.
Well-said! That's what's so interesting to me - that X factor that the bear artist (soft sculpture artist) adds to the animal.
do you think their should be different category in bear shows?? such as a realistic / more detailed category maybe?
I guess that was partly where I was going with my second question (about the bear spectrum). Earlier today, I looked at the information from the Brewins' Bruins show, and the winner of best in show there (as in the TOBYs) was a realistic piece - a standing monk-bear that looked like St. Francis of Assisi (by Jacqui Wiekenden), with several realistic animal friends. It was absolutely amazing, unquestionably artistic, and must have taken a whole year to make.
To put it in a nutshell, I have no doubt that all of our different styles, from anime bears to gollies to realistic animals, are worthwhile. But your question is a good one. Maybe competition categories aren't representing all that's going on in our craft as well as they could. (It's a pretty big range - from children's toys to fine mohair bears to museum pieces.)
Becky
SarchieIn my opionion I do not believe soft sculpture is much like taxidermy. They are usually created for two different reasons.
Soft Sculpture - is made from love and inspiration for artistic value. - in the sense that we value the particular creature and are inspired to recreate it. In this train of thought it is very much like painting a landscape. (I'm not trying to compare soft sculputure to painting by any means but alot of art is about recreation no matter the medium). it usually has a unique spin on it (the artist's interpretation).
Taxidermy - is made for "preservation" (for lack of better word) and trophies
Taxidermy can not add things that were/are not there to begin with. They're more like taking a photo of an existing creature and preserving it in 3D. - I hope I'm making sense
I guess its like comparing a house painter and an artist painter...
one is making a living and one is art form. I'm sure there are Taxidermist out there who believe they are creating art. But to me its more like forging god's work. There is no unique value...
I hope I am not being offensive to anyone. That is not my intention at all. :redface:
I'm not a fan of Taxidermy either.
do you think their should be different category in bear shows?? such as a realistic / more detailed category maybe?
I think there are many different types of work created and some may get overshadowed by the more detailed sculptures. for instance anime bears are not supposed to look realistic and therefore should not be compared to this. - I am not saying they are but maybe there should be another category to give the less detailed bears a chance. they are all magnificant aswell.
I love bears of all kind.
