Before I start, I need to point out that I am in no way promoting the image in question, nor am I defending the "artist" in any way. I also apologise if I upset anybody. That really is the last thing I want to do.......

My attention was brought to a picture of a dead cat used by an anatomy class for dissection. There has been so much negativity thrown at the "artist" as a result, mainly due to the nature of the picture and also a slightly inappropriate comment. There have been a few people leave feedback of a non-negative fashion, but it has mainly been slated.

The link in question can be sent by request - Please please please do not request it if you are in any way likely to be upset by a picture of a dead cat (it is quite graphic).

What did interest me slightly though, was that little has been taken into consideration for the geography. The "artist" is from the Phillipines. I work with a Filipino guy, and it has been made known through previous conversations that they hold different values than us on animals, and there have been quite a few comments to the effect of "use frogs" or "use rats" which in my mind brings up a whole new question of ethics, as I do not own a cat but I do own nine rats. Remove emotional associations from the equation and a dead animal is a dead animal, be it cat, dog, rat, rabbit, baby seal, earwig, moth, spider, etc.

As for the majority opinion on the page of "this isn't art", I have to argue that maybe it is. Art is something created by an individual, and only that individual can know what was felt or thought at the time. It is also in some way aimed to provoke, which it has certainly done. The piece in question is for anatomy purposes, which is science (which can be argued as being art), and just because it doesn't appear as art to us, doesn't automatically mean the "artist" is under the same impression. An unmade bed isn't art to my mind, but it won the Turner Prize for Tracy Emin a few years back.