The Hubble Ultra Deep Field in 3D

"Shark number two is a foot shorter, but its gaping jaws are wider and scarier." I find that sentence really amusing for some reason.

Terrible to see the property status of an individual, especially one killed to be on display. Would we accept that if he were a human, a dog or a dolphin? Most of us would scorn at it.

This is the discrepancy caused by speciesism and my hope is that in 250 years we'll look back in the same way that we not look back at slavery, nazism, sexism etc - we'll be horrified how we could pay money to have someone killed to be put in a glass jar, at a time when the world could use that money for doing lots and lots more good.

@EdwardSanc: all kinds of dead animals are put on display - ever heard of taxidermy? Similarly all kinds of animals are killed. It's a fairly important step in the production of meat.

As for humans, look up Gunther von Hagens and plastination. While no humans are killed specifically to be put on display, he uses real dead people in his art. Most cultures in the world are fascinated with life, and are often just as fascinated with death. It's why art like this exists.

Fish are caught and killed in their millions, and the people who do it make money, and their profits and taxes do 'lots and lots of good'. My point? A shark is a fish. It's a big one, yes, but still a species of fish. Why should we give a big fish any more (or less) respect than a small one? Why do we eat cows but not dogs or dolphins? There simply is no good reason. Presumably dogs are tasty (I wouldn't know), but we all choose to be 'speciesist' to some degree, and rather than scorn it the majority (every non-veggie in the world) accepts that certain animals are treated differently.

Next time you use an insect spray, be sure to think about your speciesism against insects. Don't they have a right to life too? Or if you think it's okay to kill them, do you also eat insects as part of your daily diet?

I think my rant is over, but the words 'double standards' spring to mind, or even 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.

Why bother repairing or restoring them? Aren't certain pieces and schools transient by nature? Restoring them completely defeats the purpose of the work. I say let them rot and move on. These works are a product of our society and reflect that. They are disposable art from disposable artists.