[UPDATED 9.28.17 to expand upon and clarify several statements] Here we are, 48 hours after the Guggenheim announced they'd pull the three contentious pieces, and still, so much is left unanswered, unacknowledged, and unsubstantiated. And still, we grow. To even imply that nearly three quarters of a million people have signed a petition protesting the decision to use these pieces, purely because they all lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend the "complex nature" of "intentionally challenging" art, is an arrogant and short-sighted supposition. Playing the victim card by citing vague "threats of violence" is disingenuous and is a pointed avoidance of the real issue at hand. Furthermore, painting a picture of wild-eyed, violent animal activists, when the vast majority are concerned, peaceful and compassionate citizens, many of whom are experts in related fields, is lamentable and irresponsible. To label calculated cruelty towards animals as "freedom of expression" is an insult. Any activity that inflicts needless suffering on any living being who is unable to give meaningful consent, human or non-human, is morally reprehensible and cannot be ethically supported. Art is not exempt from this moral law. It is no more or less complex than that. And promoting such activities makes one complicit in their creation. Also notably, the Guggenheim failed to include a statement of any kind denouncing the use of animal abuse in art, implicitly affirming with their silence that they stand behind such use of animals to make an artistic point. If this is, in fact, the case, they should acknowledge those beliefs and discuss it openly with other scholars on the subject. It would be a beautiful act of democracy to have an open panel of experts and a round-table discussion. They continue, however, to decline comment on anything and to dodge questions, including those looking for details surrounding the purported "threats." Perhaps this is because they know deep down that they would be crushed if it ever came to an open, honest discussion, because there is no true substance to their claims. It doesn't matter how cerebral you get about globalization and systems of power and control. One last thought on this atrocious statement: citing others' decisions to show these pieces is a poor argument to give in favor of deciding to use them. Is the Guggenheim not forward-facing? Evolving us? Perhaps they are not leaders. Perhaps they can't make their own curatorial decisions and stand by them with conviction. While lovers of animals and animal advocates are not happy with the Guggenheim's refusal to acknowledge their poor judgment, the art world isn't happy with the way they pulled out the three pieces either. '“It’s just surprising that there was no call to see the side of the artists,” Mohini Dutta, a transmedia designer who teaches at Syracuse University, wrote in an email. “It’s sad, but not surprising that a populist institution like the Guggenheim caved, instead of using it as an opportunity to have a larger dialogue about consent, living props and uncomfortable art”' (excerpt from the NY Times article "Guggenheim Museum is Criticized for Pulling Animal Artworks"). It may be surprising to the Guggenheim or to some of you, but I agree with Dutta in one sense. Don't cower and hide, if you have curatorial integrity. Educate the public on why this is a more evolved position to take, why it's more complex than we realize. Get the backing of other museums or experts. Get updated statements from the artists. Open and engage in discourse with the experts who have already reached out to you. Have a round-table discussion, like I suggest above; honor your commitment to "presenting a multiplicity of voices." Honor your most "paramount" value by freely expressing yourself with words. What you would likely find, however, is that no one, or very few, are willing to back your side of this debate, which in and of itself is very telling. However, if anyone did, there would at least be a platform for some genuine discussion between opposing viewpoints. We could take that moment to build a broader public understanding of this ethical issue, one deserving of attention and clarity. To fall back on the "violent threats" claim and avoid the opportunity for any real dialogue on this topic while it has the spotlight is, frankly, baloney. I expect more of a cultural institution of such worldwide prestige. Stephen F. Eisenman is today's MVP. Eisenman is an art history professor at Northwestern University and has written two books on the ethics of making art with animals. He recently wrote an open letter to the Guggenheim, in which he urged the Guggenheim not only to remove the pieces from the exhibit (this was early Mon 9/25 before they pulled the pieces), but also to adopt policies for the use of animals in art similar to those outlined in the College Art Association's guidelines. One of its tenets states: “No work of art should, in the course of its creation, cause physical or psychological pain, suffering, or distress to an animal” (http://www.collegeart.org/standards-and-guidelines/guidelines/use-of-animals). Adoption of these guidelines would prevent harm to animals in all future exhibits. Other museums in the US and around the world should take note. Eisenman wrote a follow-up op-ed piece on ArtNews.com which came out Wednesday 9/27. The piece is titled: "Bad Art, Bad Ethics, Bad Explanation: On the Guggenheim’s Removal of Artworks From ‘Art and China after 1989.’" Great title, great article, great points. I highly suggest you read, share, and encourage friends and family to do the same (link attached to this post). Also, if you know of more people who haven't yet signed the petition and/or commented, please encourage them to do so and to leave their [respectful, non-violent] comments! This story isn't over. It's up to the Guggenheim how it goes after this, and I genuinely hope they rise to the challenge, on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. Guggenheim: this is a call to action. Please right this ship. It isn't too late to do the right thing. Step one was removing the pieces (thank you). Step two is acknowledging the hundreds of thousands of people and organizations reaching out for answers. Whether you stand by your original curatorial decision and engage in open, honest dialogue about why that is; or you admit the error of your ways and commit to protecting animals in future exhibits, that part is up to you. Regardless of your decision – and I very much hope it's the latter for everyone's sake – it'd probably be a good idea to take a long, hard look at what exactly the values are of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. People deserve answers. The animals, who weren't even mentioned once in your statement, deserve answers. Let the world know you don't support animal cruelty under any circumstances. Or if you do. Disclaimer: all of the above statements are based solely on personal observation and personal interpretation of news stories. As all other updates to this petition, they are purely my own opinion (Stephanie Lewis), and do not represent any other individual or organization. For expert insights on the subject, see the College Art Association's guidelines for acceptable use of animals in art; Stephen F. Eisenman's open letter and ArtNews.com op-ed article; and PETA President Ingrid Newkirk's open letter to the Guggenheim. p.s. Though all these statements are my own opinion, you can also leave your own [again, respectful, peaceful :)] opinion as a comment below. THANK YOU ALL for your support! You have been amazing!!! p.p.s. I urge you not to make racist comments, or any harmful blanket statements about China or any other city, region, or group of people. We don't need to spread fear and negative stereotypes, and this petition is not about tearing down everything wrong in the world (yes, I know there's a lot wrong, and I appreciate you're fired up); it is about the simple fact that animal abuse of any kind is an abomination regardless of context. And therefore it holds no place in the creation of art. These pieces created by Chinese artists just happened to be those in the spotlight when this issue made it to the worldwide stage for discussion. The sad fact is: animal abuse happens in every part of the world, on every corner. This isn't an us-versus-them moment. On the contrary, this is a moment for us to come together as humanity - anyone with a heart and a conscience - regardless of country or ethnicity or professional background. Let's focus on love for the animals, and on love for the art, please. Thank you so much, especially for the outpouring of support for this update and the fact that we all still want answers. #tortureisnotart #guggenheimtortureisnotart