A dog friendly exhibition launch for some amazing canine-inspired art

A canine sculpture, Friends 1, by Anne Field.

There’s something about artwork that features animals…particularly those known personally by the artist. The structure, framing and composition speak volumes about the animal-human relationship.

Not your usual exhibition opening...

If you like animal-oriented art and you’re in Sydney, don’t miss the 5^th annual WOOF! Art Exhibition.

It features paintings, drawings, etchings, mosaics, collages and sculptures of dogs.

A stunning sculpture of a dog with a bee.

Better still, the opening was dog friendly, with many of the artist’s muses attending, somewhat amused about all the fuss but enjoying meeting other subjects.

Socialising at the WOOF! exhibition.

It’s fascinating seeing the different ways people portray the dogs they know and love.

An eclectic collection of canine art.

The exhibition runs from 22 September through to 9 October, and features some beautiful artworks.

International conference on human-animal interactions to be held in Sydney

If you’re interested in human-animal interactions, you’ll be pleased to know that the International Society for Anthrozoology is hosting its 27^th annual conference in Australia.

“Animals in Our Lives – Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Human-Animal Interactions” will be hosted at the Charles PerkinsCentre, University of Sydney, from July 2 to 5, 2018.

If you’d like to SPEAK at the conference, you have until January 2018 to submit an abstract. 

Abstract topics include:

• Human-wildlife conflict/interactions
• Animals and human health and development 
• Interactions with invertebrate animals 
• Grief studies 
• Animals kept in zoos – visitor studies; attitudes toward zoos 
• Animals used in farming: effects of stockpersons on; attitudes toward 
• Strategies to keep animals out of shelters and improve rehoming rates 
• Cultural and cross-cultural studies (e.g., indigenous people’s relationships with animals) 
• Attitudes toward animals and animal issues 
• Animal personality research 
• Representations of human–animal interaction – e.g., art, literature, media – and their influence on human–animal interactions 
• Historical aspects of our interactions with other animals 
• Cruelty to animals/animal abuse 
• The ethics of animal use

Follow the event on facebook here https://www.facebook.com/ISAZ2018/ 

Join the mailing list here: http://isaz2018.com/join-mailing-list/

Wondering about human animal interactions: Wunderkammer

Silhouette of Boxing Kangaroos by artist Rod McCrae at Everglades House.

Our interactions with animals range from compassionate to cruel, but the truth is that the majority of human animal interactions are unseen and overlooked. 

The impact of our behaviour on biodiversity, the wellbeing of the environment including the climate, and the animals we use every day can be extraordinary yet often goes unremarked on. Our minor habits can have major consequences for other creatures, whole species even.

Last week I had the pleasure of viewing a confronting exhibition by former children’s book artist and taxidermist Rod McCrae called Wunderkammer (“cabinet of wonders”). McCrae explains his title thus:

“Wonder seems like such an outmoded notion in our technological age where everything is so readily explained by the scientific method. Wonder however does exist in the human imagination often triggered, yet not fully explained, by an object. Rachel Poliquin’s The Breathless Zoo: Taxidermy and the Cultures of Longing (2012) puts it thus: “From early cabinets of wonder to philosophical repositories, collections of curiosities never really displayed knowledge, rather they acted as warehouses of raw potentiality.”

One of the questions this exhibit raised for me is whether we see animals as mere curiosities – when we pay attention to them at all.

Taxidermy is a fraught art form for me because, historically, many animals were killed as trophies, only to be stuffed and preserved as curiosities by those wishing to tame and control nature or at least cram it into a museum in an ironic, obsessive attempt to document every living species before it disappears off the face of the Earth.

But this isn’t ordinary taxidermy. There are signs throughout the exhibition insisting that the animals were ethically sourced: “No animal has been harmed to make this work in the first instance; the skins are the result of death by natural causes, medical euthanasia, hunting, culling and food production and have been traded on, sometimes multiple times before they became part of this body of work. The skins of the antelopes and the baboon are the byproducts of trophy taking.”

These aren’t animals arranged like trophies. Rather they are displayed in a way that raises questions like what do we mean by humankind's dominion over animals? What responsibilities does that entail? What does stewardship mean and have we got it wrong? Why do we often see animals as waste?

If you have an interest in human animal interactions, this is a relatively small but very powerful exhibition. You can read more about the work here. 

The Gardens at Everglades House.

The original owners shifted a 40 tonne boulder to create this pool.

You can catch Wunderkammer at Everglades House, part of the historic house trust, in Leura (about a two-hour train trip from Sydney) til August 27 (its a very beautiful spot for a picnic).

Is there evidence that Jack the Ripper worked with animals?

What is One Welfare all about? Follow the @onewelfareworld twitter account to find out!

One doesn’t expect to read about true crime in a peer-reviewed veterinary publication, which is why my interest was immediately caught by the title Was Jack the Ripper a slaughterman? Human-animal violence and the world’s most infamous serial killer.

Professor Andrew Knight (Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Winchester) and Katherine Watson (School of History, Philosophy and Culture, Oxford Brookes University) have written a fascinating paper in Animals, arguing that there is evidence that 19 century serial killer Jack the Ripper was indeed most likely a slaughterman.

This is a fascinating discussion, covering one of the most highly publicised unresolved series of killings in history. It discusses issues ranging from the nature of surgical training and incisions, to a comparison of historic and modern slaughterhouses, to the nature of religious slaughter, occupational health and safety and, in particular, the link between abuse of animals and interpersonal violence.

For example, there is a substantial body of literature documenting an association between slaughterhouse work and violent crime. The authors explore possible reasons for this association, the human and animal welfare implications, and how they think it supports their hypothesis that Jack the Ripper was a slaughterman.

Of course there are several alternate hypotheses, including that the killer was a woman, a surgeon, even the husband of the final victim who used the other four victims as decoys in an elaborate scheme before taking his own life. Given the time that has passed, it is unlikely that these crimes will ever be solved. But it is a fascinating discussion, and the argument raises some important questions about animal welfare and slaughter, and the links between violence to humans and violence to animals, that need to be addressed regardless.

The article is open-access, and can be downloaded here.

Professor Knight is one contributor to our book Veterinary Ethics: Navigating Tough Cases, published by 5M, and now available from all good bookstores including Amazon.

You can also watch part 1 of an interview about the book onVet Talk TV. 

SAT reader Kerry shared this article from the Sydney Morning Herald about the devastating heartache wrought by owning extreme brachycephalic (flat faced breed dogs). You can read it on the SMH website. 

Finally, we're tweeting the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists' Science Week Animal Welfare stream this week. Follow us at @onewelfareworld

Do we love devices more than our pets?

Would we really choose phones over animals?

Do we love devices more than our pets? At SAT we tend to avoid press releases, but an interesting one hit our inbox on the weekend. Aquarium Software surveyed Aussies and found that one quarter of Australians would miss their mobile more than their pets.

Really?

The release states that a UK survey found that 63 per cent of Brits would grieve their pets as they would a family member. But does this mean that more of them prefer their pets over devices to Aussies?

Not exactly.

“We are all in love with our mobile devices, but our research suggests that pet parents in the UK love their pets as much as ever,” said Aquarium Software VP Sales and Marketing, Mark Colonnese. “The results from Down Under are worrying at first glance, but I would expect a very different answer if the survey had been worded slightly differently.”

Absolutely. My feeling (though I don’t have a survey to back it up) is that we are so reliant on our devices that losing them would produce severe stress. Probably a different kind of stress than losing an animal. Did the survey ask if people had to choose which they kept – their companion or a device – who or which would they choose?

But the survey does raise valid concerns about the human-animal bond in the digital age. We don’t need to choose between our devices and our companions as such, although we do need to consider how much we are paying attention to each. Despite their constant haranguing, devices don’t actually need our attention – though we tend to them as if they do.

In a lovely book called “How to Thrive In the Digital Age”, Tom Chatfield wrote about exactly this.

“In coffee shops and living rooms, personal digital devices are handled with a solicitude and frequency that might once have been reserved for a partner or favourite pet. For a generation of so-called digital natives, a mobile phone is often the first thing you touch when you wake up in the morning and the last thing you touch when you go to bed at night.” p12

There are plenty of apps designed to tell us just how much we use our devices. What if there were an equivalent that can tell us just how much time we spend with our non-human companions? And would we change our behaviour in the light of the findings?

A few years ago I gave students an exercise to log the time they spent with their companions vs mobile phones. The phones won hands-down. But when we looked at the type of interactions they had with animals, these students were spending plenty of time engaged in quality interactions with them.

Devices like phones can also be used to improve animal welfare, with apps like DogLogBook to measure and note trends in quality of life.

Perhaps there is hope after all?

References

“How to Thrive in the Digital Age” by Tom Chatfield/The School of Life. London: MacMillan 2012

www.aquarium-software.com 

Does your office need canine therapy?

Remy the therapy dog can visit you at work. 

Do you get stressed at work? Would the appearance of one, two or five trained therapy dogs take the pressure down?

When I attended the trade display at a behaviour conference recently I learned that the Delta Institute have started a program – Paws the Pressure – designed to bring animal assisted therapy into the workplace.

Companies and organisations can, for a fee, organise a visit from trained, vaccinated, insured and recently relieved Delta dogs. Since starting last year, Delta dogs have “pawsed” the pressure at companies like ASIC, PwC, DHL, Allens Lawyers, Department of Defence, Goldman Sachs, Apple & AbbVie.

We asked them what it was all about.

What are the benefits of animals in the workplace?

Visits from our therapy dogs assist employee wellbeing, reduce stress and boost staff morale. Staff enjoy the positive interaction, social aspect and change in office mood during a therapy dog visit. Best of all, there’s no mess to clean up after!

Dogs like Antar just have a way of making people feel better.

[According to literature compiled by Delta, the benefits include: Physical – interaction with a furry friend reduces blood pressure, provides tactile stimulation, assists pain management, gives motivation to move and stimulates the senses; Social – a visit with a dog provides a positive topic for discussion, promotes greater self-esteem and well-being, and focused interaction with others; Cognitive – Canine companionship stimulates memory, problem solving and game playing; Emotional – an adorable four-legged visitor is non-judgemental and provides acceptance, is calming and lifts mood often with laughter; Environmental – a dog decreases the feeling of a sterile environment, lifts mood and this continues after each visit.]  

Is there a lot of demand and where is most of it coming from?

Our Paws the Pressure program was launched in July last year & we have already undertaken 55 visits. There is an even mix of small, medium and large companies wanting therapy dog visits as part of their employee health and wellbeing program. Also Universities and TAFEs who benefit from therapy dog visits to assist students mental health – particularly during stressful exam time!

These visitors make everyone's day.

What is the impact on the people who have these visits?

We have received such positive, happy feedback from the companies and Universities we have visited.

How can people organise this?

Very easily – they can apply online and we will contact them to tailor a visit to meet their needs, depending on the availability of our therapy dogs. Most of our 13 branches across Australia can accommodate Paws the Pressure visits.

The visits are 90 minutes. All Delta dogs are accompanied by a trained volunteer. The idea of trained dogs in the workplace is a lovely concept. Of course one can always go one better and welcome companion animals into the workplace. 

Are children closer to companion animals than to their siblings?

Companion animals "may exert developmental influence similar to siblings," a study claims.

Children often have a closer relationship with companion animals than their siblings, a study has found. This may come as a surprise, until one considers that “In the US and England pets are more common in families with children than resident fathers”(University of Cambridge Research, 2017) and “In Western households pets are nearly as common as siblings: in the UK for example, just under three quarters (74%) of families with a ten-year-old child also own a pet (Westgarth et at., 2010)”(Cassels et al., 2017).

Matt Cassels, lead author of the study, was using data from the Toddlers Up Project lead by Professor Claire Hughes at the Centre forFamily Research. This is a ten-year longitudinal study of the social and emotional development of children. Cassels utilised an adaptation of an established measure of human relationship quality, the Network of Relationships Inventory, to determine how factors such as companion animal type and child’s gender affected relationship quality, and to compare children’s relationships with companion animals to their relationships with their siblings.

It makes sense. Companion animals are treated as members of the family, they share a home with children and – like children – are typically dependent on the adult figures in the household for their care(Cassels et al., 2017).

For this study the researchers looked at data from 77 twelve-year-old children.

The findings are fascinating. Children reported deriving greater satisfaction and more companionship from dogs when compared to other species.  Girls reported deriving more companionship, and engaging more disclosure with companion animals, as well as – interestingly – conflict with pets, than did boys. The nature of this conflict is not discussed but it would be interesting to learn more.

Another striking finding was that children in this study reported deriving more satisfaction and engaging in less conflict with companion animals than with siblings.

The reasons why are a matter of conjecture. My immediate thought is that children may compete for similar resources while there is less competition with a companion animal for the same resources. Companion animals cannot talk back, therefore it may be harder to express disagreement.

There are limitations with the study, including its relatively small sample size and shortcomings associated with the NRI, as discussed by the authors.

But if we entertain the concept that “pets may exert developmental influence similar to that of siblings”(Cassels et al., 2017), it certainly raises questions about our responsibilities in fostering the quality of relationships between children and companion animals, and role-modelling of care for non-human members of the household. It also raises questions about the impact of negative relationships (for example, where a child is frightened of or harms companion animals) on both children and companion animals, and the enormity of losing a companion animal in childhood.

Companion animals are ever-present and often in the background. As I was discussing with a client this week, we probably spend more time in their company than we do with other humans in our lives, we just don’t always realise.  

References

CASSELS, M. T., WHITE, N., GEE, N. & HUGHES, C. 2017. One of the family? Measuring young adolescents' relationships with pets and siblings. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 49, 12-20.

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE RESEARCH. 2017. Child's Best Friend? [Online]. Available: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/childs-best-friend [Accessed 29 January].

Why are pets popular with artists?

Billie 2016

by Graeme Drendel 

oil on canvas

51 x 40.5 cm 

Collection of the artist, Melbourne

We don't know much about art, but we know what we like: art featuring animals. Last month the National Portrait Gallery opened its companion animal-themed exhibition, the Popular Pet Show which we cannot wait to check out. The exhibition was curated by Dr Sarah Engledow, an historian, curator and animal lover. She took a moment to share some insights into the role of companion animals in art, as subjects, muses and just good company for artists working in isolation.

What inspired the pet portrait theme? 

I have curated several exhibitions that express simple pleasures and warm human experience. For Idle hours in 2009-2010 I selected paintings and drawings of people in quiet pursuits, reading, sewing, ironing, lying on the grass, etc. For Arcadia: sound of the sea in 2014 I chose photographs from the 1970s of boys surfing, laughing, looking at the ocean, fooling around, camping (often with dogs). This exhibition, someone described as Idle hours with more legs. 

There is a strong trend in contemporary art to depict the relationship between people and animals as strange; for animals to be used, in art, ‘in the service of dark themes’, as one leading contemporary curator put it (for example, there’s been a bit of a taxidermy revival … [Yes, I’ve noticed that – Ed]). I wanted to show that there are many contemporary Australian artists who depict the relationship between people and animals as it usually is, in my own experience: a bond of loyalty and joy. Crucially, I wanted to show the very various ways fifteen artists approach exactly the same subject; to get visitors excited about artists’ different ways of applying different kinds of paint to different surfaces.

Did you find it hard to select pet portraits, or where there many to choose from?

All the works in The Popular Pet Show are paintings, drawings and sculptures - there are no photographs. It was always intended as a warm show about our animal companions but also as a serious art show. Therefore, the works in the exhibition had to be of top quality, while making people happy as well. This is an unusual combination in art (a lot of undistinguished artists paint cats and dogs, and a lot of good artists make animals seem creepy or sinister). So, in fact, there were not many to choose from. Once I chose my artists, and told them about my vision for the show, quite a few of them created works with the exhibition in mind. Nicholas Harding, for example, created more than a dozen big new paintings just for the exhibition.  Ken Done made four portraits just for it. And so on. 

How important do you think companion animals are to artists?

Not all the artists in the exhibition have companion animals. However, those who do love them intensely. Painting can be a lonely process, intellectually and physically taxing. In extreme cases, and on intense days, an artist might not talk to another human being. At least when you have a dog you have to go out and walk and get some fresh air; you stretch out, you meet other people and you tend to talk sensibly. It’s cosy to have a companion in the studio – Lucy Culliton, who has about 160 companion animals, has all kinds of friends around her as she paints. Kristin Headlam’s dog has a basket in her studio. Darren McDonald’s dog is with him at all times. Ken Done has no dog at the moment but he said that when he did a good painting, his old dog, Spot, would bark. Ken’s family dogs are memorialised in his harbourside garden.

What species are included? Which species is most commonly portrayed and why do you think this is?

Dogs outnumber other species; I think they are the most popular pets in Australia, so it’s not surprising. Then come cats, then sheep, cattle and horses (kept as pets, not as farm animals). There are a few rabbits; quite a few native animals which are either being raised from orphanhood, or are imagined pets (including native birds); there is one lizard who lived in an artist’s garden and there is one fostered flying fox. Dogs are interesting to paint because of their variable textures and features; cats are nice to paint because of their fur. All animals with moveable ears are fun to paint – ears convey so much expression, so economically - but you have to understand how the ears attach to the body, and how they fold.

Do you cohabit with non-human companions and if so, can you tell us a bit about them? 

I do indeed cohabit with a non-human companion. Most of the dogs in the Pet Show are mongrels who have been rescued from shelters – either that, or they’re retired or unfit greyhounds. By contrast, my dog cost a fortune and came by plane from a luxurious kennel in the Hunter Valley. He is a labradoodle, whom my younger son named Acorn; and he is the very embodiment of sweetness, joy and zest for life. He is 8 ½ years old, is involved in everything, and still runs and leaps like a fool. We live in Canberra which is not called the Bush Capital for nothing. He runs morning and evening off-lead in the bush. We do have to be careful with grass seeds, so he gets a lot of brushing and bathing.

He eats the cheapest bits of free-range meat (it doesn’t make sense to me to insist on free range for us, because of cruelty issues, but buy intensively-farmed meat for him). He sleeps wherever he likes and usually has a go on everyone’s beds over the course of the night. It gives our family great pleasure to be in a position to give him such a good life. We know how lucky we are to have him, and to be able to spoil him. I have been known to make Christmas ornaments from his felted wool – some more successful than others. Having said all that, last night I clipped him (incorporating the annual clip of his tail dreadlocks, which are his pride and joy) and this morning I very pointedly did not get my wake-up cuddle. 

What have you learned about the human animal bond in curating this exhibition?

Like the beach, pets are great levellers. I found curating Arcadia that it didn’t matter what people’s socioeconomic circumstances or backgrounds were when it came to telling stories about their good times on the beach. I found curating The Popular Pet Show that everyone who loves an animal has something to talk about with anyone else who loves an animal. And when I wonder what different animals perceive, think about, experience: it’s a humbling mystery that exists day by day, right amongst us, in the form of even the humblest dog. Who needs to imagine an afterlife, or aliens?

I don’t necessarily dislike people who don’t like animals, but I can’t imagine what it would be like to be a person in whose life animals have no significance. It seems like a very barren existence to me.

Sarah, I totally agree! Thank you for answering our questions and sharing your knowledge! The Popular Pet Show opened on November 4 and runs until March 13. For more info visit the National Portrait Gallery website, where we happily discovered that you can also purchase a Ken Done dog bandana. 

The importance of pets in lives of people with chronic mental health problems

The role of pets in helping people with mental health problems may be much more significant than we thought.

Pets are a key source of support for people with long-term mental health problems, and should be considered in management of chronic mental health disorders, according to a UK study(Brooks et al., 2016).

The authors set out to explore the role of pets in the support and management activities in personal networks of people with long-term mental health problems. They interviewed 54 people in England and asked them a series of questions about their lifestyle and relationships with human and non-human companions.

Think about the relationships in your life plotted in a series of concentric circles. Those plotted in the centre are the relationships that are the closest or highest value. Participants in the study were also asked to do this. 

Of the participants who identified a pet or pets within their personal community associated with the management of mental health and daily life, the majority (60 per cent) placed their pet in the central, most important circle. A further 20 per cent placed their pet in the second circle. The types of pets people talked about were mostly dogs and cats, but also birds, hamsters (this is a UK study – we don’t have hamsters in Australia), guinea pigs, a mixture of species or unspecified.

According to the study’s authors, “Pets were implicated in the relational work through the provision of secure and intimate relationships not available elsewhere”.

Pets played a key role in people’s social networks, functioning as a distraction from symptoms and upsetting experiences, encouraging routine and activity, providing physical contact and comfort, and providing a relationship without judgement. Pets also enhanced “ontological security”. This term refers to “a sense of order and continuity derived from a person’s capacity to give meaning to their lives and to maintain a positive view of the self, world and future.” For this to occur, one really needs stable emotions, and to avoid chaos and anxiety. Mental health problems threaten ontological security because of their association with breakdown of important relationships, difficulties in maintaining a routine and daily activities, and feelings of being judged, stigmatised, excluded or isolated.

Participants generally felt that to have a beneficial relationship with friends and family they needed to achieve a shared understanding of their mental health condition, which was difficult without friends and family directly experiencing the condition themselves, and because of value judgements or thwarted expectations. On the other hand, pets were seen to be either intuitively understanding their owner’s condition or being able to have a satisfying relationship without the requisite mutual understanding.

As the authors of the study stated, mental health conditions are associated with more challenging interpersonal relationships and typically more stigma than chronic physical conditions.

Pets were particularly valued where relationships with friends and family were difficult or limited. When people felt the need to withdraw and avoid others when they were unwell, pets provided access to the social world and motivation to get out of bed  - “having to care for their animals no matter how they felt.” Feeding, grooming and exercising pets provided a structured routine for many pet owners, generating a sense of order and ontological security.

It wasn’t all roses. For a small number of study participants, there were negative aspects of relationships with pets which included anxiety about pets, the burden of caring for pets, distress when companion animals died or feeling one cannot travel. Perhaps these negative aspects could be specifically targeted in collaborative health plans, for example ensuring access to pet boarding, veterinary care and counselling associated with pet loss. It would also be helpful in ensuring that the welfare needs of animals in this circumstances continue to be met.

The authors concluded that companion animals are a “hidden resource for mental health management” because the value and utility of pets “remains invisible within mental health service provision and in the negotiation of individual care plans.”

Clearly, animal health professionals and those providing human health care services – particularly in mental health – need to spend more time considering the role of companion animals. This is currently done on an ad-hoc basis, but – given the importance of relationships with pets to many people in this study – assessing the role of pets in the lives of people with mental health conditions needs to be the rule, not the exception.

Thanks to SAT reader Merryn for pointing out this interesting study!

Reference

BROOKS, H., RUSHTON, K., WALKER, S.,LOVELL, K. & ROGERS, A. 2016. Ontological security and connectivityprovided by pets: a study in the self-management of the everyday lives ofpeople diagnosed with a long-term mental health condition. BMC Psychiatry, 16, 409.