It seems that god’s original idea, if we look at the story of Adam, was that the first man could have the pick of the garden but not to eat meat. Doing the carnivore act was seen to coarsen the heart and deaden sensitivity on a spiritual level. A problem soon became apparent: if the ideal human and animal were treated identically and equally there would result in equal expectations and standards and down the slippery slope to animalism. For, if the individual is a beast, then killing a human for whatever reason attains the same significance as slaughtering an animal. It is ironic that a great mass murderer like Hitler, an avowed vegetarian equated the killing of those considered undesirable to the nonchalance of death camps as meat sorting and killing facilities. As Adorno asserted, “Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals.”…
The ancient sages claimed that those who did not wish to study or pray were regarded as dumb beasts; evidently Hitler and his coterie would fit the bill. Or the menu.The implication is that one who occupies themselves with the holy books may enjoy the privilege, their spiritual level elevated enough to eat the flesh of animal or fowl, while the others are not justified in eating the meat of lower creatures, of whom they are part of.
After the Flood, god commanded Noah to eat the flesh of animals. Again, our dominion over animals underscoring our superiority. And at the same time, reminding us that we are charged with divine responsibility, far above the expectations of the animal kingdom. The significance, at least as it registered with Noah, was that by eating mindfully, concentrating on a divine mission, we are doing more for the animal than they are doing for us. According to this way of examination, it may be cruel to not eat meat, as it denies an animal of its chance to serve a higher purpose. …
ADDENDUM:
Much of Heartfield’s work explores the theme of how Nazism corrupted the health and mentality of the German public. …Heartfield’s German name was Helmut Herzfeld, which he changed to Heartfield during WWI, preferring the more Anglicized name even before his move to England. After joining the Berlin Dadaist he became very active in the movement, and absorbed the Dada aesthetic. He incorporated the Dada aesthetic and the technique of Dada collages (as pioneered by Hannah Hoch) into his own distinct style: a photomontage with a political message. Most of his work created between the wars was for the illustrated magazine AIZ (Arbeiter-Illustrierte-Zeitung) with an anti-Fascism stance. The magazine was immensely popular with a large circulation, but when the National Socialist party gained power in 1933, it was shut down. Subsequently, Heartfield left Germany as well, only to return after WWII.Read More:http://musingsofanartstudent.blogspot.ca/2010/12/artist-review-17-john-heartfield.html