HOME | DD
NaturePunk — Black Wolf Headdress II
Published: 2010-12-25 21:59:23 +0000 UTC; Views: 9797; Favourites: 94; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
The wolf whose skin was used for this piece came from an auction for the leftover stock of an out-of-business fur company.It is a large wolf, over 73" long from nose to tail tip, and was professionally garment tanned. He has some of the softest, most luxurious fur of any canid I've worked with yet. The guard hairs on his back are VERY thick and silky, and the underfur is dense and warm to the touch. The guard hairs are an impressive 7" long!
The final product will have red-and-white pheasant feathers on it and the underside of the pelt will be lined with a dark red recycled felt fabric.
The photograph was taken by my boyfriend, whose additional work can be viewed here: [link]
I made this as a commission for a friend of mine. You can view the listing on Etsy here: [link]
Related content
Comments: 65
Oh my gosh...That's so cool..!
I didn't know those were still being sold/auctioned! Wow!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i think its absolutely beautiful. i love how you are posed! its very wild yet peaceful. im sure you didnt kill that wolf. i believe in all life and the bauty therein..im wiccan and native american and a wolf is my familiar. captures wolf spirit. keep up the amazing work
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i think its absolutely beautiful. i love how you are posed! its very wild yet peaceful. im sure you didnt kill that wolf. i believe in all life and the bauty therein..im wiccan and native american and a wolf is my familiar. captures wolf spirit. keep up the amazing work
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I dislike taxidermy and would never be for it. But I just wanted to say how creative and lovely this is. I bet it was a fun photo shoot ! Haha
It is really pretty though. I hope the wolf died of natural causes !
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Taxidermy is merely the art of using a tanned skin to create a lifelike sculpture of a once-living animal. The taxidermist's job is to be an artist, not to kill an animal (that's done by hunters who usually kill for food anyhow). So there's nothing cruel about taxidermy unto itself, and so long as we're only using parts from secondhand sources, there's nothing cruel about it whatsoever. In other words, being against taxidermy makes no sense. However, being against hunting is a different matter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh ! No no no ! I wasn't insulting this at all !! I wasn't meaning taxidermy is cruel. Because you can't save an animal that's already dead. Haha. I was just saying I am against hunting. And unnecessary killing. I'm sorry if u thought I was insulting this cuz I wasn't 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You said you could never be for taxidermy. But I understand.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm just animal sensitive. Hahaha. I just personally probably wouldn't get a taxidermied animal. I was thinking about getting a wolf though because they're the best animals ever
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Would you mind if I (attempted) to draw this? Credit would be given to you, of course.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I allow use of my works so long as credit is given, a link is provided back to my original image, and so long as the completed project is not intended for monetary gain.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is absolutely beautiful! The colouring of the fur is so pretty, too.
Haha, this would be fun to run around in. xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you! It certainly was.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The pelt is more brown than black, but eh :/ It is a bit interesting, but I still stick to my opinion 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was not directing my opinion towards you, really it was more so towards the others who do it for the sport and so on. Also I was just saying my opinion of this not being art, most who do this use it as souvenirs.
At first I may have been, but now what I have read I literary felt like a idiot. If the stuff you receive has already been tanned then I suppose you might as well use it.
And as for the numbers of the wolves, I know that they have expanded, but they should have never been at such low numbers. It is sad to see such beautiful and healthy animals lives ended so short sometimes. Even the ugly animals that are being hunted down is sad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The idea that taxidermy isn't art is pretty ridiculous. Even if a customer wants to have an animal mounted as a trophy, the time, effort, and copious amounts of energy that go into creating a single deer head is hardly what you'd exude for a simple souvenir (and it's reflected in the price to boot. Many deer heads cost the hunters over $500.00 to be completed by a taxidermist).
Taxidermists are not all hunters; we usually use skins provided to us by others, most often, people who hunt for meat or population control. We are sculptors with a vast understanding of animal anatomy, a deep respect for nature, and must have the skills to turn something like this: [link] into something like this: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But art is meant to be creative and so on, yeah you add a few chemicals, and stuff it to where the mount looks good. But it looks just as it once before, Art is something you're supposed create and it be unique, one of a kind sort of deal. When you enter a art museum you not see mounts or dead animals that has been stuffed or turned into coats, head dresses, masks, or any of the sort. At least I have not in the ones I have been to. The only thing that makes these things unique is the animal it's self. There for you did not create it, it was created by nature. In the end you just made something dead not fade away like it was meant to do. ( Yes, I know they were already tanned when you got 'em so you are the only one I agree with about turning them into the things you do )
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The type of work I do is for spiritual use, so it would not be displayed in a natural history museum.
Your argument is about the same as saying that an artist who looks at a real-life scene of a mountain and then paints it on canvas so realistically that it looks like a photograph is no artist at all. Yet the amount of effort, understanding, and skill involved is just the same in a realistic painting as it is in taxidermy.
Taxidermists create a pose for the animal to hold forever; we create expression on the face; we can even brush the fur in a particular way so as to show if an animal is cold, scared, relaxed, normal, or angry. We have to sculpt the muscle structure, create a lifelike depth to the open jaws (if they are indeed open), and we can even create a scene for the mount to be displayed in. The ultimate idea is to create a realistic animal, sure, but there's more to bringing an animal "back to life" than what you seem to understand.
This is a prime example of a mount which displays all of the above: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is not at all what I'm saying. When an artist paints what he/she see's it is a image and they put it onto a canvas as how they see it. As for what you showed me was what happens naturally, most who see those things would rather see it in action than on a stand still. Also, if it were considered art rather than informational it would be in a art display rather than used as a display for questioning eyes on how lions feed. If these things are in other types of places it is usually for encouragement to sell the rest of their smaller mounts they have in the shop if not those ones as well. Yeah, sure the surrounding area is artistic and maybe in some rare cases the animals too. But in my opinion this is not art. I have seen some fake stuff put together and it makes much more beautiful animal structures and coloring is also more to the liking for most. creating things to meet your eyes expectation is more artful than making something millions have already done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
An artist creates things from life and we do our best to imitate the perfection we already see around us. Taxidermy seems to be an exact definition of that. There are weirdos that stick animals back together for fun. and people that do it to recreate something beautiful. The only difference between a traditional artist and taxidermy is that an artist uses paint and clay and a taxidermist uses fur and antlers. Trying to define art is like trying to define the human soul and trying to judge who "deserves" to go to hell etc. You just can't. If someone puts their heart into something, it's an art; simple as that. Anyone who says otherwise, is simple minded.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The argument is over, I prefer it to stay that way because no one will ever win this. As for me being simple minded...That is far from how my mind works. To say someone is such a thing before knowing whom they are is considered judging and no one should judge one from one opinion they have mentioned to another.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then you did a poor job proving it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How so? I'd love to hear how one opinion of mine makes me simple minded.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your refusal to accept the beliefs and creativity of another artist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am not refusing such things, I am merely stating that taxidermy is NOT art. As I said I am done with this, there is no point on dragging this out yet again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm bored with conversation anyway. The whole basis for it was your refusal that taxidermy is an art, when it is indeed, the definition of sculpture. Which is an art. Here's the definition for you, in case you forgot: the art of carving, modeling, welding, or otherwise producing figurative or abstract works of art in three dimensions, as in relief, intaglio, or in the round.
Art:the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
The last time I checked, Taxidermy fit all the above. It's of more than ordinary significance. People find it appealing IE they pay for it and it's something people have been doing for centuries. It's producing works of art in the round, in three dimensions.
Now define to me how you see it as nothing more than an pointless object. Because I don't think you can. I guess I wasn't as bored as I thought.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When people create art they do not have to end a life to do so, they start from scratch and build their way up into making it something fascinating to the eye. Taxidermy is putting a object that once was beautiful back together in a disturbing way. It is more of a puzzle than a art, if you want to create something that looks to be a real wolf then do it. There are many things you can use for it. [link] this is sadly not the wolf sculpture she had made but I am far too lazy to find it, but does this not look as the real thing? I actually think it looks better than the real taxidermy Items due to it was sculpted to where the shape as not any different from the real thing, as for taxidermy; almost all lose the shape and people create hack jobs of what was a beautiful thing. When some one uses clay to sculpt a bowl they do not break it down from previously looking like a bowl, they start with a blob and turn it into one. Same with painting, they start out with the basic colors mix and match them, then they applying various shades to the canvas only to cover and blend it to where it appears just as what they were painting. All taxidermist do is coat the pelt in tanning treatment to make sure it doesn't decay, arrange the face, stuff it if that is what they want and voila you got a stuffed animal, if I wanted a stuffed animal I'd go to Build-A-Bear work shop.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You sound vegan, but that's beside the point. You're not looking at the bid picture here. Taxidermy has been going on since ancient greek, which is where the word was originally derived from. The very machanics of it can sound disturbing, but then so does the work of someone tasked with making the dead look nice for an open casket funeral. This is taken directly from the Taxidermy website : "Today,some taxidermy mounts (most notably saltwater fish) do not contain anyparts of the animal at all. They are completely re-created from man-madematerials. This is ideal for catch-and-release anglers, who can releasetheir gamefish unharmed, and can still have a life-sized trophy producedfrom a good color photo and measurements...Works of taxidermy are displayed in museums, educational institutions, businesses, restaurants, and homes."
It's a part of our culture and a part of our education system and history. Not to say all history is always correct, but for something so long engrained into our culture how can you claim it's not an art? If you've ever spent hours pouring your soul into a work of art in the hope that you captured some of the beauty you saw in your life, then you'll know the pain you can feel when someone thinks it's garbage. Tearing apart someone's hard work and desire to recreate something that used to be alive just because you don't see the merit of it is like telling a hyper-realisms artist to give up because of the invention of cameras. Some modern art just looks like boxes too me, but there are hundreds of people that see it as art. Same goes for a bunch of garbage bags all piled together or a dead bird. When it's created for the sole existence of being it's art, weather you want it to be or not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Far from a vegan, Deary. And if taxidermy was an art then why is there not a place for it here on DA, in Art Museums, or a well known Artist who used taxidermy as their main art?
Taxidermy website : "Today,some taxidermy mounts (most notably saltwater fish) do not contain anyparts of the animal at all. They are completely re-created from man-madematerials. This is ideal for catch-and-release anglers, who can releasetheir gamefish unharmed, and can still have a life-sized trophy producedfrom a good color photo and measurements...Works of taxidermy are displayed in museums, educational institutions, businesses, restaurants, and homes." you just pointed out a fact that I was stating, so you using this information only proves my point further. No one has to use the real thing to make things like Nature Punk does, yet they do it any way for what? I don't really know. It's understandable if it is an animal being used for not just it's pelt but it's meat as well. (She may say that she uses wolves that were killed for their meat but that is a lie, she had mentioned to me about getting the pelts from auctions and businesses. So unless the Alaskan natives live in Oregon then she is full of herself not to mention most things being auctioned off doesn't have the information on when and why the animal was killed and if it does they don't bother with taking time to ask about it)
And informational items are not art, that's why they put things like this in historical museums so people can learn about the animals nature and so on. Yes, the person may have put their heart and soul into it, but that hardly makes it art. Not to mention that I never said what she did looked like crap, just that it was simply not art. It is beautiful to some and they use it as material items in their house so it has character just as the unique coffee table does or the chandelier hanging down from the ceiling. No one says things like these is art, yet you people try to say taxidermy is art. Taxidermy is what it is: Taxidermy.
Also back to the point we have continued this, If I am simple minded then what are you? I at least see the point she has put out there, though I still have my opinion. Yet you don't even try to see it as I do, you only try to make it where you are right and I am wrong. So in the end, you are the simple minded fool.
I am finished with this on going argument that you insist on, it's pointless. I have my own opinion and you have yours. So lets drop this and carry on with our lives, I know I am going to because I in fact have a life that does not revolve around pansies who try their hardest to change who I am or how I think because they have nothing better to do with their life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Taxidermy in the latter part of the twentieth century has developed into a full-fledged form of wildlife art, and the successful taxidermists of today must also be considered as fine artists"
"Peale was an artist and a saddle-maker, and while his experience working with leather naturally contributed to his superior taxidermy, his artistic talent led him to create the earliest examples of natural history dioramas." -Natrual History Mueseum
"In recent decades, taxidermy and other preserved animal parts have begun to appear in a surprising amount of contemporary art. Taxidermy has become a potent medium to discuss a variety of pressing issues: the contours of the line between humans and other animals, questions about conservation and species loss, and more basically to provoke deeply enigmatic encounters with the natural world"
Even Martha Stewart has a spread on taxidermy.
[link] And this article proves it.
[link] And here you see a list of taxidermy artists with their works on display in the most prominent museums in the world.
You're being naive if you don't see all those examples of ARTISTS being employed to create ART for museums as some kind of joke. It's almost irritating how blind you are to the facts. All of those examples prove it. So weather you like it or not, it's recognized as an art. Period. Do your research.
I win.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was only giving my opinion on what I find art and my opinion has not changed. These people have their own opinions and that's good for them, but I will not find something as this considered art. When art was created it did not consist of dead animals and that should be the way it remains. When people killed and skinned animals in the past it was for the intent on surviving, not art. It was not noted by real artist as beautiful unique things, it was "That looks yummy" or "That would make a nice coat to keep warm in the dead of winter" But since we progressed and created warm coats that are not made from animals we now find things as disturbing as that art. Well some do that is, but is it truly art or is it a way to make hunting and stuffing animals not look so tragic.
"Taxidermy (from the Greek for arrangement of skin[1]) is the act of mounting or reproducing dead animals for display (e.g. as hunting trophies) or for other sources of study."
Ah, trophies. A point I pointed out to Naturepunk. See people who do these things do it for trophies and if not for trophies it is used for information. Art is not in either of those categories.
Some find it art, others don't so in fact you don't win. Neither of us do, which is why I stopped this argument with the said other. It knows no end and will only be dragged out causing a nuisance to not just me, but yourself as well.
So please for the love of what ever it is you believe in or don't; shut up and stop being a argument whore.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was bored. Problem solved.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If it's not art, why does DA have its own category specifically for taxidermy? Try it for yourself and then tell me it's not art. You'll eat your words.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is a craft, art is a different category. In art class do you study how to mount a peerfect deer? No. You use pencils, pastels, paint, sculpture, clay, even chalk, and the "category" you are referring to is a group not by DA it's self, but a person who is into Taxidermy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Crafting is still a form of art. It's a process of creating. And taxidermy is just that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
wow....I've always wondered how it would look like if it was the other way around.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have your shoes lol and I would love to scare people in that xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Kinda makes me think of a modern Mononoke! Thats awesome!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>