Comparing Potter And Akeley's 'The Kittens Wedding'

The taxidermist’s choice of animals in the dioramas also pertains to the educational and narrative feature. Akeley focuses on smaller animals for his first natural history diorama, perhaps so that he could finish the diorama within a timely manner. The muskrat is also relevant to the location of the museum he presented it to, Milwaukee Public Museum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Potter, on the other hand, based his choice of animal on the visual aspect of his diorama. The kittens don’t look like kittens, and that’s the point. Potter recreates the audience’s view of small, cuddly, cute and naïve kittens into standing up humanistic furry creatures that share the same life style as we do. If Potter had created this diorama with dolls, the piece would
not be as intriguing or exceptional. By using dead baby kittens, the diorama has a strange and eerie atmosphere that makes the viewer take a step back and see the dark comedy incorporated into the display. If Potter has used older cats, the piece would not be as eye-catching to the viewer. By using the baby kittens, Potter grabs the attention of the audience through shock and attraction. Akeley did not use baby animals in is taxidermy diorama, because they were not relevant to his representation of muskrat life. He wanted to show the life of a matured muskrat. Potter attracts audience with human-like baby kittens while Akeley wants to evoke curiosity and wonder about these specific creatures in their natural habitat. The difference in the animals of both dioramas is merely because both taxidermists had a different goal and momentum set in mind for their display and purpose, but also the decision in what animals they used gave their pieces a whole different aura, from fluffy but freaky to informative but impractical.
Potter and Akeley created a setting for both groups of their animals to survive or live in.
Potter bases “The Kittens’ Wedding” on living while Akeley bases “The Muskrats” on surviving. Living refers to one’s quality of life. It is much subtler and more magnificent. Living refers to someone or something in actual existence and the active use of thriving. In “The Kittens’ Wedding,” the 20 kittens are very privileged in regards to the event they’re able to attend, the clothes they are wearing, and the environment they are placed in. Considering that this is an anthropomorphic diorama, the kittens are given humanistic qualities that are immediately observed. Because of this, it can be assumed that the kittens don’t have to worry about survival, as it is evident that they don’t live out in the wild. Surviving is unlike living; it means continuing to exist and to endure through dangers or hardships that approach. However, the muskrats in “The Muskrats” do live in the wild and depend on survival. First, the muskrats are not anthropomorphic and are placed in a wildlife setting, immediately expressing to the viewer that these animals must be survivalists and cannot live freely like the kittens in “The Kittens’ Wedding.” The muskrats are posed in survival-like positions; one muskrat stands up and observes the environment around it. Beneath is a sleeping muskrat, which sleeps in twigs and leaves to keep it protected. Akeley also portrays the use of water for survival, as two other
muskrats interact with the body of water in the foreground. This is another definite separation we create between animals and humans. The majority of the human audiences observing these dioramas have the opportunity and privilege to live. We try to make it aware through natural history dioramas that survival is a key element to animals’ life, and even though this is attempted, we glorify and romanticize their existence and effort at survival.
In taxidermy, the taxidermist can play with the dead animal and give it any purpose, which can also be described as “power is knowledge” . Within taxidermy, humans have a power over another creature in many different ways. Potter and Akeley have obviously shown this in their taxidermy, however there is another element in their taxidermy that brings another form of power into. That sheet of glass physically separates the audience and the dead animals. It’s as if the sheet of glass represents mankind’s deeply complicated relationship with nature; there’s an attempt to learn and to understand but a failed effort to actually connect with nature (Barclay, 2016). In this case, the taxidermist has the power to control the viewer as well. By placing the sheet of glass there, the taxidermist doesn’t allow any contact with the outside world to step in the realm of attempted realistic. The way we display wildlife defines our contradictory place in nature, for example dioramas in natural history museums aim to display the best representation of nature, but sadly results in a romanticized and unrealistic setting that hardly defines the characteristics of nature. This can also potentially give audiences wrong interpretations of animals’ lives. In regards to the romantic and unrealistic setting in dioramas that humans create, it is also apparent that the people behind these dioramas do not understand what survival is or what it is like.
Human longing marks all taxidermy.
With the sheet of glass, all that is given is the field of observation and containment (Barclay, 2016). This raises the controversy whether the animals in the dioramas are being used as disposable objects or have true educational value. As I have mentioned before, “The Muskrats” is meant to serve as educational, and for some people it may be (Alvey, 2007). “The Kittens’ Wedding” was not created for an educational dynamic, but a representation of a nursery rhyme (Morris, 2008). The difference between how the animals are observed depends on the position the taxidermist has given them and the environment they have been placed in. Natural history dioramas are known to serve an informative purpose, and by some points of view this means that the taxidermied animals are not being objectified. However, in regards to Potter’s diorama, there were many conflicting points of view when the piece first came out; this was because of the amount of kittens killed for the making of the piece and in addition they were killed right before the proper age of neutering. Some Victorians found his work to be “abusive towards animals and ‘grotesque’ (Milgroom, 2010).” The sheet of glass tells the viewer that the contents inside are only for observation. Other taxidermy pieces, such as taxidermied trophies, fashion, and pets are used for human pleasure, whether it is used as décor in your house, to be displayed upon your body, and to forever have the body of your
dead pet, they are still meant to be touched and in some cases maybe held; They are meant to define the human being and bring out a human’s qualities; Trophies define a human’s strength and glory, as taxidermy in fashion defines someone’s looks and wealth, and a taxidermied pet defines the attachment the person had with their pet. With taxidermied dioramas, it defines humans’ longing to know nature and make similarities and dissimilarities between them and the animal(s). They are made to use at our disposal, and to claim whatever information we can pull from them, and what information the taxidermist is willing and wanting to give the viewer. Dioramas make it possible for us to grasp a glimpse of what true nature looks like. But as humans must be given access to glimpse at false nature, it also defines the lack of integrity humans have to explore nature and comprehend it. Because we have had to produce these false worlds, it explicates that we may not truly want to be a part of nature, but in fact want to be separated from it. Even if there weren’t any glass between the viewer and the diorama, would it make a difference? The glass only signifies, symbolizes, and enlightens humans’ forced separation from nature. That sheet of glass that lies between the dead animals and us shows our deeply complicated relationship with nature and humans’ struggle to understand it (Turner, 2013).