No - it is not 'verifiably' ugly as 'ugly' is a subjective term. Nothing can ever be 'verifiably' ugly. Many of your arguments are subjective. They are no less valid for being subjective, but they are subjective and so cannot be stated as fact.
Zoos exist to create experiences for people, not just house animals. Animal captivity, whether for "rescue" humanitarian purposes or for conservation breeding, is a totally different thing from the EXHIBITION of animals, which should incorporate educational and, yes, aesthetic considerations beyond simply keeping an animal alive and putatively "happy."
I take your point that a rundown mine does not in itself contribute much in terms of educational value BUT it is clear from this thread that people do approve of the exhibit aesthetically. You yourself do not, which is of course well within your rights. But some (many?) people do approve of the aesthetics of this exhibit. It would be interesting to do some canvassing at the zoo itself on this point; if a majority of the visitors to the zoo approve, it would suggest that the aesthetic aspect fo the exhibit at least is successful.
@reduakari: I am not saying that this is my idea of a perfect racoon exhibit, but isn't it educational in the way that it shows how racoons have a habit of making human settlements part of their environment?
No - it is not 'verifiably' ugly as 'ugly' is a subjective term. Nothing can ever be 'verifiably' ugly. Many of your arguments are subjective. They are no less valid for being subjective, but they are subjective and so cannot be stated as fact.
I take your point that a rundown mine does not in itself contribute much in terms of educational value BUT it is clear from this thread that people do approve of the exhibit aesthetically. You yourself do not, which is of course well within your rights. But some (many?) people do approve of the aesthetics of this exhibit. It would be interesting to do some canvassing at the zoo itself on this point; if a majority of the visitors to the zoo approve, it would suggest that the aesthetic aspect fo the exhibit at least is successful.
Okay, the whole subjectivity argument is inherently un-winnable. But there is a growing body of scientific evidence that at least for some things, there are predictable, VERIFIABLE measures of beauty: tests show that human faces with symmetric features invariably produce more positive reactions among viewers than those with asymmetic features, cutting across age, cultural and geographic classes. Certain landscapes--grassy savannas for example--produce near-universal positive reactions even with similar variables.
There is verifiable beauty, and verifiable truth. It's not just opinion.
But how does one account for people who find Ugg boots, NASCAR jackets, nose septum rings and Hummers attractive? Or people who think this mine shaft setting for a raccoon is appropriate or even attractive? Those questions I can't answer.....
I would expect very few images to get such a universal reaction though. This is nothing like so clear-cut a case. The very fact that different opinions have been presented in this thread shows that. In fact, the subjectivity debate is almost more interesting than the zoo design one, but I suspect it's for a different time and place!
But yes, sometimes other people's tastes are well beyond our own understanding! I have no strong opinions on this particular exhibit, but it's fascinating to see how the same image can produce such different responses.
I don't think it makes much difference as to weather it's a domesticated animal or not. Does it not still have the instinct to walk or forage? One could argue Asian elephants are domesticated, not many people keep them in a tiny enclosure in their back yard
But I think this, agian, leads purely to discussion of aesthetics
I guess the exibit could always be changed to a recreation of a residential street in the US, complete with dustbins and strewn rubbish
The only real niggle that I find with this exibit is the fact that they have green grass when this is the sort of mine I picture out in the dusty, red Midwest. That and it doesn't look overgrown/tumbledown enough for an abandoned mine, but that's just nit-picking
BIt off topic, but how are the raccoons kept in? is that fence electric or can they just not climb up at a steep angle?
Personally I like the exhibit, Im sure raccoons are found in and around abandoned mine shafts in the wild. So it is educational in a way, shows people how wildlife such as raccoons or foxes are becoming urbanised, and the raccoons im sure do not even notice the unusual architecture of their home. what they see is a very interesting place with lots of nooks and cranies to explore. I dont know what people think of as attractive enclosures but I personally dont find loads of mock rock and fake vines very appealing! to me a good exhibit is one that is practical for the animals and the visitors and this is a good example of such. Im sure either way the raccoons are satisfied!
