Here is Lush's response to critics of their animal testing protest:
At 11.30 on Tuesday morning, Jacqueline Traide, a 24-year-old performance artist, was hauled on a leash into the window of Lush's Regent Street shop window. What followed was 10 hours – streamed live – of extreme endurance performance. Jacqui represented an animal test subject for the cosmetics industry. She endured a series of animal tests including forced-feeding, eye-irritancy tests and two (saline) injections but suffered no "actual" pain.
The purpose of a protest is to plant the seed of a public debate. It is possible (and desirable) to control the content of the performance, protest or stunt. But the debate that it generates, the awareness raised and the action inspired is something beyond the control of the performer or of the company who commissions her.
Lush – as part of our Fighting Animal Testing campaign – allowed a performance artist to represent animal testing for the cosmetics industry in our shop window. The images were brutal, yet the representation is a fraction of the horror that occurs behind the closed doors of laboratories across the world. It was also a performance – at any moment Jacqui could communicate with us or walk out. Laboratory animals are bred for human use and end their life of abuse as an anonymous victim in a bin bag.
The overwhelming response has been positive – a public grateful to be informed that this archaic practice is still ongoing and that we can all do something to make it end.
We have, however, also received criticism for our portrayal of an anonymous victim who suffers at the hands of institutionalised violence. A blog that upset and patronised everyone involved in our campaign – from the performance artist to the 5,000 staff in 800 shops across 49 countries who continue to push the petition – commented: "Women aren't marketing tools. Rape is not a gimmick."
I am very aware and very sad that campaigning groups (and all sorts of other groups and, more worryingly, industries) have capitalised on titillating images of women – or, worse, on images and storylines that encourage the abuse of women. It is a depressingly simple way to cause a stir while reinforcing certain power structures. It is a way of generating "attention" that both I and Jacqui condemn.
Our performance was much simpler and starker than that. We used our flagship shop to put a window on to one form of oppression that all who buy cosmetics thoughtlessly, are complicit in. This is a tough truth to acknowledge and be challenged by but it is also an essential truth for all cosmetics' consumers to recognise if we are going to have an animal cruelty-free industry.
We did not perform a sexy version of oppression or create a teasing "naughty" campaign. Instead – led by Jacqui's desire to perform an endurance piece that would respect the actual suffering of millions of animals – we performed a version of oppression in which we are all complicit, to challenge women and men to consider the dark secrets of a beauty industry that insists it exists to make us "feel good".
It was a performance of violence (not violence against women) where – unsurprisingly – the oppressor was male and the abused was vulnerable and scared. We felt it was important, strong, well and thoroughly considered that the test subject was a woman. This is important within the context of Lush's wider Fighting Animal Testing campaign, which challenges consumers of cosmetics (a female market) to feel, to think and to demand that the cosmetics industry is animal-cruelty free. It is also important in the context of Jacqui's performance practice: a public art intervention about the nature of power and abuse. It would have been disingenuous at best to pretend that a male subject could represent such systemic abuse.
Our aim was most certainly not to titillate. The bodysuit was not attractive (regardless of how the mainstream media may have presented or written about it). The costume made her an anonymous test subject and stripped her of the accoutrements of sexuality or eroticism. It was horrific from beginning to end, and all the more so for the actual horror that it intends to represent.
We are sorry if this has hurt women who have suffered sexual violence or assault. It is a horrible compromise that a performance of animal testing and abuse could conjure up such distressing lived memories for real women.
However, knowing the careful thought Lush and the performance artists gave to every moment of this, I will ferociously argue for its intended goal: to challenge public apathy, which always encourages powerful forces to oppress the less powerful, regardless of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or species.
Do I necessarily agree with such a tactic? I'm ambivalent. But I do understand that passion that some have for animal rights. No one was forced to participate.
~Who in the world am I? Ah, that's the great puzzle~ Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Blogs & Forums
