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 …show more content…
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 …show more content…
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