Okay, the explanation for this drawing reminds me of crits at RISD where people would use an illustration assignment as a starting point and end up with something that's very concept-heavy but utterly indecipherable. The most common reason for this was language barrier, but I think in my case I just let my imagination run wild a little too often.
Anyway, I was bummed out about the tiger attack at the SF Zoo recently. I know I'm being callous, but I was much more upset about the tiger being killed than the kid. Siberian tigers are on the verge of extinction; only about 600 exist in the wild and roughly that many live in captivity. It brings up a weird moral quandary: Should the lives of humans be a priority over an endangered species? In a kill-or-be-killed situation, should you defer to the tiger because it's in short supply? Also, could the police have wounded the tiger instead of killing it? Why didn't anyone have tranqs?
I have a giant soft spot for tigers. I always wanted a pet tiger, but the truth is their beauty was definitely meant to be appreciated from afar. As afar as you can possibly get. Even if you live with tigers, rehabilitate them, train them, or take care of them, just because they're familiar with you doesn't mean they won't kill the crap out of you if you upset them. The only time humans and wild animals can foster a peaceful coexistence is when neither has to kill to survive... like in the afterlife. This could also be said for groups of humans that don't get along. A bummer, but there it is.
I hope Tatiana is prancing about in Kitty Heaven, where meat doesn't come from animals and no one gets hit by cars or whips or bullets. I want to go to Kitty Heaven when I die, too, and then we can be friends like I always wanted.
PS: My scanner is teh $uxx0rz!!!