A bullfight was attended Saturday, and analyzed for specific cultural, aesthetic and moral features, according to a new report issued by Nick.
Many interesting judgements and criticisms were drawn from these observations.
The morality of the bullfight was found to be the least interesting point of analysis by our expert.
Morality was determined to be essentially counter-analytical. Further, moral arguments against the killing of animals in an emotionally rousing form rather than an industrial one were found to be specious.
Perhaps most alarmingly, assertions of the animals' suffering showed strong correlations with anthropomorphism and with a silly emotional reaction disguised as an ethical objection.
Culturally many things were taken to be intimated by the event, including things concerning power structures, gender roles, a fundamental humanism, drinking habits, death, and colonialism.
One or two of these things were remembered from without the haze of sangria the next day; the rest presumed either forgotten or never worth remembering.
Those ideas that were not forgotten remain insufficiently conclusive for publication. They will be investigated further while drunk for a later report, according to the researcher, who was drunk at press time.
Most strikingly implied by the report were aesthetic findings.
It was concluded from available evidence that the bullfight was very beautiful. The confusion of the animal, the glittering surface of the man, the mad profusion of the crowd, these were seen to report upon a topic of grave relevance and reality.
Seen was an iconography of man's stature between God and nature, the trajectory of every man from pliant creation to a hard death, all the while lashing manically downward, ultimately lashed by whatever is above him.
(There are currently no Letters to the Editor in response to this article.) Write one.