The Declining Relevance of Animal Metaphors
Establishing continuity among entities that are typically presented as contrasting disparities is the principle inspiring Terike Haapoja. In an effort to establish rapport and cooperation, Haapoja dissolves the contrast between 'alive' and 'dead', for example, by displaying the gradual morphing that occurs when an entity is no longer supported by breath and metabolism. Furthermore, she erases the boundaries between human life and bacterial life, highlighting the neglected interdependency that fuels the engines of all forms of life. 
An article in today's NY Times by Edward Hoagland introduces an ironic twist to this theme. Hoagland points out how many popular phrases and adjectives in the language suggest the correlation between homo sapiens and other kinds of animals, "By our own account we’re pigs, yet bearish, owly but mousy, catty and bovine. We beaver at work, hawk merchandise, and ape others by parroting them. We’re lemmings, wolfish, snakes in the grass, weasels, bucks, hens, leonine or sharks. We’re beaky or tigerish, doe-eyed, raven-haired, foxy, chicken-hearted, slow as a tortoise, meek as a dove, sheepish, dogged, old goats, goosey, sitting ducks or vultures. We butt in, bull ahead, change our stripes or spots, strut like a peacock, weep crocodile tears, ram through or swan about. We’re rabbity, calf-eyed, we beat our chests like gorillas, buzz off, or act like a jellyfish."
Despite these correspondences, Hoagland proceeds with a litany describing the gaping divide tht separates the lives of contemporary human and the animals that populate the planet. The offending forces that have intervened, he insists, are electronics, simulations, and media extravaganzas. As a result, typical encounters with animals are either within contrived environments like zoos or within devices that display imaginary animated renderings.
Haapoja’s works of art actually attempt to overcome the conditions Hagland laments. Her works offer infusions of insights designed to heal this rupture. She might concur with Hoagland’s distress regarding the irrelevance of our metaphors to our actual life experiences. He states, “Aesopian metaphors were artesian if not prehistoric. The tortoise and the hare, the lion saved by the mouse, the monkey who would be king, the dog in the manger, the dog and his shadow, the country mouse and the city mouse, the wolf in sheep’s clothing, the raven and the crow, the heron and the fish, the peacock and the crane. From where will we draw replacement similes and language?”