Reguarding Art, and the Killing of Things

Evidently an artist in Costa Rica found some starving stray dog on the street and chained him up in a gallery for these reasons:

Quote:

A Costa Rican artist found himself in hot water with the animal protection people in his home country after using a starving, sick street dog as part of an exposition in Managua, Nicaragua, in August. Guillermo “Habacuc” Vargas allegedly found the dog tied up on a street corner in a poor Nicaragua barrio and brought it to the showing.

He tied the dog, according to furious animal lovers, in a corner of the salon where it died after a day. Habacuc’s exhibition included a legend spelled out in dog food reading “You are what you read,” photos and an incense burner that burned an ounce of marijauna and 175 “rock’ of crack cocaine. In the background, according to reports, the Sandista national anthem played backwards.

According to the artist, his “art” was a tribute to Natividad Canda, a Nicaraguan burglar killed in Costa Rica by two rottweilers guarding property he had entered at night. The incident caused friction between the two countries. Habacuc told the daily La Nacion, “I won’t say the dog died. The importance to me is the hypocracy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death.”

“The same thing happened with poor Natividad Canda. The people sympathized with him only after he was dead,” the artist added.

The artist apparently is unaware that at least three large, active organizations are dedicated in Costa Rica to the protection of animals and that several persons have been prosecuted for cruelty to animals. They are hampered in their efforts by the old Hispanic customs of disregard for animal welfare and by a lack of funding.

original article can be found HERE. THIS one has pics and more bias.

So I saw this article (or an article linking to this article) on Digg and the comments infuriated me. I was going to say something there but at this point it'd be pissing into an ocean of piss.

Yes, I consider this act as Art. I find his reasons thought provoking. I don't care that the dog died. Maybe it's because I don't have a soul, maybe it's because the dog was dying anyways and Guillermo just put it on a pedestal.

The reactions on Digg and the I-heart-Animals site that picked it up prove Guillermo's point that nobody cares about the dog till it's dead. What infuriates me is that everybody has their head up their own ass about one dead dog that nobody gets the point.

I don't know. Am I soulless, or was this a legitimate artistic expression?

You know, I am an animal lover. I hate to see animals mistreated. But I get this.

Originally Posted by Article

“I won’t say the dog died. The importance to me is the hypocracy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death.”

That means a lot to me.

The crack, the pot, the national anthem backwards? I think I see where he was trying to go there, but I don't think it's as profound as the dog.

I'm not sure that he needed a real dog to make his point, though. I know it's "art" and all - best to be authentic here - but really. He could have made his point in another fashion which didn't actually lead to the death of an animal.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

He could have made his point in another fashion which didn't actually lead to the death of an animal.

Yes, but would anyone have cared?

Then again, I'm not sure if exposing general hypocrisy is much of an artistic revelation in the first place.

Originally Posted by Bigblah

Yes, but would anyone have cared?

I guess that depends?

If they were conned into thinking it was real, then they would care.

I would have hired an actor, myself. But I don't know if that would be "art" enough, as I am not, you know, in that clique.

Quote:

Then again, I'm not sure if exposing general hypocrisy is much of an artistic revelation in the first place.

It's really not. But it was a unique way of looking at it!

You'd hire an actor....dog?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

You'd hire an actor....dog?

No, an actor human. Consent, you know.

-_-

I think dead people would be a bit over the top, no one'd be able to take it seriously. The article said the dog died within the day. So he takes some random dog off the street, and because he doesn't rush it to the vet to save its life, it's cruelty to animals?

Well. It's sad that the dog died. I like dogs alot and I hate to see any dog die. Its not so bad that the guy used him in art. But did he have to let it die? could have fed it. Judging by that dog, it would take many many meals before undernourishment was staved away. It would have still had the same effect. But then again, I understand the message that the dead dog gives too. Why do people only care about the dog when it was dead. Why didn't anyone care about it while it was still alive.

From what I read he did forbid people from feeding it, I'm fairly certain he intended for the dog to starve to death. Weather people tried to and were stopped or weather nobody even bothered, I'm not sure. Also, the artist said the dog wouldn't eat anything anyways.

The thing that got me was that the comments on Digg were ridiculously violent towards the artist for the dead dog. I mean, i know we're all a bunch of tough guys on the internet...but still, such a violent reaction to be blatantly hypocritical (to the point where I now don't understand why people are against the death penalty).

The thing that gets me so upset is that people completely disregarded this as an act of artistic expression. Yeah, it's cruel; maybe even needlessly cruel. But I feel like we need to give artists a little bit of leeway. Not to the point of utter horror, but at least let them work in the gray areas. I can't imagine the shithole that a society will become if they begin to restrict artists. How lame it would be to claim art is only about painting pretty pictures and all other acts are condemned.

I'm not saying this event threatens that, but those other peoples sure gave me that impression.

Is his point that no one cares about a suffering creature before it dies or is he using the poor unknown dog as a comparison to Natividad Canda that was killed while breaking the law?

People do care about things that are suffering, although there are a lot of things that are suffering on this planet. His generalization that people don't care until something is dead is wrong, most people are just as sympathetic when things are dying, but they can't do anything unless they have a solution. I can kind of see his point if it was a destitute area where he found the dog and that they had not fed the dog well or at least humanely put it to sleep, but if he brought it to probably a better area and then he didn't allow people to ease its suffering then he completely defeated his own point.

Maybe the policemen that watched Navidad Canda die did have the solution and could have helped him, but I believe that most people would have helped him if they could have safely done so. After all, the firemen came to save him eventually.

Maybe it is art, but I don't think it was good at all. I don't think it was a good point, and it wasn't right to allow the dog to starve like that to prove it. I don't think he deserves the death penalty, but it doesn't matter if you are an artist or not, if you do something cruel then you should be punished. If he really wanted to prove his point, then he should have starved his own body instead of the dog and then he should have watched if anybody would have fed him or if he would have died.

Quote:

The importance to me is the hypocracy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death.”

I found this part hilarious. Yeah it doesn't make my day to see animals suffer. He's one of those fags that thinks a controversial subject is the only way to get people to see his point. If his subject has to die for his statement, maybe he's just a shitty artist.

Or maybe the life of one dying dog was enough to generate adequate publicity to bring some light to his cause.

I think he needs to better explain how forcing a dog to starve to death will somehow help the situation. Just attention is never enough.

What more is there?

Should we stop protesting the genocide in Darfur? Should we stop anti-war demonstrations? All they're going to accomplish is drawing attention to the issue, anyway.

I love dogs.

But I like it. The punch line is serious, and people are crying over this dog instead of rallying and using this to say, "Yeah, dogs are dying everywhere just like this one". It's what you call an example or martyr, and in this case it was instigated. I think it was a clever and potent 'work'.

And, its only a dog.

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

I found this part hilarious. Yeah it doesn't make my day to see animals suffer. He's one of those fags that thinks a controversial subject is the only way to get people to see his point. If his subject has to die for his statement, maybe he's just a shitty artist.

^^^^
This.

The message could've just as easily been presented as a satire. He could've also used a fake dog, but that would actually involve some talent, so I guess this is a substitute for the lack of Costa Rican artfag op-eds.

Quote:

And, its only a dog.

I know I take the Cruella Deville approach to animals as property, but killing something just to make a statement is retarded. The fact that he only killed a dog doesn't downplay the fact that this guy is a sick fuck who should probably be thrown a pillow party.

He made the dog famous. There is now a dog that should've died on the streets, nameless and unknown, that is now suddenly so well known that people are fighting for him after his death.

Who said the dog wanted to be famous? Maybe he wanted to end his miserable existence humbly down a quiet sidestreet where no one would see him?

I think that kind of art is rather despicable....I guess if the dog was dead to begin with it'd be easier to handle....although still odd.

I'm suddenly undecided, but I really don't like the idea of using a dog like that. But I don't think a huge deal has to be made either, just tell the guy if he does that kind of shit again, he's gonna get his ass handed to him. Or something to that extent.

Ugh. I'm an artist and I appreciate the creativity of others but there should be limits to how people express themselves.

This reminds me of this guy Eugene Von Bruenchenhein Exhibition - Eugene Von Bruenchenhein - Kinz, Tillou and Feigen
He made things out of Chicken bones. His supply came out of the trash but something did have to die to contribute to his work.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

His supply came out of the trash but something did have to die to contribute to his work.

Oh fuck me... I bet you're a motherfucking vegan too, aren't you?