Art?!?!? Starving a dog to death is ART!!!???

[karisma]

So if it's correct as in the OP, you don't find that cruel? Tying a dog inside a gallery providing no food or water until it starves?

 

[Beanieboy]

I don't think that he "escaped." I think he was either released, or given to someone to care for.

He refuses to comment on it, so it is only speculation.

I think he has a great point. No one who went to the 3 day exhibit tried to feed or free the dog. Either they didn't believe he was starving, or they didn't care.

He also makes a good point that people didn't care about the individual until after his death, when it is too late.

According to the Director of the Gallery, the dog was, indeed, fed. It looked starving probably because it was before they found it. You can't blame the artist for it's condition, when he only had it for 3 days.

You can't, then, say, "Is starving a dog art or torture" any more than you can say, "Is a bleeding, hanging man on a cross art or torture"?

You have to review it in a)context and b) the actual conditions of the dog.

 

[Beanieboy]

So if it's correct as in the OP, you don't find that cruel? Tying a dog inside a gallery providing no food or water until it starves?

That's like saying, "Do you believe that it's cruel to whip a man, and make his flesh come off? Is it art to whip a man? Well, that's what they did to James Caveizel in the Passion of the Christ. Why not just call it Beating up Jesus! I heard from a blog that they wanted it to be real, so he was really whipped! Even if he wasn't, don't you think that filming this kind of graphic violence is sick?"

Some will agree. Some will disagree. Some argued that it focused on the violence and not on the purpose. Others said that it helped them understand the length to which Christ went. It's the intention.

According to the director of the museum, the dog was fed, and cleaned. According to Prensa, the dog was fed.
Yet, you believe the one where the dog died the first day? After 3 hours in the museum? Really?
He paid children to get the dog in one artice. He found it tied up in another, and he found it in the street in another.
Look at the details.

This is exactly what happens with WorldNewsDaily - the will say, "Four policemen wrestle 10-year-old to ground", then have an article about 2 policemen knocking on the door, interviewing the 12-year-old about a harrassing email to another student, and never have any comments from the victim.

It's a little fishy.

 

[karisma]

I don't think that he "escaped." I think he was either released, or given to someone to care for.

He refuses to comment on it, so it is only speculation.

Indeed, speculation.

I think he has a great point. No one who went to the 3 day exhibit tried to feed or free the dog. Either they didn't believe he was starving, or they didn't care.

Agreed. It's almost worse than tying the dog up in the first place; that no one tried to do anything about it.

He also makes a good point that people didn't care about the individual until after his death, when it is too late.

According to the Director of the Gallery, the dog was, indeed, fed. It looked starving probably because it was before they found it. You can't blame the artist for it's condition, when he only had it for 3 days.

If it was actually fed then I don't really have a problem with this. But it seems we have differing accounts.

You can't, then, say, "Is starving a dog art or torture" any more than you can say, "Is a bleeding, hanging man on a cross art or torture"?

You have to review it in a)context and b) the actual conditions of the dog.

The dog is an unwilling participant. It is completely unethical. No matter what the context.

 

[karisma]

That's like saying, "Do you believe that it's cruel to whip a man, and make his flesh come off? Is it art to whip a man? Well, that's what they did to James Caveizel in the Passion of the Christ. Why not just call it Beating up Jesus! I heard from a blog that they wanted it to be real, so he was really whipped! Even if he wasn't, don't you think that filming this kind of graphic violence is sick?"

Some will agree. Some will disagree. Some argued that it focused on the violence and not on the purpose. Others said that it helped them understand the length to which Christ went. It's the intention.

No, it's not the intention. Starving a helpless animal for so-called "art" is never acceptable, no matter what your intention. The dog is an unwilling participant.

According to the director of the museum, the dog was fed, and cleaned. According to Prensa, the dog was fed.

And according to a lot of other sources, the dog was not, and it died.

Yet, you believe the one where the dog died the first day? After 3 hours in the museum? Really?

One article said the dog died after several days. Another said it died after one day. None of them said it died only after 3 hours.

He paid children to get the dog in one artice. He found it tied up in another, and he found it in the street in another.
Look at the details.

Everything I read said he paid two kids to catch it from the street.

This is exactly what happens with WorldNewsDaily - the will say, "Four policemen wrestle 10-year-old to ground", then have an article about 2 policemen knocking on the door, interviewing the 12-year-old about a harrassing email to another student, and never have any comments from the victim.

It's a little fishy.

It is a little fishy. I find it mostly odd that no larger newsources in the US picked up on this story. Then again, another starving dog in a third world country generally isn't headline news here.

 

[m9lc]

The act itself doesn't disgust me so much as the fact that no one helped the dog.

 

[StarCannon]

-_-* Sad...

 

[Beanieboy]

The dog is an unwilling participant. It is completely unethical. No matter what the context.

I disagree.

The dog was very thin, and had a sign above it that said not to feed the dog. That doesn't mean the dog wasn't fed.

Museums also say, "Please do not touch the art" but they don't float onto the wall.

Animals are often unwilling animals. I don't think a horse wants to pull a carriage around Central Park. I don't know of suicidal cows that want to end up a side of beef.

The dog was in the museum for 3 hours/day. How is that unethical? Is taking your dog for a walk, and leaving him outside hooked on a parking meter unethical? It's far more common, and I don't know if the owner would want me feeding their dog.

 

[Beanieboy]

The act itself doesn't disgust me so much as the fact that no one helped the dog.

I don't know. I have a friend that went to a performance where the artist told everyone that what was about to happen was disturbing, and that once he began, no one could leave until he was done. He offered people the chance to leave, but no one moved.

He then passed out plastic forks, knives, and paper plates.

After that, he took out what looked like gasoline, and began to pour it all over himself. Then he took matches, and began to light them.

No one did anything. He said, "What's wrong with you people??? Isn't anyone going to try to stop me?"

My friend said that no one did. It was more annoying than anything else. He said that he wanted to smack him. Someone finally said, "I will" and stood up and left.

The artist was trying to show that people don't care about one another. However, if you think the person is simply trying to get intention, and not in any real danger, you are less motivated to act, because it just seems like selfish attention getting.

Had I seen this dog, I would have been drawn to it, just by the strange things going on (burning crack and weed, a live dog, Sandanista songs playing backward...). Dogs, if allowed to, will eat until they puke, and then eat that. They will eat their food, and still drool for yours. However, if a dog is truly starving, it is going to be very weak, and very dehydrated. If he showed these signs, at least 1 person would have called the police.

They probably realized that the dog was malnurished, but not because of the artist, but because it was common to see starving dogs in the street. I wonder, even if they believed that it was starving, if they are just desensitized to it.

 

[karisma]

Sorry, I thought I had made my position clear in a different post. IF the dog was actually being fed/reasonably cared for, I don't have a problem with this.

The dog was in the museum for 3 hours/day. How is that unethical? Is taking your dog for a walk, and leaving him outside hooked on a parking meter unethical? It's far more common, and I don't know if the owner would want me feeding their dog.

 

[karisma]

Dogs, if allowed to, will eat until they puke, and then eat that. They will eat their food, and still drool for yours. However, if a dog is truly starving, it is going to be very weak, and very dehydrated. If he showed these signs, at least 1 person would have called the police.

I still don't think it's accurate to assume that. It could easily turn into a case of people thinking someone else has already alerted authorities... "someone else will do it/has already done it."

 

[Bombila]

"This display, he claimed, was a response to the death of Natividad Canada, who was killed in Costa Rica by two rottweilers guarding a place Canada intended to rob. Vargas meant to show that no concern was given to the individual until after his death, much like the starving orphaned dog."

So, conflicting reports? I still find it highly questionable that a dog could just escape a guarded art gallery.

Benieboy's earlier post, and my post #10, both contain the statement of the gallery that actually sponsored the artist. I'm sure the gallery director is aware of the actual events, likely moreso than 'california aggie' or a hundred other bloggers living in foreign countries where the event didn't happen.

Only big expensive galleries have extensive security. Most galleries are a lot 'leakier' than MOMA, for example. Many galleries don't even have a regular security guard, unless hired for a particular event. A skittish dog could easily make a successful dash for a briefly open door.

As for people doing nothing to help the dog, or the other case of the artist pretending to set himself on frire: most people who attend performance pieces are familiar with the genre. They are aware some of what goes on will not be as it seems. They are reasonably confident the gallery will not take undue risks regarding illegality. The artists are also aware of this, and of the response gallery visitors will likely have.

The point of such art is to make people think, respond, react, not necessarily in immediate terms, but in perhaps later adapting how they think or feel about something.

Some artists are more successful at this than others.

I think (in terms of art criticism) this artist confused his issues too much, thus failing to clearly define what he wanted to effect, or show.

 

[stan1980]

From reading through this thread it's clear to see the posters with rational minds and the rest who jump to rash conclusions.

Normally, we presume a person is innocent until proven guilty. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this artist wasn't feeding the dog outside the 3 hours per day it was on display. Saying anything else is pure speculation.