Reguarding Art, and the Killing of Things

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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!

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

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

No, an actor human. Consent, you know.

-_-

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.