Reguarding Art, and the Killing of Things

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.