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?

Most amazing jew boots

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

He's one of those fags that thinks a controversial subject is the only way to get people to see his point.

Originally Posted by Elegy

I really hate "artistic" bullshit like this.

I'm not trying to twist you're words, but are you saying that anything an artist does that's controversial isn't art? That because it's controversial negates it's artistic value?

It sounds like just because you disagree with the method, you say it isn't art anymore. Conversely, are only things you agree with artistic?

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