Since When Starving a Dog to Death is Called Art

[Man Mountain]

Since When Starving a Dog to Death is Called Art

A so called artist by the name Guillermo Habacuc Vargas with the help of 2 children, who he paid, caught a dog on the street. He tied the dog in his exhibition gallery so people could see it starve to death. He told everyone not to feed this dog. He calls himself an artist. After suffering for a few days dog died in the gallery.

The sickness doesn't stop there. In that event he was chosen to represent his country in the “Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008″.

There's a petition to boycott his exposition if you want to join go here www.petitiononline.com/13031953/petition.html

http://www.popgive.com/2008/03/since-when-starving-dog-to-death-is.html

I can't believe that people went to the gallery and didn't do anything about this. :madrun

http://bp3.blogger.com/_osrVjnPbdEM/R-EAFuwKE3I/AAAAAAAAALw/bPiN2F-w0BE/s400/dog1.JPG
http://bp1.blogger.com/_osrVjnPbdEM/R-D_7ewKE0I/AAAAAAAAALY/ZhjEDGRFXHk/s400/dog4.JPG
http://bp0.blogger.com/_osrVjnPbdEM/R-D_4OwKEzI/AAAAAAAAALQ/iXHGDvkuYXA/s400/dog5.jpg

[SAtown]

the third pic is the most fucked up pic I've ever seen.

[BruceBowenFan]

this dude deserves to die

[The sone]

all i need is an address and a name...im there. we'll see how he feels about "art" when im done...

[The sone]

fuckface!

[CharlieMac]

:nope

Thats all I got.

[johngateswhiteley]

the reason he did it is sound, i have no problem with his philosophical display. ever been to a bullfight? ...thats sort of similar.

anyway, people ignore hunger everyday. you think stray animals starving and dying in the streets is any different b/c its not in front of your face? you think kids dying in africa is any different b/c its not in front of your face? ...if you have a problem with what he did, then adopt animals from the pound, from the streets, and feed children in Africa. otherwise, shut your hypocritical ass up.

is it art? ...thats debatable. is it a great point that might wake some people up? ...you bet.

[Soul_Patch]

the reason he did it is sound, i have no problem with his philosophical display. ever been to a bullfight? ...thats sort of similar.

anyway, people ignore hunger everyday. you think stray animals starving and dying in the streets is any different b/c its not in front of your face? you think kids dying in africa is any different b/c its not in front of your face? ...if you have a problem with what he did, then adopt animals from the pound, from the streets, and feed children in Africa. otherwise, shut your hypocritical ass up.

is it art? ...thats debatable. is it a great point that might wake some people up? ...you bet.


Terrible analogy...this is animal cruelty, and the fact that people stood over the damn thing and watched is disgusting....

There is a difference between chaining a dog up in a corner with no food or water, and a stray running around able to at least try and fend for itself.

I know you are trying to sound intellectual and what not, but you missed the mark by a long shot.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

the reason he did it is sound, i have no problem with his philosophical display. ever been to a bullfight? ...thats sort of similar.

anyway, people ignore hunger everyday. you think stray animals starving and dying in the streets is any different b/c its not in front of your face? you think kids dying in africa is any different b/c its not in front of your face? ...if you have a problem with what he did, then adopt animals from the pound, from the streets, and feed children in Africa. otherwise, shut your hypocritical ass up.

is it art? ...thats debatable. is it a great point that might wake some people up? ...you bet.
so I imagine if someone were to tie up a small African kid and starve him to death, it would be alright in your fucked up little universe...

The "Art" tag is not a "get out of jail free" card for this sort of shit. Hypocritical or not, there's nothing wrong about condeming this dude's actions. What he did was fucked up beyond recog-fucking-nition!

[johngateswhiteley]

Terrible analogy...this is animal cruelty, and the fact that people stood over the damn thing and watched is disgusting....

There is a difference between chaining a dog up in a corner with no food or water, and a stray running around able to at least try and fend for itself.

I know you are trying to sound intellectual and what not, but you missed the mark by a long shot.

i never said there wasn't a difference between what he did and that dog fending for itself. i haven't missed anything.

trying to sound intellectual? ...lol, jesus.

[johngateswhiteley]

so I imagine if someone were to tie up a small African kid and starve him to death, it would be alright in your fucked up little universe...

The "Art" tag is not a "get out of jail free" card for this sort of shit. Hypocritical or not, there's nothing wrong about condeming this dude's actions. What he did was fucked up beyond recog-fucking-nition!

typical overreactive response. if you think i think its ok to tie up an african kid...you're fucking nuts. stop wasting my time...making assumptions on what i actually think.

if all you're going to post is garbage, stick to pics of Argentinian women...that, on the other hand, is something.

[stretch]

the reason he did it is sound, i have no problem with his philosophical display. ever been to a bullfight? ...thats sort of similar.

anyway, people ignore hunger everyday. you think stray animals starving and dying in the streets is any different b/c its not in front of your face? you think kids dying in africa is any different b/c its not in front of your face? ...if you have a problem with what he did, then adopt animals from the pound, from the streets, and feed children in Africa. otherwise, shut your hypocritical ass up.

is it art? ...thats debatable. is it a great point that might wake some people up? ...you bet.

that is the worst fucking explanation/analogy I have ever heard. just because starvation does exist, doesnt mean you have make an innocent life be a part of it. its like saying "since war exists, lets show people that aren't a part of it, how bad it truly is by gunning innocent lives down so that they will wake up."

you're a fuckin idiot.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Interesting.

No one fed the dog just because he said so. What does that say about all the people that went to the gallery?

[whottt]

the reason he did it is sound, i have no problem with his philosophical display. ever been to a bullfight? ...thats sort of similar.

anyway, people ignore hunger everyday. you think stray animals starving and dying in the streets is any different b/c its not in front of your face? you think kids dying in africa is any different b/c its not in front of your face? ...if you have a problem with what he did, then adopt animals from the pound, from the streets, and feed children in Africa. otherwise, shut your hypocritical ass up.

is it art? ...thats debatable. is it a great point that might wake some people up? ...you bet.


WTF is wrong with you?

[katyon6th]

Those pictures really made my heart hurt and my stomach turn.

Sad. :(

[LocosPorJuana]

ay dios mio!
This is art that only Miguel vick would appreciate. I'm sorry but that is not Art, that's just morbid. I doubt that the artist was trying to make a political statement about poverty in central america, just look at the people surrounding the "exhibition."

[stretch]

WTF is wrong with you?
JGW is simply a moron.

[Spurminator]

I can somewhat respect what JGW is trying to say but whether you call this "art" or not, it's still animal cruelty and this "artist" deserves whatever punishment is typically given for such a thing. Same thing would happen to me if I did a singing and dancing routine that culminated in the robbery of a liquor store.


No one fed the dog just because he said so. What does that say about all the people that went to the gallery?

I can't fathom wanting to go see such a thing. I already regret opening this thread and seeing the pictures... to see it in person? Fucking sick.

And I especially wish I hadn't seen those pictures with nine hours left in my work day because I'd really like to go home and hug my dog right now.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I'd imagine that Hondurans view dogs differently than most do here.

The fact that no one did anything would suggest that they view dogs as pests and/or that they have a problem with feral, stray dogs.

[monosylab1k]

the third pic is the most fucked up pic I've ever seen.
Yeah I wanted to puke when I saw that. Vapid artsy fucks not even concerned with the fact that a dog is starving to death right next to them.

Humans are some fucked up creatures. We are truly the cancer of the earth.

[MoSpur]

The point he is trying to make if indeed he was trying to make that point about us ignoring hunger is a good point. He could have went about it a different way though. Chaining up that dog and starving it on purpose is just wrong.

[monosylab1k]

The fact that no one did anything would suggest that they view dogs as pests and/or that they have a problem with feral, stray dogs.
That's probably true. But if that's the case then maybe the people of Honduras should spend less money building art galleries and more money on animal control.

[monosylab1k]

If he really wanted to make a statement he would have chained himself up to starve to death.

[AlamoSpursFan]

you think kids dying in africa is any different b/c its not in front of your face? ...if you have a problem with what he did, then adopt animals from the pound, from the streets, and feed children in Africa. otherwise, shut your hypocritical ass up.

VKNoJ2BzSRU&hl=en

[Viva Las Espuelas]

i feel like eating!!

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

If he really wanted to make a statement he would have chained himself up to starve to death.
Word. Besides, everyone knows that an artist's stock goes up when he dies. It's a good career move, and the world has one less waste of oxyg-I mean "artist" to worry about. Win-win.

[Extra Stout]

What great art. Hey, let's find a homeless woman and rape and torture her to death! We'll have a sign telling people it's performance art and not to intervene! That would be a great statement against poverty, violence against women, etc. And, think of the irony of people just standing and watching!

I'm already on my way to becoming a terrific leftist intellectual, breaking eggs to make the omelette.

[MannyIsGod]

Man I know I'm going to get flamed for this. I know it.

Anyway, I don't condone the starving of animals. However, look at the reaction he's gotten. Look at this thread and look at all the people saying how sick it was and thinking about the pictures and how moved they were by them. Thats what art does.

I'm saddened he was able to pull this off. I'm saddened that the gallery actually allowed this and I'm sad that the patrons to the gallery didn't intervene. I'm sad he killed the animal for whatever reason he had or thought he had. But when you look at the situatoin in that very context, how can this NOT be art?

[stretch]

Man I know I'm going to get flamed for this. I know it.

Anyway, I don't condone the starving of animals. However, look at the reaction he's gotten. Look at this thread and look at all the people saying how sick it was and thinking about the pictures and how moved they were by them. Thats what art does.

I'm saddened he was able to pull this off. I'm saddened that the gallery actually allowed this and I'm sad that the patrons to the gallery didn't intervene. I'm sad he killed the animal for whatever reason he had or thought he had. But when you look at the situatoin in that very context, how can this NOT be art?
I understand completely what you are saying, but still, he could have found a different way to go about it.

Second of all, people would have been sickened and moved by pictures of starving animals period. This not only sickened and moved us, but also made us want to kick this guys ass for trying to do good by doing the complete fucking opposite.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

That guy should fuckin go to Hell.
He's begging to meet Mr. Pocket Knife.

[monosylab1k]

Look at this thread and look at all the people saying how sick it was and thinking about the pictures and how moved they were by them. Thats what art does.
Sooooooo 9/11 was just an art exhibit for Mr. Bin Laden?

I'd love for him to come out with that on his next tape.

"Hey guys, that whole 9/11 thing was just performance art to show the severity of human suffering. We've got to work harder to bring peace on earth. I know, I know, I AM a brilliant artiste. Thanks!"

[Extra Stout]

Man I know I'm going to get flamed for this. I know it.

Anyway, I don't condone the starving of animals. However, look at the reaction he's gotten. Look at this thread and look at all the people saying how sick it was and thinking about the pictures and how moved they were by them. Thats what art does.

I'm saddened he was able to pull this off. I'm saddened that the gallery actually allowed this and I'm sad that the patrons to the gallery didn't intervene. I'm sad he killed the animal for whatever reason he had or thought he had. But when you look at the situatoin in that very context, how can this NOT be art?
I could kill you, and embroider your skin into a quite elegant lampshade. How can that NOT be art?

[Spurminator]

Whether it's art or not is irrelevant. Art can still be morally reprehensible and punishable by law.

[samikeyp]

Dude needs to be shot in the head.....of his dick and allowed to bleed to death in the public square.

[katyon6th]

Man I know I'm going to get flamed for this. I know it.

Anyway, I don't condone the starving of animals. However, look at the reaction he's gotten. Look at this thread and look at all the people saying how sick it was and thinking about the pictures and how moved they were by them. Thats what art does.

I'm saddened he was able to pull this off. I'm saddened that the gallery actually allowed this and I'm sad that the patrons to the gallery didn't intervene. I'm sad he killed the animal for whatever reason he had or thought he had. But when you look at the situatoin in that very context, how can this NOT be art?

Fucking Manny. I should make you drink bong water for spouting such shit.

[Mijo]

He tied the dog in his exhibition gallery so people could see it starve to death. He told everyone not to feed this dog. He calls himself an artist. After suffering for a few days dog died in the gallery. If his point was to demonstrate that people ignore hunger then why did he tell everyone to not feed the dog? I don't agree with it but I could've understood it better had he not asked people to feed the dog and waited to see if anyone actually would.

[Warlord23]

That isn't art, it's attention whoring. There's a big difference between doing something cruel and reprehensible so people watch and react (which is what this guy did) versus creating something remarkable or inventive which moves people (which is what art is supposed to be).

Yes, art is symbolic. Yes, art imitates life. Yes, art can evoke grief and sorrow as much as it can evoke happiness and laughter from its audience. However, you cannot get away with harming, hurting or killing living beings and claim you're symbolizing or depicting something. Art is creation, not destruction. What he did is a punishable crime which cannot be rationalized or explained away under "artistic license". The guy is basically sick in the head and should be locked away for his and others' good.

[cornbread]

Seeing that this is art, I now see that marine that throws puppies off cliffs in a different light. There's only thing left for these guys to take them right to the top: collaboration.

[MannyIsGod]

Sooooooo 9/11 was just an art exhibit for Mr. Bin Laden?

I'd love for him to come out with that on his next tape.

"Hey guys, that whole 9/11 thing was just performance art to show the severity of human suffering. We've got to work harder to bring peace on earth. I know, I know, I AM a brilliant artiste. Thanks!"Complete non sequitor.

[MannyIsGod]

I understand completely what you are saying, but still, he could have found a different way to go about it.

Second of all, people would have been sickened and moved by pictures of starving animals period. This not only sickened and moved us, but also made us want to kick this guys ass for trying to do good by doing the complete fucking opposite.Yeah - I don't disagree with anything you've posted.

[MannyIsGod]

Whether it's art or not is irrelevant. Art can still be morally reprehensible and punishable by law.True. And he'd never get away with that here. But Honduras is a different culture it would seem.

[monosylab1k]

Complete non sequitor.
it was performance art to protest idiotic posts. How can it NOT be art?

[MannyIsGod]

I could kill you, and embroider your skin into a quite elegant lampshade. How can that NOT be art?
Define art ES.

[MannyIsGod]

That isn't art, it's attention whoring. There's a big difference between doing something cruel and reprehensible so people watch and react (which is what this guy did) versus creating something remarkable or inventive which moves people (which is what art is supposed to be).

Yes, art is symbolic. Yes, art imitates life. Yes, art can evoke grief and sorrow as much as it can evoke happiness and laughter from its audience. However, you cannot get away with harming, hurting or killing living beings and claim you're symbolizing or depicting something. Art is creation, not destruction. What he did is a punishable crime which cannot be rationalized or explained away under "artistic license". The guy is basically sick in the head and should be locked away for his and others' good.Since when is art defined as only creation? What about those who believe there is creation out of destruction?

[MannyIsGod]

it was performance art to protest idiotic posts. How can it NOT be art?Your performance in this thread is about as epic as the performances of your favorite teams. You emmulate them well.

[monosylab1k]

Your performance in this thread is about as epic as the performances of your favorite teams. You emmulate them well.
Complete non-sequitur.

[MannyIsGod]

Complete non-sequitur.no u

[peewee's lovechild]

This is just some stupid shit.

To label this as art is just insane.

And, I agree that all the sheep that did nothing for the dog because the "artist" said so are complicit in this cruelty.

[Warlord23]

Since when is art defined as only creation? What about those who believe there is creation out of destruction?

Read my post again. Art can depict destruction and evoke horror. All I'm saying is that the depiction should not cause actual destruction to life or property, because the latter is a punishable crime.

Anybody is free to commit an atrocity and claim that they were just "depicting" something that is part of the real world. That, however, is a crime since it wilfully hurts or takes away freedom from the subject upon whom the atrocity is committed.

Making a documentary of suffering in real life is very different from actually inflicting the suffering and comparing it to what might be happening elsewhere. He didn't let the dog have a chance at survival since he tied it up and forbade access to nutrition. He wasn't documenting "natural" suffering, he was inflicting it and then documenting it. That isn't art, it's a crime.

[MannyIsGod]

Read my post again. Art can depict destruction and evoke horror. All I'm saying is that the depiction should not cause actual destruction to life or property, because the latter is a punishable crime.

Anybody is free to commit an atrocity and claim that they were just "depicting" something that is part of the real world. That, however, is a crime since it wilfully hurts or takes away freedom from the subject upon whom the atrocity is committed.

Making a documentary of suffering in real life is very different from actually inflicting the suffering and comparing it to what might be happening elsewhere. He didn't let the dog have a chance at survival since he tied it up and forbade access to nutrition. He wasn't documenting "natural" suffering, he was inflicting it and then documenting it. That isn't art, it's a crime.I don't think the legality of something is what determines whether or not it is art or not. There has been plenty of art that was created and was illegal when it was made.

I will say this, I do think that when you try to depict something yet you force it then you aren't depicting it honestly. But that doesn't change the statment that is made when people just let a dog die and the disgust that conveys.

There are a lot of arguments in this thread that because this was so reprehensible and because it was a criminal act (well it would have been one here; I'm not sure if it was one there but it doesn't apear so) that means it can't be art. I've already argued above that legality is irrelvent and you could easily argue (not that I nessecarily agree with it) that just because something is dispicable here doesn't nessecarily mean thats the way they view it there.

I know that Americans will view this as a horrid act especialy because it is a dog, but would they have viewed it differently if he had starved a hamster or a gold fish?

[peewee's lovechild]

I don't think the legality of something is what determines whether or not it is art or not. There has been plenty of art that was created and was illegal when it was made.

Did any of that art include letting a living creature die, or causing it's death by asking that no one feed said living creature and therefore causing it to die?

[monosylab1k]

I don't think the legality of something is what determines whether or not it is art or not. There has been plenty of art that was created and was illegal when it was made.
EDIT: Thank God he added more to his post.

[MannyIsGod]

Did any of that art include letting a living creature die, or causing it's death by asking that no one feed said living creature and therefore causing it to die?I have no way of knowing that, but if the answer is no then I have to ask you is art limited to what has been done before? The answer to that is obviously no.

[MannyIsGod]

EDIT: Thank God he added more to his post.Go think about how you compared the death of a stray dog to the murder of everyone who died in 9/11. Tpark, is that you?

[Warlord23]

I don't think the legality of something is what determines whether or not it is art or not. There has been plenty of art that was created and was illegal when it was made.

I think your definition of art is too loose and all-encompassing. If this news article had been about a person tying up and starving a dog to death inside his home, it'd be viewed as a crime. Just because the crime was committed inside an art gallery doesn't make it art. Using that definition, one could do just about anything inside an art gallery and call it art. Do you think locking up a person inside an airtight glass cage in an art gallery and watching them die slowly is art as well? Because that would depict a real-life event (death), and evoke strong emotion (horror) from its audience. Is that enough to qualify it as a work of art?

[peewee's lovechild]

I have no way of knowing that, but if the answer is no then I have to ask you is art limited to what has been done before? The answer to that is obviously no.

Representing the way you view the world is art.

Letting a living thing die because you're attempting to prove a point is a universe away from being art.

[monosylab1k]

Go think about how you compared the death of a stray dog to the murder of everyone who died in 9/11. Tpark, is that you?
I didn't (nice strawman though), I mocked your assertion that causing a living thing to die can be called art. Dumbass, is that you?

Would it have made you less butthurt if I said Michael Vick was a performance artist instead?

[MannyIsGod]

I think your definition of art is too loose and all-encompassing. If this news article had been about a person tying up and starving a dog to death inside his home, it'd be viewed as a crime. Just because the crime was committed inside an art gallery doesn't make it art. Using that definition, one could do just about anything inside an art gallery and call it art. Do you think locking up a person inside an airtight glass cage in an art gallery and watching them die slowly is art as well? Because that would depict a real-life event (death), and evoke strong emotion (horror) from its audience. Is that enough to qualify it as a work of art?If my defenition is too broad then narrow it for me. Provide me a baseline. Define what makes art.

[MannyIsGod]

I didn't, I mocked your assertion that causing a living thing to die can be called art. Dumbass, is that you?

Would it have made you less butthurt if I said Michael Vick was a performance artist instead?So art can only involve the good parts of humanity? If the exact opposite had been done and he kept a dog there off the streets and fed it and made it happier would that have qualified it as art?

[monosylab1k]

If the exact opposite had been done and he kept a dog there off the streets and fed it and made it happier would that have qualified it as art?
No, that would mean he has a new pet.

[MannyIsGod]

I didn't (nice strawman though), I mocked your assertion that causing a living thing to die can be called art. Dumbass, is that you?

Would it have made you less butthurt if I said Michael Vick was a performance artist instead?You keep bringing up examples that are completely different in their intention. That makes a fairly large difference.

[Extra Stout]

Define art ES.
Art is whatever mode of expression the artist feels like.

I could have a display impaling live African children and I said it was art, it would be. Of course, I also probably would have my body physically ripped into pieces by an angry mob. In a way, that too would part of the act of art. It would complete the art.

The poster who said 9/11 was art was correct. There was deep symbolism involved in the act. It evoked emotion, reflection, thought. The images of 9/11 will endure forever.

I guess sometimes it is appropriate to recognize art, while simultaneously recognizing that the expression itself is immoral, repugant, and/or criminal, and recognizing that when it is criminal, ethics require prosecuting the artist to the fullest extent of the law. We sometimes get so caught up in the worship of self and of self-expression that we make it an excuse for atrocity.

[MoSpur]

I honestly think that people defending this guy saying its art are way off. Just because he defined his actions as art, doesn't make it right.

[MannyIsGod]

Representing the way you view the world is art.

Letting a living thing die because you're attempting to prove a point is a universe away from being art.Ok, so if representing the way he views the world is art, but he has to do it by your methods? Your statements are completely contradictory. If letting a living thing die is representing how he views the world then woudln't that fit your defention of art?

[MannyIsGod]

I honestly think that people defending this guy saying its art are way off. Just because he defined his actions as art, doesn't make it right.Not a single person in this thread has said his actions are right.

[MannyIsGod]

Art is whatever mode of expression the artist feels like.

I could have a display impaling live African children and I said it was art, it would be. Of course, I also probably would have my body physically ripped into pieces by an angry mob. In a way, that too would part of the act of art. It would complete the art.

The poster who said 9/11 was art was correct. There was deep symbolism involved in the act. It evoked emotion, reflection, thought. The images of 9/11 will endure forever.

I guess sometimes it is appropriate to recognize art, while simultaneously recognizing that the expression itself is immoral, repugant, and/or criminal, and recognizing that when it is criminal, ethics require prosecuting the artist to the fullest extent of the law. We sometimes get so caught up in the worship of self and of self-expression that we make it an excuse for atrocity.Thank you.

[MoSpur]

Not a single person in this thread has said his actions are right.
You agreed that what he did is in fact art. He got away with it because he called it art. You agreed and therefore in a sense are defending what he did.

[CuckingFunt]

I am absolutely horrified that someone would do this. I am even more horrified that people would watch without doing anything to help the dog. I think it's completely reprehensible and without excuse or justification.

That being said, it's impossible for us to try to apply our (largely) American values and laws to this situation. That kind of animal cruelty would certainly be punishable by law here, but maybe that's not the case in Honduras.

Furthermore, there's no question in my mind that this is art. I've always been of the opinion that it's the idea that makes something art and not the final product, so I'd be a hypocrite if I changed that definition in this case. However, when I (or Manny, or anyone else) admit the possibility that this may indeed be art, it doesn't mean that we're justifying the act or saying that the art label makes it okay. It doesn't even come close. Sometimes art is crappy, offensive, overly pretentious, and completely misses the mark, but it doesn't stop being art.

[Warlord23]

But by that definition, everything that expresses something is art. Which means mouthing obscenities is an art. But then again not mouthing obscenities is also an art. Both are expressive of something, right? Creating/destroying anything is an art. Then again, sitting on my ass all day long is also an art.

Self-expression is one side of art. The other side is skill and imagination. If you don't put skill and imagination as necessary conditions for creating a work of art, everything in the universe can be called a work of art, and everybody can be called an artist.

[MannyIsGod]

You agreed that what he did is in fact art. He got away with it because he called it art. You agreed and therefore in a sense are defending what he did.I did agree that what he did was art.

He got away with it because they obviously didn't give a shit about what he did in Honduras, not because he called it art. I'm fairly certain that if he had tied up an orphan child in place of the dog and called it art it woudln't have been allowed in the least. All that tells me is that people in Hondouras don't give a shit about stray dogs.

I can agree that its art and not defend his actions. If you can't make the distinction then thats your issue but in no way have I condoned anythign that this man and the people who enabled him have done.

[peewee's lovechild]

Ok, so if representing the way he views the world is art, but he has to do it by your methods? Your statements are completely contradictory. If letting a living thing die is representing how he views the world then woudln't that fit your defention of art?

"Letting" implies action, that's not art.

I'm not saying he has to do it by anyones methods. Art can be expressed lyrically, musically, by sculputre, by painting . . .

In the past, there's been contorversial art. Such as, The Rites of Spring by Igor Stravinsky, Edgar Degas' Little Ballarina, Pollack's paintings, etc.

However, "letting" a living thing die can not possibly be considered art. Depicting the death of a living thing, though, can and should be considered art.

There's a difference.

[Extra Stout]

You agreed that what he did is in fact art. He got away with it because he called it art. You agreed and therefore in a sense are defending what he did.
You're making the assumption that because something is art that is therefore inherently good.

Art can be an atrocity.

[monosylab1k]

So every time I jack off in the shower I'm creating art? Bad ass.

[MannyIsGod]

But by that definition, everything that expresses something is art. Which means mouthing obscenities is an art. But then again not mouthing obscenities is also an art. Both are expressive of something, right? Creating/destroying anything is an art. Then again, sitting on my ass all day long is also an art.

Self-expression is one side of art. The other side is skill and imagination. If you don't put skill and imagination as necessary conditions for creating a work of art, everything in the universe can be called a work of art, and everybody can be called an artist.I think a lot of it depends on the intents and medium used as well as how it hits. This artist obviously had an intent to make an emotional mark with this and no one can deny he's succeed in doing that.

[MannyIsGod]

"Letting" implies action, that's not art.

I'm not saying he has to do it by anyones methods. Art can be expressed lyrically, musically, by sculputre, by painting . . .

In the past, there's been contorversial art. Such as, The Rites of Spring by Igor Stravinsky, Edgar Degas' Little Ballarina, Pollack's paintings, etc.

However, "letting" a living thing die can not possibly be considered art. Depicting the death of a living thing, though, can and should be considered art.

There's a difference.Tell that to anyone who's ever done performance art.

[Fillmoe]

its a dog that was prolly going to get run over on the streets by some maniac anyways..... get over it..... next time you're eating prime rib steak think long and hard..... fucking hypocrites

[Extra Stout]

So every time I jack off in the shower I'm creating art? Bad ass.
No. You are not expressing anything.

If you put a table in the middle of a busy sidewalk stood on it and starting abusing yourself, that could be art. It also would get you arrested, if the crowd did not first maim you.

[MannyIsGod]

Katy - I just want you to know how hard it was to avoid Phillipino jokes in this thread. Just realize the level of restraint I am currently showing. That is all.

[monosylab1k]

Art can be an atrocity.
Absolutely true.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/SCR/1381~The-Boondock-Saints-Posters.jpg

[MoSpur]

Its almost funny TO ME that people can honestly sit there and say that what he did was art. I know that there is all kinds of art. What this man did was not art. I don't care how you try to spin it, its not art.

[monosylab1k]

No. You are not expressing anything.

Oh I'm expressing something alright. All over the shower tiles.

[mrsmaalox]

There have been many excellent definitions here of what art is. But true art is sincere. We can look at something, dissect it and define it as art. But sincerity can only be "sensed" or "felt". And though this may meet some of the requirements to be called art--it doesn't feel sincere.

[katyon6th]

Katy - I just want you to know how hard it was to avoid Phillipino jokes in this thread. Just realize the level of restraint I am currently showing. That is all.

You're a fucking prick.


:spin

[katyon6th]

And it's Filipino, jackass.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah well you know I can't spell.

[MannyIsGod]

Katy you are my 2nd favorite poster after CBF for now.

[katyon6th]

Katy you are my 2nd favorite poster after CBF for now.

What will it take to move into the one spot?

[ATRAIN]

I'm just curious, if this guy would have done this with lets say a rat or possum or some other disgusting creature would it cause this much uproar?

[CuckingFunt]

Its almost funny TO ME that people can honestly sit there and say that what he did was art. I know that there is all kinds of art. What this man did was not art. I don't care how you try to spin it, its not art.If I have to grudgingly consider a de Kooning to be art, then I have to call this art, too.

Again, I don't think that justifies or excuses the actions.

[Homeland Security]

What will it take to move into the one spot?
If you condemned the artist for wasting food...

[mrsmaalox]

I'm just curious, if this guy would have done this with lets say a rat or possum or some other disgusting creature would it cause this much uproar?

I believe Funt pointed out a few posts back that the uproar is a result of our attempt to apply American values to the situation. So, no, a rat or possum would probably not evoke much of an uproar.

[T Park]

Anyone that defends this is as fucked up as him.

Johngateswhitely defending doesn't suprise me at all.

The guy responsible for this should be chained up whipped within an inch of his life, THEN starved to death.


God i want to hug my dog too now...

[T Park]

btw pardon me for feeling bad for a defensless dog whos starving to death, as "applying american values" if applying american values is having a heart, then I wish to apply fucking american values to everything then.

[CuckingFunt]

Anyone that defends this is as fucked up as him.

Find me a single post where anyone has defended the guy's actions.

[CuckingFunt]

btw pardon me for feeling bad for a defensless dog whos starving to death, as "applying american values" if applying american values is having a heart, then I wish to apply fucking american values to everything then.I was specifically referring to the post that labeled starving the dog as a crime -- it may not be a crime in Honduras.

[stretch]

God i want to hug my dog too now...
yea, me too. haha

[mrsmaalox]

btw pardon me for feeling bad for a defensless dog whos starving to death, as "applying american values" if applying american values is having a heart, then I wish to apply fucking american values to everything then.
You're not tracking here. I'm just saying that in our society, a domesticated dog is valued more than a rat or possum. I don't think Funt or I meant that only lame Americans feel sorry for a dog! Otay? :)

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

art
–noun 1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts, a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.

12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.



Nope...dog killing is not on there.








I've always thought of "art" as an interpretation or a representation, not something real. You can depict a murder through photos, paintings, sculpture, interpretive dance, etc., and that would be art. The physical act of murder, in, and of itself, is not art. I know that JGW said killing the dog in the art gallery was supposed to represent people ignoring starving animals in the streets, but the truth of the matter is that the killing the artist committed really has nothing to do with what he supposedly was representing. It is it's own atrocity. It's an artist performing a premeditated torture and killing of a captive animal, not homeless dogs starving in the streets.

Similarly, a collection of drawings done from the memory of 9/11 is art, but attempting to recreate a representation of the event by running a plane through a skyscraper and killing a couple thousand folks would not be art. It would be a different act of murder with it's own set of circumstances and victims.

Despite what some folks have argued in here, there is no "art" associated with killing this dog.

[peewee's lovechild]

I'd have to agree with EHJ, which doesn't happen much.

[E20]

The one thing I hate in this world the most is people fucking with animals, old people, and babies.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

typical overreactive response. if you think i think its ok to tie up an african kid...you're fucking nuts. stop wasting my time...making assumptions on what i actually think. funny... because you seem to find nothing wrong with what the dude did to a defenseless animal, I was just taking the next logical step.


if all you're going to post is garbage, stick to pics of Argentinian women...that, on the other hand, is something.Get bent! the only one posting garbage here is you. I don't give a fuck if it is art, that isn't what I'm debating here. I'm saying art, or no art, what he did was fucked up, and it bothers me that you find it acceptable. Don't like that, deal with it.

[monosylab1k]

Find me a single post where anyone has defended the guy's actions.
Nobody is defending the actions, but letting it stand behind the defense of "performance art" is condoning it in some form.

"It's despicable, BUT it is art." Whereas taking a dog out behind the shed and blowing it's brains out with a shotgun is not. You people may revile the actions, but by allowing it to be called art you're allowing it the dignity of having a purpose.

[mavs>spurs2]

I'd like to see him chain up my bullmastiff and starve him without losing a face or arm. Seriously, this guy should be thrown into a pit of vicious dogs and torn to pieces while we watch and call it "art"

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I have to say I can see where Manny is coming from. However, I would call it an unsuccessful attempt at creating art. Regardless of the impact he intended the killing of the dog to have, and if he wanted to represent how people ignore starvation all the time, by forcing people to do just the opposite, IMO he failed.

By the way, I'm pretty certain dogs are pets in Honduras too. The only difference, probably, is that there isn't an actual law against killing them. This doesn't mean that starving a dog is acceptable in Honduras. It just means its legal.

[johngateswhiteley]

I'm just curious, if this guy would have done this with lets say a rat or possum or some other disgusting creature would it cause this much uproar?

no, and what does that tell you? most are paralleling this to their puppy at home and therefore losing their minds. i doubt the artist is continually chaining up and abusing dogs...as art. if this exhibit or all the ensuing articles makes an impression on just one individual to take action...great.

...alas, i think most people will see this, get enraged, miss the point, and continue to ignore starving dogs and people across the world. in fact, that is what most in this thread are doing...and its laughable, cause they might as well be doing the same thing the artist did...the only difference being the artist is aware of his actions. are you?

go ahead and yell at me...cause that will make you feel better. pathetic...

[MaNuMaNiAc]

no, and what does that tell you? most are paralleling this to their puppy at home and therefore losing their minds. i doubt the artist is continually chaining up and abusing dogs...as art. if this exhibit or all the ensuing articles makes an impression on just one individual to take action...great.

...alas, i think most people will see this, get enraged, miss the point, and continue to ignore starving dogs and people across the world. in fact, that is what most in this thread are doing...and its laughable, cause they might as well be doing the same thing the artist did...the only difference being the artist is aware of his actions. are you?

go ahead and yell at me...cause that will make you feel better. pathetic...I just need one thing cleared up for me man. Of all the people posting in this thread, the only one that seems to think what this guy did is acceptable is you. Everyone else is discussing the semantics of what art is, and wether or not this qualifies, but every single one finds it deplorable and unnecesary. Not you, apparently.

Now, am I wrong here? because I could have missunderstood you. Are you condoning what this guy did? or are you simply saying its deplorable art?

[CuckingFunt]

Nobody is defending the actions, but letting it stand behind the defense of "performance art" is condoning it in some form.

"It's despicable, BUT it is art." Whereas taking a dog out behind the shed and blowing it's brains out with a shotgun is not. You people may revile the actions, but by allowing it to be called art you're allowing it the dignity of having a purpose.I don't think that calling it art is condoning it in any way. Nor have I seen anyone say "it's despicable, but it is art." If anything, the attitude I've seen would be closer to "it's art, but it's despicable," which is wholly different.

To elaborate on my initial post, I find what he did to be absolutely reprehensible. I was literally physically disgusted by the pictures attached to the article. I have been a pet owner my whole life and have also always been the type of complete nutball who values the life of my pets as being vastly higher than the lives of several people I know. So there is no form of defense or justification coming from any of my posts.

However, my own personal definition of art does not allow me to not consider this art without being a hypocrite, and to deny that in this particular instance would be false. If the dude calls himself an artist, and calls his actions art, then that's what it is.

[T Park]

Find me a single post where anyone has defended the guy's actions.

Uh did you skim over john gates whitely's?

[Homeland Security]

You should just see these disembowelment tools Dick Cheney got me to use at Guantanamo Bay. They have these exquisitely carved ivory handles. True works of art.

[T Park]

If the dude calls himself an artist, and calls his actions art, then that's what it is.



Im sorry i just can't agree with that.

[Homeland Security]

Uh did you skim over john gates whitely's?
He enjoys torturing animals at his Montana compound. We have our eye on him. Maybe he'll be on the receiving end of my new works of art.

[E20]

If the dude calls himself an artist, and calls his actions art, then that's what it is.

Doesn't mean other people have to consider him an artist, just because he does. It's like I consider myself a Doctor so me operating on animals is protocol and everyone should accept that.

[CuckingFunt]

Uh did you skim over john gates whitely's?No, I didn't skim, but I also didn't remember them at the time I posted that response.

[CuckingFunt]

Im sorry i just can't agree with that.You're not entitled to. That's why I prefaced that statement with the comment that I was basing this on my own personal definition of what counts as art. No one thought Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" was art, either.

I still think the biggest disconnect in this disussion, though, is the thought that people calling it art are automatically using that label as justification for killing dogs.

[Spurminator]

...alas, i think most people will see this, get enraged, miss the point, and continue to ignore starving dogs and people across the world. in fact, that is what most in this thread are doing...and its laughable, cause they might as well be doing the same thing the artist did...the only difference being the artist is aware of his actions. are you?

Then perhaps it was an ineffective approach to the message he was trying to convey.

[peewee's lovechild]

If the dude calls himself an artist, and calls his actions art, then that's what it is.

That's why the art world has lost it's soul and purpose.

"Art" has become so pretentious.

[Jimcs50]

WTF is wrong with all the fucks that went to the gallery and did nothing at all to stop this "art" exhibit???


:wtf

[peewee's lovechild]

You're not entitled to. That's why I prefaced that statement with the comment that I was basing this on my own personal definition of what counts as art. No one thought Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" was art, either.


Yet, one can make a rationalized arguement about sexism in Duchamp's "Fountain".

You just can't do the same about forcing an animal to die.

For you to try to rationalize it as art is just . . . nevermind, I'm not in your league of superior-minded art.

[Jimcs50]

I would love to do some "artwork" on this guys face with my dental drill.

[peewee's lovechild]

WTF is wrong with all the fucks that went to the gallery and did nothing at all to stop this "art" exhibit???


:wtf


No. Fucking. Shit.

But, maybe they were all like CF, repulsed yet intrigued by the "art".

[T Park]

Yeah Im almost as disgusted by the jackasses that didn't feed the dog, as the fucknut that thought it was art.

[CuckingFunt]

That's why the art world has lost it's soul and purpose.

"Art" has become so pretentious.Art hasn't become anything. Art has been pretentious since its inception. And Artists have been equating themselves and their gifts to gods or godliness since paintings left the cave walls.

[monosylab1k]

I'm chewing gum right now. I consider myself an artist, and my chewing of this gum is my symbolic & literal representation of the malleability of gum.

I'd like everybody to acknowlege that I'm an artist now.

[johngateswhiteley]

I just need one thing cleared up for me man. Of all the people posting in this thread, the only one that seems to think what this guy did is acceptable is you. Everyone else is discussing the semantics of what art is, and wether or not this qualifies, but every single one finds it deplorable and unnecesary. Not you, apparently.

Now, am I wrong here? because I could have missunderstood you. Are you condoning what this guy did? or are you simply saying its deplorable art?

wow, someone asking questions for a change...i applaud you.

1) is it acceptable? ...i haven't decided yet
2) is it deplorable? ...yes
3) is it an incredible message? ...you bet
4) is it art? ...of course
5) is it unnecessary? ...that depends

[SpursWoman]

What makes the entire issue of starvation so poignant to me is the fact that it's happening no matter how hard people/animals/whatever try to overcome it .. but at least until the very end there can be hope.

This dude just tied an animal up and didn't give it any food, without it even having a chance. Any and everything will fail 100% of the time in that scenario. So, not only was it atrocious, it was a gigantic FAIL.



And I would have fed the dog. What would that guy have done about it? Tied me up and starved me, too?

[johngateswhiteley]

Then perhaps it was an ineffective approach to the message he was trying to convey.

maybe...maybe not. fortunately, there are more people that can take action than in this thread, lol.

see post #124. and i thank you for your mature outlook and approach.

[CuckingFunt]

Yet, one can make a rationalized arguement about sexism in Duchamp's "Fountain".

You just can't do the same about forcing an animal to die.

For you to try to rationalize it as art is just . . . nevermind, I'm not in your league of superior-minded art.And, yet again, you're trying to bait me by arguing points I never made. I never defended, never rationalized, and never labeled it as superior.

[MoSpur]

Like I said earlier, no matter how anyone tries to spin this, IMO, this is not art. Its a crude act on a defenseless animal. No ifs ands or buts.

[MannyIsGod]

No. Fucking. Shit.

But, maybe they were all like CF, repulsed yet intrigued by the "art".Why do you have to equate someone who disagrees with you on whether or not its art to the people who allowed it to happen? I don't understand why you guys have a hard time understanding that there are people here who feel this fits the defention of art but that they in no way support it.

Does it make you feel better to act as though you're on some kind of moral high ground? I'm sure you got those fat fingers by eating nothing but corn, right?

[CuckingFunt]

Yeah Im almost as disgusted by the jackasses that didn't feed the dog, as the fucknut that thought it was art.Almost as disgusted? I'm easily more disgusted by the people who watched and did nothing.

The guy who chained the dog up may have been completely misguided, but at least he'd convinced himself he was doing it for a reason. Everyone else who walked by and stared ignored the dog's pain without any investment in a particular artistic vision.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I would love to do some "artwork" on this guys face with my dental drill.
See if you can get some dough from the NEA while you're at it.

[MoSpur]

I understand that there people here are saying that what he did is art, but don't think what he did was right. I just can't seem to get how some people in here say its art. Its not. It didn't really take much creativity. He found a dog, tied it up, and watched it die. How is that art?

[T Park]

What makes the entire issue of starvation so poignant to me is the fact that it's happening no matter how hard people/animals/whatever try to overcome it .. but at least until the very end there can be hope.

This dude just tied an animal up and didn't give it any food, without it even having a chance. Any and everything will fail 100% of the time in that scenario. So, not only was it atrocious, it was a gigantic FAIL.



And I would have fed the dog. What would that guy have done about it? Tied me up and starved me, too?


Great post.

[MannyIsGod]

One thing that is apparent here is that people are definitely applying AMERICAN values to someone who obviously lives in a different culture. I'm fairly certain that if people from another culture - say an Islamic one? - viewed some things that happen here they'd be as disgusted as we are about what has happened in this situation.

There's a very fine line one needs to walk when viewing the actions of another culture through the eyes of their own.

[T Park]

I understand that there people here are saying that what he did is art, but don't think what he did was right. I just can't seem to get how some people in here say its art. Its not. It didn't really take much creativity. He found a dog, tied it up, and watched it die. How is that art?


Good question.

[E20]

Someone said if this were happening to a possum or a rat would you be upset? Me? Yes I would I get pissed when any animal gets fucked. Insects OTOH I don't really care about, because there are so many.

[MannyIsGod]

I understand that there people here are saying that what he did is art, but don't think what he did was right. I just can't seem to get how some people in here say its art. Its not. It didn't really take much creativity. He found a dog, tied it up, and watched it die. How is that art?And thats where you can debate things all day and everyone leaves with their own opinion on it, but having a different opinion shoudln't automaticaly mean you admonish this person and the people around him of any wrong doing.

[MoSpur]

Almost as disgusted? I'm easily more disgusted by the people who watched and did nothing.

The guy who chained the dog up may have been completely misguided, but at least he'd convinced himself he was doing it for a reason. Everyone else who walked by and stared ignored the dog's pain without any investment in a particular artistic vision.

How come you excuse him as being misguided, but not the people who passed by and did nothing? I'm not trying to pick on you or argue. Just wondering.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I don't want to say this guy is fucked up, but the last time I can remember anyone expousing death as art was this guy...
http://florestas.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/jack_nicholson.jpg

[MoSpur]

I don't think that its American values that are being applied. To me, its common sense. I have family in Mexico that would find what this guy did as wrong. So would they be applying Mexican values because they find this act as wrong?

[monosylab1k]

One thing that is apparent here is that people are definitely applying AMERICAN values to someone who obviously lives in a different culture.
So valuing the life of another living thing is strictly American?

[E20]

One thing that is apparent here is that people are definitely applying AMERICAN values to someone who obviously lives in a different culture. I'm fairly certain that if people from another culture - say an Islamic one? - viewed some things that happen here they'd be as disgusted as we are about what has happened in this situation.

There's a very fine line one needs to walk when viewing the actions of another culture through the eyes of their own.
Good point, you're not supposed to judge other cultures by your standards. A good example is that Eskimoes practiced infanticide and when Westerners first met them they were appalled, and thought taht Eskimoes didn't care for their young, but they didn't know about Eskimoes enough to actually make a valid claim, but this starving of a dog IMO has nothing to do with starvation. No matter how much starved an animal or dying african kid is they can still go and look for food, they weren't tied up.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I understand that there people here are saying that what he did is art, but don't think what he did was right. I just can't seem to get how some people in here say its art. Its not. It didn't really take much creativity. He found a dog, tied it up, and watched it die. How is that art?Its been explained in the preceeding posts. Go back and check it out. I for one have found this whole discussion quite informative. If this thread proved anything, its that art is completely subjective.

Again, people aren't saying the dude was right, they're saying that what he did could be considered art.

[MannyIsGod]

How come you excuse him as being misguided, but not the people who passed by and did nothing? I'm not trying to pick on you or argue. Just wondering.Assuming he's not just some sadistic fuck or a sociopath (which isn't beyond the realm of possibility) he had to come up with some rationalization to be able to do this in order to be able to sleep at night. But what reason did the witnesses to this have in order to let it happen?

[MoSpur]

And thats where you can debate things all day and everyone leaves with their own opinion on it, but having a different opinion shoudln't automaticaly mean you admonish this person and the people around him of any wrong doing.

I disagree. I apply common sense to this situation. Its wrong and those who took part are wrong IMO.

[CuckingFunt]

How come you excuse him as being misguided, but not the people who passed by and did nothing? I'm not trying to pick on you or argue. Just wondering.I don't excuse him as being misguided.

I don't think it makes his actions okay, but I recognize a difference in thought process.

[MannyIsGod]

So valuing the life of another living thing is strictly American?First of all, a dog is not all encompassing. Because Hondrans don't care about dogs (apparently) doesn't mean they don't care about living things. But the love affair with the dog is not something shared across the world. I would definetly say that Americans value the life of a dog much higher than most other parts of the world.

[peewee's lovechild]

Does it make you feel better to act as though you're on some kind of moral high ground? I'm sure you got those fat fingers by eating nothing but corn, right?

If it was a gorilla that was starved to death, would it help you understand where we're coming from, being that it's realtively from the same family of the animal kingdom that you obviously come from?

[MoSpur]

I don't excuse him as being misguided.

I don't think it makes his actions okay, but I recognize a difference in thought process.

I see. Okay.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think that its American values that are being applied. To me, its common sense. I have family in Mexico that would find what this guy did as wrong. So would they be applying Mexican values because they find this act as wrong?Obviously yes. Do you think people in Africa would care as much? People in Asia?


Let me give you another example. Do you believe a person from the middle east would be appauled to see all the women in the United States walking around dressed the way that they are? They would, and they would consider it common sense.

Yet why don't we feel the same way?

[CuckingFunt]

So valuing the life of another living thing is strictly American?No. No one is saying that.

[MannyIsGod]

No. No one is saying that.Well I'm not saying that, but I am saying that Americans do place different values on the lifes of certain living things than other parts of the world.

[monosylab1k]

First of all, a dog is not all encompassing. Because Hondrans don't care about dogs (apparently) doesn't mean they don't care about living things. But the love affair with the dog is not something shared across the world. I would definetly say that Americans value the life of a dog much higher than most other parts of the world.
That's definitely but I don't know if it's that with most of the people upset over this. I know this applies to me personally, but I think it also applies to alot of other posters here in that they're not against dogs being killed for food, or dogs being put down at the pound to prevent an excess of strays.

I'm against tying a dog up, starving it to death, and hiding behind the facade of art to justify your actions. And I'd be against it if it was a rat or a squirrel or whatever else.

[CuckingFunt]

Well I'm not saying that, but I am saying that Americans do place different values on the lifes of certain living things than other parts of the world.And I completely agree.

[johngateswhiteley]

One thing that is apparent here is that people are definitely applying AMERICAN values to someone who obviously lives in a different culture. I'm fairly certain that if people from another culture - say an Islamic one? - viewed some things that happen here they'd be as disgusted as we are about what has happened in this situation.

There's a very fine line one needs to walk when viewing the actions of another culture through the eyes of their own.

no doubt, and thats something i've hit on.

[MoSpur]

Obviously yes. Do you think people in Africa would care as much? People in Asia?


Let me give you another example. Do you believe a person from the middle east would be appauled to see all the women in the United States walking around dressed the way that they are? They would, and they would consider it common sense.

Yet why don't we feel the same way?

I see that. However, that is a way of life here and a way of life in the Middle East. I seriously doubt tying up a dog in Honduras and letting it starve is a way of life.

[peewee's lovechild]

If you give what validity to what this person did as art, then you are complicit with his actions.

[MannyIsGod]

If you give what validity to what this person did as art, then you are complicit with his actions.Mmmk

[CuckingFunt]

If you give what validity to what this person did as art, then you are complicit with his actions.So, then, does that mean I get to take half credit for Kandinsky's paintings?

[MannyIsGod]

I see that. However, that is a way of life here and a way of life in the Middle East. I seriously doubt tying up a dog in Honduras and letting it starve is a way of life.You gotta wonder why they didn't intervene though. I honestly have no idea what Honduran views on dogs/strays are but I know that even the most pretenious of art snobs here woudln't have let this fly.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

First of all, a dog is not all encompassing. Because Hondrans don't care about dogs (apparently) doesn't mean they don't care about living things. But the love affair with the dog is not something shared across the world. I would definetly say that Americans value the life of a dog much higher than most other parts of the world.Why are you assuming Hondurans don't care about dogs?? because of the actions of the few in that art gallery? I'd be willing to bet Honduran culture values dogs in a similar manner that American culture does. Never lived there, but I know quite a few Honduran people, and their culture is very similar, borderline identical, in values as ours. Just because apparently its not against the law, does not mean that its acceptable behavior.

[MoSpur]

You gotta wonder why they didn't intervene though. I honestly have no idea what Honduran views on dogs/strays are but I know that even the most pretenious of art snobs here woudln't have let this fly.

True. I can accept that maybe people in Honduras don't value dogs as high as we do here or in different parts of the world. I can accept that. However, I can't accept the fact that this guy honestly thought he was creating art by chaining up a stray dog and starving it to death. To me, that is not art. That's torture in my eyes.

[MannyIsGod]

Why are you assuming Hondurans don't care about dogs?? because of the actions of the few in that art gallery? I'd be willing to bet Honduran culture values dogs in a similar manner that American culture does. Never lived there, but I know quite a few Honduran people, and their culture is very similar, borderline identical, in values as ours. Just because apparently its not against the law, does not mean that its acceptable behavior.I don't know, but I simply have a hard time envsioning something like this happening in the United States. The fact that it even occured there has to make you wonder. I admited to really not knowing shit about the Honduran culture though; I'm just extrapolating from this situation.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

You gotta wonder why they didn't intervene though. I honestly have no idea what Honduran views on dogs/strays are but I know that even the most pretenious of art snobs here woudln't have let this fly.Believe me, I'm wondering that myself. However, I'm quite convinced this is not an issue of difference in cultures, just the actions of a few fucked up individuals.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I don't know, but I simply have a hard time envsioning something like this happening in the United States. The fact that it even occured there has to make you wonder. I admited to really not knowing shit about the Honduran culture though; I'm just extrapolating from this situation.Point taken. Its often quite difficult to comprehend the actions of a different culture when all one has for reference is the values of ones own. Very much the case with Islam and western culture.

[peewee's lovechild]

So, then, does that mean I get to take half credit for Kandinsky's paintings?

Sure, knock yourself out.

I bow to your art superiority.

[CuckingFunt]

Believe me, I'm wondering that myself. However, I'm quite convinced this is not an issue of difference in cultures, just the actions of a few fucked up individuals.It's definitely a difference in cultures, but that's not to say that all Hondurans hate dogs.

I have to assume that this kind of cruelty isn't against the law there, however, which in and of itself means it's not given the same attention as it would be here. Also, considering how freaked out our culture has gotten about other art exhibits (the piss Jesus and elephant dung Madonna immediately come to mind), I'm 100% certain that this particular "installation" would not have been allowed to open here. It would be protested months in advance, and not a single gallery would be willing to touch it.

[monosylab1k]

Its often quite difficult to comprehend the actions of a different culture when all one has for reference is the values of ones own.
But it also doesn't mean you have to blindly accept what they do as art just because they claim it is.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Sure, knock yourself art.

I bow to your art superiority.Logic doesn't come natural to you, does it?

[CuckingFunt]

Logic doesn't come natural to you, does it?Not when he's more interested in dragging me into a pointless argument than he is in actually discussing the issue at hand.

[MannyIsGod]

The dog never died?!?!?!?!?


http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/search/label/the%20limits

[MannyIsGod]

BTW it appears this is pretty old stuff.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

It's definitely a difference in cultures, but that's not to say that all Hondurans hate dogs.

I have to assume that this kind of cruelty isn't against the law there, however, which in and of itself means it's not given the same attention as it would be here. Say this is true. There was a time in the US, when doing this to an animal was not considered a crime, and yet I'm pretty sure starving a dog to death has always been unacceptable behavior in America. Just because there aren't any laws against it, doesn't mean there won't be, and it doesn't mean the Honduran people wouldn't be appalled to hear about this. In fact, seeing as though it was a Honduran that did this, in Honduras, looking to provoke the same emotions we're seeing here, but over there... I'd say its pretty safe to assume this is NOT common ocurrence over there.


Also, considering how freaked out our culture has gotten about other art exhibits (the piss Jesus and elephant dung Madonna immediately come to mind), I'm 100% certain that this particular "installation" would not have been allowed to open here. It would be protested months in advance, and not a single gallery would be willing to touch it.You're right. It is a different culture, but not by as much as you seem to think

[MannyIsGod]

http://luckybunnynyc.blogspot.com/2007/10/starved-dog-as-art-update.html

So the dog was fed and it never died and it was never going to die.

[Tenacious D]

Believe me, I'm wondering that myself. However, I'm quite convinced this is not an issue of difference in cultures, just the actions of a few fucked up individuals.


Is the man is jail? Then the culture accepts his actions thus making that the culture over there.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://luckybunnynyc.blogspot.com/2007/10/starved-dog-as-art-update.html

So the dog was fed and it never died and it was never going to die.:lmao

/close thread

[MaNuMaNiAc]

The dog never died?!?!?!?!?


http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/search/label/the%20limitsok, so it appears the dude isn't Honduran, he is Costa Rican. The dog didn't die at all. In fact, it was a stray dog that was famished to being with, was only tied to that string for 3 hours at a time, was fed dog food on a regular basis and was allowed to run around in the inner courtyard when not part of the exhibit...

Quite a different scenario I would say :rolleyes

[monosylab1k]

I like how the dog conveniently escaped.

[E20]

http://luckybunnynyc.blogspot.com/2007/10/starved-dog-as-art-update.html

So the dog was fed and it never died and it was never going to die.
Well I got pw3d, at least teh dog is okay.

[CuckingFunt]

Now can we all agree it was just pretentious performance art?

[Tenacious D]

http://luckybunnynyc.blogspot.com/2007/10/starved-dog-as-art-update.html

So the dog was fed and it never died and it was never going to die.


But could the dog have died sooner, or during the exhibit?

The man deserves prison time regardless. Even if they were able to duck tape JFKs head back together and he lived doesn't mean Lee Harvey Oswald gets off with an assault charge he should still get the chair.

[MannyIsGod]

Man, I knew I should have checked Snopes beforehand.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp

FWIW they list it as undetermined. So either the gallery owner realized how awful shit was and made up the story about the escape or the dog actually escaped. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but would a stray run from free food? I don't know.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

But could the dog have died sooner, or during the exhibit?

The man deserves prison time regardless. Even if they were able to duck tape JFKs head back together and he lived doesn't mean Lee Harvey Oswald gets off with an assault charge he should still get the chair. :lmao See johngateswhiteley... Now, THIS is an overreaction :lol

[monosylab1k]

Now can we all agree it was just pretentious performance art?
If it can be proven that the dog was actually fed and actually escaped.

Until then, all we have are pictures of an emaciated dog tied up without food, and a bunch of hipsters casually ignoring it.

[monosylab1k]

and what's up with all that shit about lighting up crack rocks and such?

[T Park]

If the dog was treated well and fed, then its a different situation.

Then IMO it wouldn't be art, but a social slap across the face trying to "wake up people"

[TheSanityAnnex]

Then IMO it wouldn't be art, but a social slap across the face trying to "wake up people"That would be art.

[MoSpur]

Well, if it went down the way it did, meaning the dog was being fed and was running around free at times, then I can see it as art. How weird!

[CuckingFunt]

That would be art.Pretty much.

[peewee's lovechild]

:lol :lol :lol

"You’ve been led astray, run amuck. You’ve been BAMBOOZLED.” –Malcolm X

[TheSanityAnnex]

You ain’t artsier than me…
Cuz you got sideburns and a vintage Tee

i said You ain’t artsier than me…
Cuz you pluck a guitar.. that ain’t f-ckin bizarre

You ain’t artsier than me…
Cuz you live in Los Felis, bitch you ain’t jesus

You ain’t artsier than me…
I got a colorful vocab… watch the low jab.

You ain’t artsier than me…
cuz you chop up breaks and you dig in the crates

You ain’t artsier than me…
You’re just a trendy lesbian.. dreadlocked thespian

You ain’t artsier than me…
cuz you make weed brownies and knit wool hats

You ain’t artsier than me…
you pseduo-elitst old-school sap

You ain’t artsier than me…
cuz you only read books, don’t watch tv.

You ain’t artsier than me…
cuz you shop at whole foods in open-toed shoes

You ain’t artsier than me…
cuz you speak real soft and drink chai tea

You ain’t artsier than me…
I recycle too… I’m kinda like you

You ain’t artsier than me…
cuz you drive a hybrid and carpool with three

You ain’t artsier than me…
cuz you a sixteenth mexican, you ain’t ethnic and

You ain’t artsier than me…
you’re just a broke-ass poet with the same old cadence

You ain’t artsier than me…
we was conscious first… welcome to earth.

[The Club]

If the dog was treated well and fed, then its a different situation.

Then IMO it wouldn't be art, but a social slap across the face trying to "wake up people"

Or in your case a great diet plan that might work!
:toast

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Well, if it went down the way it did, meaning the dog was being fed and was running around free at times, then I can see it as art. How weird!I think its pretty clear that you seem to find a correlation between "art" and "right". As if giving something the tag of "work of art" carries with it some sort of validation or acceptance. Hence why you're willing to see it as art now that no harm has come to the dog, but were so unwilling to do so before, when calling it art would have meant accepting the killing of an innocent dog as something purposeful.

[midgetonadonkey]

I hate art loving douchebags.

[monosylab1k]

I think the "escaped dog" excuse is bullshit, but I still don't see how tying a dog up for 3 days is art.

If tying up a dog is art, there's a lot of artists out in Fort Worth.

[midgetonadonkey]

If Manny says it's art then it's art. He has a far superior knowledge of everything than anyone else.

[peewee's lovechild]

I think the "escaped dog" excuse is bullshit, but I still don't see how tying a dog up for 3 days is art.

If tying up a dog is art, there's a lot of artists out in Fort Worth.

Brownsville, TX has row after row or those artists at the Cameron Park Colonia.

[midgetonadonkey]

Susan Smith was an artist.

[pickle girl]

So if my daddy stops mowing the lawn it's considered art?

[peewee's lovechild]

Ted Bundy was an artist.

His art expressed the male frustration towards militant feminism.

[MoSpur]

I think its pretty clear that you seem to find a correlation between "art" and "right". As if giving something the tag of "work of art" carries with it some sort of validation or acceptance. Hence why you're willing to see it as art now that no harm has come to the dog, but were so unwilling to do so before, when calling it art would have meant accepting the killing of an innocent dog as something purposeful.

Not true. They were actually putting some creativity to this act.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The dog's life had no bearing on whether or not this was art.

[CuckingFunt]

The dog's life had no bearing on whether or not this was art.Again, have to agree. The only difference that makes is how much of an asshole the artist is.

[monosylab1k]

Again, have to agree. The only difference that makes is how much of an asshole the artist is.
Or non-artist, as either way I don't see it being art. One act is despicable, and the other is just tying a dog to a wall.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I find it an interesting exhibit either way. Fucked up, but interesting.

[mrsmaalox]

If the dog was treated well and fed, then its a different situation.


http://www.eiaonline.com/uploaded_images/Emily_Litella-788000.jpg


"NEVER MIND!"

[TheSanityAnnex]

and the other is just tying a dog to a wall.Which makes people realize how hypocritical they can be............which would be considered art.

[monosylab1k]

Which makes people realize how hypocritical they can be............which would be considered art.
Seung-Hui Cho was going for a similar effect. What an artist.

[SpursWoman]

Now I think it's an even bigger FAIL, oddly enough.


*shrugs*

[monosylab1k]

All this "I want to make a statement about starving dogs by pretending to have a starving dog tied to a wall" bullshit tells me is that this guy sucks dick at making "art" and his entire life could be put to better use by making me a Colon Clogger at Chipotle.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Seung-Hui Cho was going for a similar effect. What an artist.And what effect was he going for that is similar?

[katyon6th]

I find it an interesting exhibit either way. Fucked up, but interesting.

You finding it interesting is interesting. So yeah, how can you find this interesting? Inquiring minds want to know.

[monosylab1k]

I'm gonna find a stray dog and tie him up tonight. I'll feed him and let him escape. This is to send a message about morons who think they are creating art by doing irrelevant bullshit. I'm an artist now.

All hail me, the artist.

[TheSanityAnnex]

All this "I want to make a statement about starving dogs by pretending to have a starving dog tied to a wall" bullshit tells me is that this guy sucks dick at making "art" and his entire life could be put to better use by making me a Colon Clogger at Chipotle.The mere fact that he's evoked responses such as this prove he does not such dick at making art.

[monosylab1k]

And what effect was he going for that is similar?
Making people realize how hypocritical they are, according to his own fucked up idealogy. This "artist" decided to do it by tying up a dog, Cho did it by killing people at a college. I guess they're both artists tho.

[SpursWoman]

I'm gonna find a stray dog and tie him up tonight. I'll feed him and let him escape. This is to send a message about morons who think they are creating art by doing irrelevant bullshit. I'm an artist now.

All hail me, the artist.


Pretentious asshole.

[MoSpur]

I don't think its good art. I can see how he/she can think of this and call it art. I don't think its particularly good though.

[monosylab1k]

The mere fact that he's evoked responses such as this prove he does not such dick at making art.
I know he doesn't, because he isn't making art.

[monosylab1k]

Pretentious asshole.
:lol

[mrsmaalox]

You finding it interesting is interesting. So yeah, how can you find this interesting? Inquiring minds want to know.
For about 9 pages it has held quite a bit of interest

[TheSanityAnnex]

You finding it interesting is interesting. So yeah, how can you find this interesting? Inquiring minds want to know.I find it interesting because he took an approach to a project that really gave people no choice but to examine themselves and their actions, and did it in a fucked up manner.

[mrsmaalox]

The mere fact that he's evoked responses such as this prove he does not such dick at making art.

No he is a dick at making art; but he's okay at making "statements".

[TheSanityAnnex]

Making people realize how hypocritical they are, according to his own fucked up idealogy. This "artist" decided to do it by tying up a dog, Cho did it by killing people at a college. I guess they're both artists tho.How did Cho make people realize how hypocritical they were? You are really reaching here. And Cho was mentally ill.

[katyon6th]

For about 9 pages it has held quite a bit of interest

Okay, smart ass. I wasn't asking you, but thanks.

[monosylab1k]

How did Cho make people realize how hypocritical they were?
How did this "artist" make anyone realize how hypocritical they are?

I could give a shit about his message, I either think he's a shitty "artist" for thinking tying up a dog is art, or a sick fuck for thinking torturing and killing a dog was art.

[mrsmaalox]

Okay, smart ass. I wasn't asking you, but thanks.

:huh isn't this a public forum?

[T Park]

How did this "artist" make anyone realize how hypocritical they are?

I could give a shit about his message, I either think he's a shitty "artist" for thinking tying up a dog is art, or a sick fuck for thinking torturing and killing a dog was art.


Eh, gotta agree with that.

[katyon6th]

:huh isn't this a public forum?


OMGGGGG you're right. Please take back what I said, then.

[TheSanityAnnex]

How did this "artist" make anyone realize how hypocritical they are?

He forced people to realize that the same dog they'd pass on the streets and not give two shits about now evoked feelings of sadness and empathy.

Now please explain how mentally ill Cho showed people they were hypocrites, or was that just more bullshit you felt you'd throw out there that couldn't be explained to try and make a meaningless correllation?

[monosylab1k]

ART =

http://www.lacledechain.com/newimages/dog.jpg

+

http://z.about.com/d/cameras/1/0/v/2/sadDog.jpg

BRILLIANT!

[mrsmaalox]

OMGGGGG you're right. Please take back what I said, then.

:wtf??

[SpursWoman]

He forced people to realize that the same dog they'd pass on the streets and not give two shits about now evoked feelings of sadness and empathy.

Now please explain how mentally ill Cho showed people they were hypocrites, or was that just more bullshit you felt you'd throw out there that couldn't be explained to try and make a meaningless correllation?


My "sadness and empathy" was for the fact that that sick fuck had him tied up to where the dog couldn't even fend for himself, and had no chance whatsoever of survival...that's torture and/or murder. That's not anywhere near the same, in my opinion, as the dog I don't give two shits about on the street. The dog on the street would be tearing into my trash cans, no doubt. If he doesn't make it, that's Darwinism. :spin

[monosylab1k]

He forced people to realize that the same dog they'd pass on the streets and not give two shits about now evoked feelings of sadness and empathy.

In his own fucked up idealogy he did. Not mine, and not the majority of people with half a fucking brain.

Please tell me how there's any correlation between a free dog walking the streets and a dog being tied up and forced to starve to death?

Or is that just psuedo-intellectual bullshit that you think passes as some sort of real message?

[monosylab1k]

My "sadness and empathy" was for the fact that that sick fuck had him tied up to where the dog couldn't even fend for himself, and had no chance whatsoever of survival...that's torture and/or murder. That's not anywhere near the same, in my opinion, as the dog I don't give two shits about on the street. The dog on the street would be tearing into my trash cans, no doubt. If he doesn't make it, that's Darwinism. :spin
:tu

[TheSanityAnnex]

The purpose of the work was not to cause any type of infliction on the poor, innocent creature, but rather to illustrate a point. In my home city of San Jose, Costa Rica, tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the streets and no one pays them a second thought. Now, if you publicly display one of these starving creatures, such as the case with Nativity, it creates a backlash that brings out a big of hypocrisy in all of us

[TheSanityAnnex]

My "sadness and empathy" was for the fact that that sick fuck had him tied up to where the dog couldn't even fend for himself, and had no chance whatsoever of survival...that's torture and/or murder. The dog wasn't tied up in the middle of the jungle being pestered by Tigers. The dog was in a gallery, I'm pretty sure he didn't have to protect himself from artsy onlookers. And it appears as if the dog was fed.

I feel worse for animals in the zoo then I do for this dog. (If this dog was indeed fed and survived)

[monosylab1k]

If he wants to show us what hypocrites we are, he documents an actual stray dog living on the streets, and follows it around until it dies.

He doesn't chain a dog up to a wall and make us all think that it's being forced to starve to death.

This "artist" is a bong-water philosopher who doesn't know his head from his ass, end of story.

[peewee's lovechild]

My "sadness and empathy" was for the fact that that sick fuck had him tied up to where the dog couldn't even fend for himself, and had no chance whatsoever of survival...that's torture and/or murder. That's not anywhere near the same, in my opinion, as the dog I don't give two shits about on the street. The dog on the street would be tearing into my trash cans, no doubt. If he doesn't make it, that's Darwinism. :spin

:tu

[monosylab1k]

if you publicly display one of these starving creatures

yes, taking it out of it's natural environment and tying it up really sends a message about stray dogs out in the open.

this dumbfuck has no concept of the real world.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If he wants to show us what hypocrites we are, he documents an actual stray dog living on the streets, and follows it around until it dies.

That is not a bad idea, but he can get his point across faster by doing what he did.

[T Park]

If he wants to show us what hypocrites we are, he documents an actual stray dog living on the streets, and follows it around until it dies.

He doesn't chain a dog up to a wall and make us all think that it's being forced to starve to death.

This "artist" is a bong-water philosopher who doesn't know his head from his ass, end of story.

agreed.

[SpursWoman]

The dog wasn't tied up in the middle of the jungle being pestered by Tigers. The dog was in a gallery, I'm pretty sure he didn't have to protect himself from artsy onlookers. And it appears as if the dog was fed.

But we weren't supposed to know the dog was being fed ... otherwise there would have been no point at all.

[monosylab1k]

I'm just glad he's only a moron, and not a sadistic asshole.

[dimsah]

That is not a bad idea, but he can get his point across faster by doing what he did.
So not only is he a douche, but he's a lazy douche as well.

[CuckingFunt]

In his own fucked up idealogy he did. Not mine, and not the majority of people with half a fucking brain.
But if we're trying to determine whether or not this act would be considered art, wouldn't his ideology be a pretty important consideration?

The audience only determines when a particular work of art is, or is not, successful, they don't determine when a particular work is even art.

[monosylab1k]

But if we're trying to determine whether or not this act would be considered art, wouldn't his ideology be a pretty important consideration?

The audience only determines when a particular work of art is, or is not, successful, they don't determine when a particular work is even art.
if you want to call tying a dog to a wall art, you're entitled to that opinion. I don't care if he had some sort of half-baked concept to go with it. IMO, it's not art, it's just stupidity.

[TheSanityAnnex]

But we weren't supposed to know the dog was being fed ... otherwise there would have been no point at all.I'm sure the people viewing it at the time had no idea it was being fed. And so what if we know now it was being fed.

Vargas exhibit caused so much outcry that he succeeded in what he wanted to accomplish. His main point was to make people aware of the stray dog problem in Costa Rica. A few hundred thousand people signed a petition in protest of his exhibit. We are arguing about his exhibit on an American message board. We all know now that there are tens of thousand of stray dogs dying in Costa Rica each year, and some people may actually help these dogs. Bravo Vargas, mission accomplished.

[CuckingFunt]

if you want to call tying a dog to a wall art, be my guest. I don't care if he had some sort of half-baked concept to go with it. IMO, it's not art, it's just stupidity.I guess the problem I have is with the assumption that art and stupidity are mutually exclusive. They're not.

[peewee's lovechild]

I'm going to chain a starving little boy from The Congo and display him in an art gallery so the world can see the hypocrisy in themselves.

Oh, I'll feed the little fucker some peanuts twice a day so as not to kill him.

I'll be the greatest artist of all time.

[mrsmaalox]

But if we're trying to determine whether or not this act would be considered art, wouldn't his ideology be a pretty important consideration?

The audience only determines when a particular work of art is, or is not, successful, they don't determine when a particular work is even art.

Absolutely. But only if it's sincere. That's why art is so subjective. If I don't feel the artist is sincere it ain't art. Art moves me and no one can argue that.