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.
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.
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 ing opposite.
That guy should in go to .
He's begging to meet Mr. Pocket Knife.
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!"
I could kill you, and embroider your skin into a quite elegant lampshade. How can that NOT be art?
Whether it's art or not is irrelevant. Art can still be morally reprehensible and punishable by law.
Dude needs to be shot in the head.....of his and allowed to bleed to death in the public square.
ing Manny. I should make you drink bong water for spouting such .
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.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.
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.
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.
Complete non sequitor.
Yeah - I don't disagree with anything you've posted.
True. And he'd never get away with that here. But Honduras is a different culture it would seem.
it was performance art to protest idiotic posts. How can it NOT be art?
Define art ES.
Since when is art defined as only creation? What about those who believe there is creation out of destruction?
Your performance in this thread is about as epic as the performances of your favorite teams. You emmulate them well.
Complete non-sequitur.
This is just some stupid .
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.
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 do entary 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 do enting "natural" suffering, he was inflicting it and then do enting 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 di able 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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote