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.
Get bent! the only one posting garbage here is you. I don't give a if it is art, that isn't what I'm debating here. I'm saying art, or no art, what he did was ed up, and it bothers me that you find it acceptable. Don't like that, deal with it.if all you're going to post is garbage, stick to pics of Argentinian women...that, on the other hand, is something.
Nobody is defending the actions, but letting it stand behind the defense of "performance art" is condoning it in some form.
"It's de able, 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'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"
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.
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?
I don't think that calling it art is condoning it in any way. Nor have I seen anyone say "it's de able, but it is art." If anything, the at ude I've seen would be closer to "it's art, but it's de able," 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.
Uh did you skim over john gates whitely's?
You should just see these disembowelment tools Cheney got me to use at Guantanamo Bay. They have these exquisitely carved ivory handles. True works of art.
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.
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.
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.If the dude calls himself an artist, and calls his actions art, then that's what it is.
No, I didn't skim, but I also didn't remember them at the time I posted that response.
You're not en led 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.
Then perhaps it was an ineffective approach to the message he was trying to convey....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?
That's why the art world has lost it's soul and purpose.
"Art" has become so pretentious.
WTF is wrong with all the s that went to the gallery and did nothing at all to stop this "art" exhibit???
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.
I would love to do some "artwork" on this guys face with my dental drill.
WTF is wrong with all the s that went to the gallery and did nothing at all to stop this "art" exhibit???
No. ing. .
But, maybe they were all like CF, repulsed yet intrigued by the "art".
Yeah Im almost as disgusted by the jackasses that didn't feed the dog, as the nut that thought it was art.
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.
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.
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
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote