The claim that the dog was left to die is an unconfirmed rumor spread around on the internet.
"Upon conducting a probe, the Humane Society of the United States was informed that the dog was in a state of starvation when it was captured and escaped after one day of captivity; however, the organization also categorically condemned "the use of live animals in exhibits such as this"
I'm not saying what he did was good or if it was art, but it appears he didn't actually starve it to death.
Well there are a lot of people there; maybe he wants to test human perception and capacity of action. Yes the dog was suffering like in the street all know that but no one did something to help the dog. They ask to artists to help him but he wasn't there to do that. In fact there was a dog with a rope in a corner of the building, don’t belong to anyone and don’t respond to anyone he’s starving. Someone could bring some food, someone could cut the rope. They prefer to see him die.
The only good thing from this is that it maybe will bring up some positive outcomes, like donation to associations of abandonned pets, or just new laws to allows animals to have rights too..
I mean, in our current society, dogs are almost toys for a lot of us .. We bought them when they were young, and then that they've grown up, we don't need them anymore, so we don't care about give them away in some refuge for pets. Indeed, if they aren't lucky, they'll surely end up five feets under.. :(
Despite the aethetic experiece that can be achieved out of an art work that depicts suffering, (due to catharsis, empathy or whatever you want to call it), none of that justifies the abuse of an animal and using it as mear means to achive and objetive.....this man should be jailed
This is the what you get when you allow the group of nefarious social engineers to take over Culture and turn it into what they want. Culture and Art become nothing but a tool to turn our world into a sea of meanlingless, atheism and indifference. Worse is yet to come...
A ESE que dicese,ser artista.y todos lo que entran para correrse de gusto, biendolo y contrivuir sin mover un dedo esperando ver morir de hinadicion ,alser mas fiel,y bondadoso que jamas tendra el humano:(TODOS BIEM JUNTITOS Y ATADITOS A ESPERAR LO MISMO)..................................?
It absolutely confounds me that you think that "believing that cruelty can have anything to do with art" is "heartless stupidity." Does this exclude all Existentialist explorations from artistic validity because they put on display the cruel randomness of life? How about The Torture Garden, or The Story of O - are they non-Art as well?
Mind you, I'm not arguing the ethics of this particular action one way or the other - I'm saying rather that cruelty has quite a lot to do with much of art.
@BlacknWhitesAlright - Actual cruelty is different to the representation of cruelty - fact is different to fiction - reality is different to imagination
But to harm an innocent animal is the complete opposite to art. It's a very sick form of art. It's the act of someone who thinks they are above god.
I am not a religious man, but I do believe in being good. This sort of work is child-like and irresponsible, and deserves to be piled in with all the other horrendous acts of animal cruelty the are making the planet a place I want no part of..
It's part of human nature to be inquisitive, and learn things like, "I wonder what would happen if..." Art is supposed to provoke inspiration and curiosity. I think art should be an expression of emotion or to put a magnifying glass on mankind. A record of history or of celebration!
Art is the manipulation of an individual's input and returning it to the earth to become other people's input, often with the intention to prove a point, stimulate emotion etc. you can interpret it however you want. What I see here is quite simply a depiction of the decline of life. A self correcting entity that is descending into oblivion is beautiful to me. The meaning is relative. It's like arresting a writer of tragedies simply because the negative emotions were too much for you.
@thepennymachine If you see anything 'beautiful' about this, you are an inhuman monster and should be murdered violently in front of your entire family. You are a vile, disgusting pile of gutter trash, not worthy of life. A writer of tragedies doesn't cause harm to another living being by writing. A painter doesn't CAUSE HARM to another living being by painting. People like you should be shot. If you were in front of me now i would have no problem slitting your throat. And I'm dead serious.
O.K so I know this is old now, but if the dog was being fed and cared for and only tied up for three hours a day, how is that abusing the dog? Surely everyone that owns dogs leaves them at home on their own all day sometimes, or tied up in back yard a few hours a day. What seems to be the big issue? Atleast this dog managed to evoke some responses from people, unlike all the homeless dogs or people we all pass in the street.
i think you should look into it a little bit further before you start calling people a halfwit. You'll find that the artist is trying to expose exactly this cruelty which you find so disgusting in this piece.
The message behind this was not the visual of the dog, but the point that people only start to care about the suffering of others when it forced into their face. Thousands of times daily people will see a starving dog on the street and shoo it away - the same people who are protesting this display. Vargas didn't starve the dog, he brought it inside in the condition it was already in.
My point is - if people honestly cared there wouldn't be starving dogs in the street in the first place.
We already do - the pictures of children on all the humanitarian commercials asking for donations. It may be much more superliminal, but it's the same means.
@NovacGustav People don't honestly care. This is reality. I agree that there is a line to draw in what is ethically acceptable as performance art. I don't see why Vargas couldn't have tied himself up in a gallery and made the same point.
@jsundstrom2 Because he's not nearly in the same physical condition that the dog was (prior to the exhibit)? That would completely bypass the entire message of the exhibit.
If you saw a stray animal I guarantee a majority of the time you would just shrug it off. If you need to be mad at someone be mad at the thousands of people who ignore starving, dying stray animals every day - not at the guy who decided to bring one indoors to illustrate this message of inhumanity.
@NovacGustav that's a load of bull shit. people do honestly care. the fact is that you can't save all of them- trust me, i've tried. no one wants it forced in their face that there's nothing they can do to stop the suffering of another and those that can do something won't.
My point is - it's wrong, heartless, and the people who care aren't the problem. it's people like this piece of shit.
No animal is guilty of human hypocrisy. ¿why to suffer innocent as an excuse for "art"?. This problem is exhibit daily on the streets. So what will happens if show tied to a child as "art" dying of hunger and thirst to "sensitize" on world hunger? It is more dignified to die fighting in the battle (on the streets, and maybe recieve some help of someone), than to be tied to a wall and die helplessly at the sight of all, being the innocent victim of human misery.
The US Humane Society was informed that the dog was in a state of starvation when captured and escaped after one day of captivity. The organization categorically condemned 'the use of live animals in exhibits such as this'. The World Society for the Protection of Animals also investigated the exhibit. The WSPA found the information regarding the issue to be inconsistent but met with sponsors of the Honduras Bienial to ensure that no animals would be abused at the 2008 exhibition in that country.
Juanita Bermúdez, the director of the Códice Gallery, stated that the animal was fed regularly and was only tied up for three hours on one day before it escaped. Vargas stated that the exhibit and the surrounding controversy highlight people's hypocrisy because no one cares about a dog that starves to death in the street.
and maybe it is for that reason that white bourgeois romantics will censor rap music, atonal music, rock lyrics and anything that strays from the expected
'Vargas stated that the exhibit and the surrounding controversy highlight people's hypocrisy because no one cares about a dog that starves to death in the street.'
art that sticks to tradition is unsuccessful because it only widely appeals to the conservative bourgeois type. art like this is only considered indecent by the same types of people. it is probably so poignant because we are so used to our art saying very little bad about us.
I love the +18 flag on the imbecilic comment that this was successful art because it provoked a strong emotional response. That a once fine tradition which has nurtured the higher side of human nature for centuries should be reduced to such a primitive caricature is laughable, Stockhausen would have understood your twisted perspective however - he described 9/11 as great art for exactly the same reasons - it provoked a strong reaction.
@periblues is it the ACT of the creator (artist) or the ACTION of the receiver (uh..i.e. audience) which is the 'art'? its clear that the 'artist' knows his art, but do YOU? could it be that this kind of continual commitment to responses that mr. richtomes is what "communicative" an art based on is about?
yo guys. please dont think with your affect, but use your brain and try to get the message that the artist is trying to say throught this act.
stop crying and complaining. and act, do, scream, exhib a dog, do whatever, and maybe things will change. cause here its not only about a suffering dog, but much more. the message is taugh!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Not only is it cruel, the act of repeating the piece (if the artist did accept the invitation) would completely undermine the artistic value it had initially. Plus it would be mean to another dog.
The US Humane Society was informed that the dog was in a state of starvation when captured and escaped after one day of captivity. The organization categorically condemned "the use of live animals in exhibits such as this." The World Society for the Protection of Animals also investigated the exhibit. WSPA found the information regarding the issue to be inconsistent and met with sponsors of the Honduras Bienal to ensure that no animals would be abused at the 2008 exhibition in that country.
Relax guys! It was only tied the three hours the exhibition lasted. It ran away and was fed regulary. It just gave you something to debate on.. exactly the intension.. see ya
Relax yeah sure. Why not tie up a sick child to make a point about poverty next time ? It was a sick animal. Animals have rights in a civilised society - ever heard of a precedent ?
Yeah that's what I said. His intentions or the message behind his art are wholly artistic simply because he states that they are. That still doesn't make it ok though.
Authorial intent isn't enough to make something into art. It wasn't enough in Beethoven's day, and it still isn't, despite the current ridiculous trend. The art world will eventually come to it's senses and realise it's mistake of pandering to the masses. If you make everyone into artists you're going to engender one hell of a lot of sub standard art.
There is a lot of substandard art. Who gives a shit. To me, and it should be to more people, it is common sense that art is any human idea. You can have your opinion but there's good art and bad art and that's the way it is. Try fighting against this type of art with real criticism isntead of trying to take on what is and what is not art. K?
All in all though it really doesn't matter. People are going to keep making concept art even after the trend validating it is over and if people are still making it then it will still be art. As for the substandard art it is everywhere and it is perrenial. There was substandard art in Beethoven's time too. There is also good art in every form. Substandard art is a blessing too because it inspires real art i.e. A Musical Joke by Mozart or campy Horror movies.
Art is connection of ideas between people. Whether you like it or not; it's not a trend it's just the way it is. Stop whining about it and just make art that is quality. You're philosophy on art just makes art into a status symbol or something only the rich and talented can afford and that isn't what it is because art is simply human.
At the most basic level you're correct in your definition, but as a tradition art is much more than just a loose connection of ideas between people. The philosophy and structure of the Western canon and almost four hundred years of tradition won't be sidetracked by a few decadent decades of deconstructionism in which the fashion is to hold anything with authorial intent as valid art. It's a trend, rather similar to reality TV stars being worshipped without actually having any talent or ability.
Oh I agree about the TV stars but don't we all. So you're conceding to my definition but still asserting that it's a trend. Now that we are in a different discussion on a different video I don't have to argue within the confines of Western canon. The art tradition is only a drop in ocean compared to all of art. The art tradition is relatively unimportant because it just skewers artistic vision, it's sort of like commercialism in pop.
Well to start with, we don't all agree about the vaccuous nonsense of reality TV. TV companies only put out what they know a lot of people will watch. As for a definition of art, it's a word like love, which can be used to describe anything from the most basic human instinct to the highest state of consciousness. The word Art is used here in the context of (most of) four hundred years of the art tradition representing the highest standards of talent, skill, and ideals of aesthetics and morality.
Haha, morality, well that just backs up what I said before about none of this mattering. I'm in an ongoing dialogue with a friend in the RL about whether morality exists. Morality I say exists but at the same time does not because it only works as a mechanism of natural selection to trick us into ego death. After ego death we all will die voluntarilly making natural selection's job much easier. Though, it's futile to inquire about the nature of morality just like it is to inquire about art.
ha ha morality - the 21st century in 12 characters. Morality is central to human life because the world is constantly engaged in a struggle between good and evil. Though morality is currently out of fashion, like consonance and melody, it is nonetheless fundamental to the inner life, as is consonance and melody to music. No enquiry is futile. All learning is enquiry, all learning is growth.
The 21st Century is just realistic. Morality has been preach for forever but everyone who preaches it defies it. Again just like art morality is a personal struggle that's different for everyone depending on where they are that is just culture. I maybe say things a little more deadpan than I should because it's not all clean cut like my words but you can't deny the fluxuation of morality depending on culture.
Morality is fake. I know this because everyone is inherently evil. We're rotten to the core. I don't care if you have a different opinion because this subject is one of the few where if you disagree with me I will still know that you are wrong. You can talk about some religion or some philosophy that says otherwise but Christians and Muslims have their crusades and Buddist monks have burned themselves alive in Vietnam. Humans naturally destroy, themselves or others, they still destroy.
Know ? For every wrong there's a right, and unfortunately vice versa. You know that. Don't be content with only half the picture, especially if you're going to choose the ugly half.
I know there is a right for every wrong in the immediate that's why some feel it's best to live in the moment . . . but the point is the end . . . most of the time things on this world end in a wrong . . .
Well after all the semantics are over I suppose it's personal real experience which colors the way we perceive the world. If we've seen a lot of trouble and pain in our lives then that's unfortunately the way we perceive reality. It's different for everyone however, or in other words it's subjective, and we are not powerless to change our reality. If we want reality to be a good place then we have to make good things happen, for ourselves, for others, not to mention animals and the environment.
It's really too bad it wasn't a human instead..I'm sorry a dog had to go through that. i wonder if it ended up reaching doggy nirvana in its derangment of the senses. theres no reason why the dog didnt under go some sort of transformation (as side from its body dying on it) im all for the transcendental k-9. this planet feels small dont it
We can turn ANYTHING into an emotional exibit if we want to.. Lets take homeless ppl and cage them on the street... then lets take murder victims who are unclaimed by kin and post them on a stake. Theeeen we can take 60 pigeons and tie all their feet together and peg em to the ground. While none of my examples make such a godly statement as the dog, theyre still worthy of a picture as ppl can put their heart out to it. the "Artist", while making a point, contradicts via the problem > solution...
The US Humane Society was informed that the dog was in a state of starvation when captured and escaped after one day of captivity. The organization categorically condemned "the use of live animals in exhibits such as this." The World Society for the Protection of Animals also investigated the exhibit. WSPA found the information regarding the issue to be inconsistent and met with sponsors of the Honduras Bienal to ensure that no animals would be abused at the 2008 exhibition in that country.
he found a starving dog in the street, brought it into the gallery, FED IT, and tied it up for 3 hours, and it later escaped. this is on the humane society's website.
he named it Natividad after a man who was killed by Rottweilers, to no consequence. he wanted to show that an animal that even SEEMED to be mistreated in a gallery would cause an uprage when dogs and people that die in the street every day are ignored. and it worked.
We don't tie up sick children in art galleries to make a point about poverty on the streets, neither should we tie up sick animals. Sick animals are not art materials, under any circumstances, period.
if he only tied up the animal for 3 hours, i think it's not excessive cruelty -- i've seen animals being tied up for longer than that while the owner gets the hair done or goes shopping... if this brings attention to the mistreatment of animals in general i think it's all to the good.
would've been totally different thing if he had actually *starved* the poor animal though.
The artist knew that the dog was sick and dying. He said so. the dog shouldn't have been in an art gallery, it should have been taken to a vet. We don't tie up sick children in art galleries to make a point about poverty - why is it ok to use a sick animal ? It isn't.
Next time let him do the same thing with a homeless child. Maybe he would get some publicity and even do some good, but it would just be a campaign, not art.
I do change my opinions, and I do accept that isn't exactly what it first appeared to be, but conceptually it's still unacceptable as art. Whether or not the dog actually died in the gallery makes no difference, it was sick, it should have been cared for, it wasn't an art material. Evaristti put live creatures in kitchen blenders and invited the audience to switch them on. That's unacceptable too because art is supposed to nurture the higher side of human nature, not exploit the lower side.
wow u think that whether or not the dog actually died in the gallery makes no difference? whether the dog was actually tied for days and starved to death makes NO DIFFERENCE...? :-\
In the 21st century people are getting all confused about values, what is legitimate art, and what is morality. If we believed what we are fed by the likes of Evaristti, Habacuc and Abdessmed we might all start thinking that whatever happens in an art gallery is ok because it's art. All I can tell you is if I'd been there I would have done something about it.
also, are you primarily upset because the artist did not leave the dog alone to starve in the street? if he had simply not brought the starving animal into the gallery, he would have been a moral upstanding man like everyone else, right?
We have to find ways of making people think which don't abuse living creatures - we don't tie up homeless children in art galleries to make a point about destitution.
it wasn't that he used the dog as art material in the *traditional* sense -- don't you see it? it's not like he put a sale sign on a sick dog and the dog ITSELF became the art work that can be sold etc.
it was the *act* and the *idea* of putting the dog there that was the "art of provoking thought"
There is the small matter of respect for the well being of the animals - if we allow Habacuc to exhibit a sick dog, if we allow Evaristti to juice live creatures infront of a live audience in the name of art then we have endorsed it. If we endorse these things, what will follow ? Certainly, some 'artist', seeing that Habacuc and Evaristti were praised will want to attract even more attention and provoke even more thought by exibiting something even more 'thought provoking'. More victims.
i wonder -- if you are so into well being of animals why you do not spend more time advocating for spaying of the animals and other concerns about actual animal welfare? instead of arguing with me here...?
in your heart of hearts, are you upset with the artist for bringing this plight of the animals into public attention?
u would have really liked him to never have brought the spotlight on this issue?
Bringing the plight of the animals to the public attention is great, like for instance the work that Greenpeace do. They don't however present wounded whales as if they were artwork. I'm all for animal rights campaigning, but it's best done without further abusing the rights of animals, and without pretending that it's art.
i would agree with u as far as not condoning such an exhibit to repeat itself over and over again - but my reasons r different from yours.
for me, the VALUE of the work itself was that it was original, shocking and thought-provoking.
this type of non-traditional conceptual art, is not something that gains by repetition - indeed, its message will be blunted by repetition, in that people will only get used to seeing sick animals in galleries as we already are of seeing them in streets.
I can see the THEORY of the value of this - shock - provoke thought - but theory is different to reality. In the real world to condone this is to invite more of it, and that is no good. If we allow and condone this kind of thing as art it will lead not to enlightenment but to people thinking that there's really nothing wrong with abusing animals for entertainment. If artists can do it in an art gallery, then it can't be that bad.
didn't the artist himself sign the petition not to allow this type of exhibitions to take place any more? clearly he understands that repetition of such exhibitions will only dilute the effect and lose the overall integrity and intention of the work itself.
(btw, he did not abuse the animal -- it's not like he took a healthy animal then abused it to get it all sick and starving - the animal was already in a poor shape)
What if Greenpeace exhibited a wounded whale as thought provoking art ? It was already in poor shape - they didn't harpoon it themselves so it's ok to have it in a gallery as art for people to see ? If Habacuc did sign the petition against his own work then that's to the good. It was a wise move on his part because he was receiving massive negative publicity. As long this isn't repeated I'm happy.
aside from the enormous difficulty one would have in *displaying* a whale in an art gallery, this work has already been done.
the art of it is in the IDEA of it, not in the physicality of the dog or the animal in question. so it would make no sense to repeat the practice with different animals.
as i mentioned before, this type of non-traditional, conceptual work really LOSES its point/edge through repetition.
It's not a work, and it isn't brilliant. It's just a cheap sensationalist way of attracting attention. It's easy to do, it's not art, and it's extremely short sighted, because you can't make a point about animal abuse by abusing an animal.
How about if we take an animal which has been badly beaten and tie that same animal up in an art gallery to make a point about cruelty - the more you think about it the more stupid it seems. If we allow and condone this kind of thing as art it will lead not to enlightenment but to people thinking that there's really nothing wrong with abusing animals for entertainment. If artists can do it in an art gallery, then it can't be that bad.
you have already evoked this image of children/people being tied up.
i have already responded to this.
now you r just repeating yourself, and frankly i have other things to do, then sit here and repeat myeslf.. then it becomes much much less interesting.
yes but the scenario you are proposing DID NOT HAPPEN did it?
u can't make an argument against something by making up another, much worse scenario.
that would be like anti-gay people arguing against allowing homosexual marriage by saying "yes but what about incestual marriage? how about marrying underage children? if we allow gay marriage all of these will happen!"
these are not valid arguments.
i gotta go now - hopefully this has been interesting for you too :)
yeah -- as i said before, repetition would only get people *used* to seeing sick aniamls in galleries as they are in seeing sick stray animals in streets.
hopefully the outcry over this will translate into more comprehensive spaying programs for pets etc.
Well, the fact that so many people were outraged by this, instead of just being indifferent does indicate that many people do have feeling for animals and don't want to see them abused. Poverty, destitution, homelessness, are things which no one wants to have in the world but who has the answers ?
hm... just googled the story -- it seems that the dog was already starving when it was captured, and it escaped after one day. the gallery owner claims that the dog was fed. and the dog didn't actually *starve to death* in the gallery... if this is true, it would change everything....
We don't tie up sick children in art galleries to make a point about poverty on the streets, neither should we tie up sick animals. Sick animals are not art materials, under any circumstances, period.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Find an photo of the 'artist' and spread it everywhere with his 'art'. He can not hide from his own creation and the fallout that has followed. His name will go down in history as a classic case of why 'modern art' is lost today.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
rotov80 i think just like you... people like this so-called "artist" are nought but sadistic perverts.
well, i cannot blame anyone for being like he oder she IS, but i surely can blame him/her for what (s)he DOES... and i do blame this guy for killing an animal for nothing but his own profit. i cannot endorse that, even if i try really hard. what is mad (or rather sad) about it is that he got the profit...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i hope this fucking asshole dies of aids this fucking son of a bitch idc if he just used the dead dog to intertain people i want this fucking guy dead.and go ahead and fucking put a thumbs down on my comment u motherfucking sons of a bitchs.
The claim that the dog was left to die is an unconfirmed rumor spread around on the internet.
"Upon conducting a probe, the Humane Society of the United States was informed that the dog was in a state of starvation when it was captured and escaped after one day of captivity; however, the organization also categorically condemned "the use of live animals in exhibits such as this"
I'm not saying what he did was good or if it was art, but it appears he didn't actually starve it to death.
IamZanderss 10 months ago
die dog killing scum "artist"
SuperGoat777 11 months ago
the guy that made that... isn't an artist...
0707NicePlayer 1 year ago
Sick bastard.How about i tie your ass up with wire and gag you for 3 weeks without food and water..see if its still art..
christph31 1 year ago
yo rite poor dogs
TheSeanmansfield 1 year ago
This shit is a hoax, he made an exhibit with a stray dog in it, but no one starved it to death. You can look the shit up on snopes.
Sarcasmitron 1 year ago
Anyone could've fed the dog. Everyone that DID NOT feed the dog should be imprisoned.
andrewjrahman 1 year ago
Well there are a lot of people there; maybe he wants to test human perception and capacity of action. Yes the dog was suffering like in the street all know that but no one did something to help the dog. They ask to artists to help him but he wasn't there to do that. In fact there was a dog with a rope in a corner of the building, don’t belong to anyone and don’t respond to anyone he’s starving. Someone could bring some food, someone could cut the rope. They prefer to see him die.
jorindeadeye 1 year ago
@jorindeadeye - yeah sort of like a science experiment at the dog's expense - fortunately there are laws protecting animal's rights.
richtomes 1 year ago
@jorindeadeye Best comment here.
andrewjrahman 1 year ago
@jorindeadeye
I am so sorry and feel so shame about this.
This is not art and neither 9/11. Who could possibly imagine that?
I can feel the strong and malign influence of sadic clasic literature on Habacuc and Stockhansen thoughts.
Niestche's unconcious victims.
periblues 1 year ago
The only good thing from this is that it maybe will bring up some positive outcomes, like donation to associations of abandonned pets, or just new laws to allows animals to have rights too..
I mean, in our current society, dogs are almost toys for a lot of us .. We bought them when they were young, and then that they've grown up, we don't need them anymore, so we don't care about give them away in some refuge for pets. Indeed, if they aren't lucky, they'll surely end up five feets under.. :(
PtiteEtoile24 1 year ago
Despite the aethetic experiece that can be achieved out of an art work that depicts suffering, (due to catharsis, empathy or whatever you want to call it), none of that justifies the abuse of an animal and using it as mear means to achive and objetive.....this man should be jailed
Felinestance 1 year ago
This is the what you get when you allow the group of nefarious social engineers to take over Culture and turn it into what they want. Culture and Art become nothing but a tool to turn our world into a sea of meanlingless, atheism and indifference. Worse is yet to come...
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
A ESE que dicese,ser artista.y todos lo que entran para correrse de gusto, biendolo y contrivuir sin mover un dedo esperando ver morir de hinadicion ,alser mas fiel,y bondadoso que jamas tendra el humano:(TODOS BIEM JUNTITOS Y ATADITOS A ESPERAR LO MISMO)..................................?
dsalgadojimenez 1 year ago
Comment removed
roparre 1 year ago
It absolutely confounds me that you think that "believing that cruelty can have anything to do with art" is "heartless stupidity." Does this exclude all Existentialist explorations from artistic validity because they put on display the cruel randomness of life? How about The Torture Garden, or The Story of O - are they non-Art as well?
Mind you, I'm not arguing the ethics of this particular action one way or the other - I'm saying rather that cruelty has quite a lot to do with much of art.
BlacknWhitesAlright 1 year ago 2
@BlacknWhitesAlright - Actual cruelty is different to the representation of cruelty - fact is different to fiction - reality is different to imagination
richtomes 1 year ago
@BlacknWhitesAlright
I am so sorry and feel so shame about this.
This is not art and neither 9/11. Who could possibly imagine that?
I can feel the strong and malign influence of sadic clasic literature on Habacuc and Stockhansen thoughts.
Niestche's unconcious victims.
periblues 1 year ago
@BlacknWhitesAlright
I am so sorry and feel so shame about this.
This is not art and neither 9/11. Who could possibly imagine that?
I can feel the strong and malign influence of sadic clasic literature on Habacuc and Stockhansen thoughts.
You are all Niestche's unconcious victims.
periblues 1 year ago
But to harm an innocent animal is the complete opposite to art. It's a very sick form of art. It's the act of someone who thinks they are above god.
I am not a religious man, but I do believe in being good. This sort of work is child-like and irresponsible, and deserves to be piled in with all the other horrendous acts of animal cruelty the are making the planet a place I want no part of..
DirectedBySteve 1 year ago
Yeah the definition of art needs to be addressed.
It's part of human nature to be inquisitive, and learn things like, "I wonder what would happen if..." Art is supposed to provoke inspiration and curiosity. I think art should be an expression of emotion or to put a magnifying glass on mankind. A record of history or of celebration!
DirectedBySteve 1 year ago
Art is the manipulation of an individual's input and returning it to the earth to become other people's input, often with the intention to prove a point, stimulate emotion etc. you can interpret it however you want. What I see here is quite simply a depiction of the decline of life. A self correcting entity that is descending into oblivion is beautiful to me. The meaning is relative. It's like arresting a writer of tragedies simply because the negative emotions were too much for you.
thepennymachine 1 year ago
@thepennymachine If you see anything 'beautiful' about this, you are an inhuman monster and should be murdered violently in front of your entire family. You are a vile, disgusting pile of gutter trash, not worthy of life. A writer of tragedies doesn't cause harm to another living being by writing. A painter doesn't CAUSE HARM to another living being by painting. People like you should be shot. If you were in front of me now i would have no problem slitting your throat. And I'm dead serious.
Ultimist 11 months ago
the art is when the cops come and beat your ass from trying to do the right thing and free the animal.
joshgura 1 year ago
O.K so I know this is old now, but if the dog was being fed and cared for and only tied up for three hours a day, how is that abusing the dog? Surely everyone that owns dogs leaves them at home on their own all day sometimes, or tied up in back yard a few hours a day. What seems to be the big issue? Atleast this dog managed to evoke some responses from people, unlike all the homeless dogs or people we all pass in the street.
triptek 1 year ago 3
i think you should look into it a little bit further before you start calling people a halfwit. You'll find that the artist is trying to expose exactly this cruelty which you find so disgusting in this piece.
wastelandnumberseven 1 year ago 4
,,,
wastelandnumberseven 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
cruelty IS NOT ART
ghitens07 1 year ago
The message behind this was not the visual of the dog, but the point that people only start to care about the suffering of others when it forced into their face. Thousands of times daily people will see a starving dog on the street and shoo it away - the same people who are protesting this display. Vargas didn't starve the dog, he brought it inside in the condition it was already in.
My point is - if people honestly cared there wouldn't be starving dogs in the street in the first place.
NovacGustav 2 years ago 44
Great ! - let's draw attention to abused children in the same way - halfwit
richtomes 2 years ago
We already do - the pictures of children on all the humanitarian commercials asking for donations. It may be much more superliminal, but it's the same means.
Plus, human child =/= dog - I'm the halfwit here?
NovacGustav 2 years ago 18
Why not?
JackETProductions 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
abuse is not art
richtomes 2 years ago
@richtomes shutup
akn220 10 months ago
@NovacGustav People don't honestly care. This is reality. I agree that there is a line to draw in what is ethically acceptable as performance art. I don't see why Vargas couldn't have tied himself up in a gallery and made the same point.
jsundstrom2 1 year ago
@jsundstrom2 Because he's not nearly in the same physical condition that the dog was (prior to the exhibit)? That would completely bypass the entire message of the exhibit.
If you saw a stray animal I guarantee a majority of the time you would just shrug it off. If you need to be mad at someone be mad at the thousands of people who ignore starving, dying stray animals every day - not at the guy who decided to bring one indoors to illustrate this message of inhumanity.
NovacGustav 1 year ago 3
@NovacGustav the instant Vargas touched the animal, he was responsible for it;s well-being.
DirectedBySteve 1 year ago
@DirectedBySteve You're right. He should have left it to starve in the streets so he could claim he wasn't responsible for it's well being.
NovacGustav 1 year ago
@NovacGustav that's a load of bull shit. people do honestly care. the fact is that you can't save all of them- trust me, i've tried. no one wants it forced in their face that there's nothing they can do to stop the suffering of another and those that can do something won't.
My point is - it's wrong, heartless, and the people who care aren't the problem. it's people like this piece of shit.
wingedbeetle 1 year ago
the dog is showing you, richtomes.
fragmentiert 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it is kind of art, because art ist even something, that could show, what things don't work in a society.
how stupid are all the people who have watched this dog an didn't tie this poor dog off!
this you should think about! why has nobody done something?
mollwuff 2 years ago
where can I sign the petition to ban you back to the Middle Ages?
davis1337 2 years ago 28
Nowhere
richtomes 2 years ago
No animal is guilty of human hypocrisy. ¿why to suffer innocent as an excuse for "art"?. This problem is exhibit daily on the streets. So what will happens if show tied to a child as "art" dying of hunger and thirst to "sensitize" on world hunger? It is more dignified to die fighting in the battle (on the streets, and maybe recieve some help of someone), than to be tied to a wall and die helplessly at the sight of all, being the innocent victim of human misery.
amarcelamor 2 years ago 3
The US Humane Society was informed that the dog was in a state of starvation when captured and escaped after one day of captivity. The organization categorically condemned 'the use of live animals in exhibits such as this'. The World Society for the Protection of Animals also investigated the exhibit. The WSPA found the information regarding the issue to be inconsistent but met with sponsors of the Honduras Bienial to ensure that no animals would be abused at the 2008 exhibition in that country.
richtomes 2 years ago
This video too highlight people's hypocrisy because no one cares about a dog that starves to death in street
dog dyin in street is okay
dog dying in gallery not is okay
so okay die in street , not okay die in gallery
that is what artist us shows
when you care for animals you should understand
i care for animals
bitachar 2 years ago 8
You know better than the US Humane Society and the World Society for the Protection of Animals put together - congratulations on your vision.
richtomes 2 years ago
Both society not do contradict the director of Codice Gallery or statement of Vargas.
I stick to fact
bitachar 2 years ago 6
The fact is that due to world opinion this kind art is now banned, and a good thing too.
richtomes 2 years ago
WHy? Because people now aware of how starving animals is treated? Nobody cared for starving dogs till this art.
Even now people not care
bitachar 2 years ago 5
rubbish
richtomes 2 years ago
what is?
bitachar 2 years ago 3
Like most video on dog, this not is accurate.
Juanita Bermúdez, the director of the Códice Gallery, stated that the animal was fed regularly and was only tied up for three hours on one day before it escaped. Vargas stated that the exhibit and the surrounding controversy highlight people's hypocrisy because no one cares about a dog that starves to death in the street.
Sentiment video too show hypocrisy.
bitachar 2 years ago 5
and maybe it is for that reason that white bourgeois romantics will censor rap music, atonal music, rock lyrics and anything that strays from the expected
clubsandwedge 2 years ago 16
hold on. from wikipedia,
'Vargas stated that the exhibit and the surrounding controversy highlight people's hypocrisy because no one cares about a dog that starves to death in the street.'
art that sticks to tradition is unsuccessful because it only widely appeals to the conservative bourgeois type. art like this is only considered indecent by the same types of people. it is probably so poignant because we are so used to our art saying very little bad about us.
clubsandwedge 2 years ago 16
Comment removed
andreslipk 2 years ago
clearly, this was a successful piece of art, as it provoked this kind of emotional and physical response from you.
denvermarathon 2 years ago 38
Yes, perhaps 9/11 was a successful piece of art too, as Stockhausen said.
Perhaps the holocaust too !
richtomes 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
YOU ARE SO INSANE!
i hate you.
you should be arrested too if you think this is right.
SoFiArOx4eVa2 2 years ago
I love the +18 flag on the imbecilic comment that this was successful art because it provoked a strong emotional response. That a once fine tradition which has nurtured the higher side of human nature for centuries should be reduced to such a primitive caricature is laughable, Stockhausen would have understood your twisted perspective however - he described 9/11 as great art for exactly the same reasons - it provoked a strong reaction.
richtomes 2 years ago
@denvermarathon
Not because it provoques emotional and phisical responses an ACT should be considered ART.
periblues 1 year ago
@periblues is it the ACT of the creator (artist) or the ACTION of the receiver (uh..i.e. audience) which is the 'art'? its clear that the 'artist' knows his art, but do YOU? could it be that this kind of continual commitment to responses that mr. richtomes is what "communicative" an art based on is about?
denvermarathon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yo guys. please dont think with your affect, but use your brain and try to get the message that the artist is trying to say throught this act.
stop crying and complaining. and act, do, scream, exhib a dog, do whatever, and maybe things will change. cause here its not only about a suffering dog, but much more. the message is taugh!
mmeoek 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Not only is it cruel, the act of repeating the piece (if the artist did accept the invitation) would completely undermine the artistic value it had initially. Plus it would be mean to another dog.
Euroflounder 2 years ago
This is a hoax. A very old one.
anaklasis 2 years ago 18
It isn't a hoax when a sick animal is exploited as an art material. We wouldn't accept exploiting a sick child as an art material, so why an animal ?
richtomes 2 years ago
Believe me, I searched some information many months ago and it's a hoax, that animal never died. He was not even sick.
anaklasis 2 years ago 13
The US Humane Society was informed that the dog was in a state of starvation when captured and escaped after one day of captivity. The organization categorically condemned "the use of live animals in exhibits such as this." The World Society for the Protection of Animals also investigated the exhibit. WSPA found the information regarding the issue to be inconsistent and met with sponsors of the Honduras Bienal to ensure that no animals would be abused at the 2008 exhibition in that country.
richtomes 2 years ago
Relax guys! It was only tied the three hours the exhibition lasted. It ran away and was fed regulary. It just gave you something to debate on.. exactly the intension.. see ya
BKgaard 2 years ago 9
Relax yeah sure. Why not tie up a sick child to make a point about poverty next time ? It was a sick animal. Animals have rights in a civilised society - ever heard of a precedent ?
richtomes 2 years ago
It's art simply because it has a motive. Motive is art. The title should be "When has art gone to far?"
findingusernamesucks 3 years ago 3
The new definition of art - anything with authorial intent.
richtomes 3 years ago
Yeah that's what I said. His intentions or the message behind his art are wholly artistic simply because he states that they are. That still doesn't make it ok though.
findingusernamesucks 3 years ago
Authorial intent isn't enough to make something into art. It wasn't enough in Beethoven's day, and it still isn't, despite the current ridiculous trend. The art world will eventually come to it's senses and realise it's mistake of pandering to the masses. If you make everyone into artists you're going to engender one hell of a lot of sub standard art.
richtomes 2 years ago
There is a lot of substandard art. Who gives a shit. To me, and it should be to more people, it is common sense that art is any human idea. You can have your opinion but there's good art and bad art and that's the way it is. Try fighting against this type of art with real criticism isntead of trying to take on what is and what is not art. K?
findingusernamesucks 2 years ago
All in all though it really doesn't matter. People are going to keep making concept art even after the trend validating it is over and if people are still making it then it will still be art. As for the substandard art it is everywhere and it is perrenial. There was substandard art in Beethoven's time too. There is also good art in every form. Substandard art is a blessing too because it inspires real art i.e. A Musical Joke by Mozart or campy Horror movies.
findingusernamesucks 2 years ago
Authorial intent isn't enough to make something into art, no matter what the trend currently is.
richtomes 2 years ago
Art is connection of ideas between people. Whether you like it or not; it's not a trend it's just the way it is. Stop whining about it and just make art that is quality. You're philosophy on art just makes art into a status symbol or something only the rich and talented can afford and that isn't what it is because art is simply human.
findingusernamesucks 2 years ago
At the most basic level you're correct in your definition, but as a tradition art is much more than just a loose connection of ideas between people. The philosophy and structure of the Western canon and almost four hundred years of tradition won't be sidetracked by a few decadent decades of deconstructionism in which the fashion is to hold anything with authorial intent as valid art. It's a trend, rather similar to reality TV stars being worshipped without actually having any talent or ability.
richtomes 2 years ago
Oh I agree about the TV stars but don't we all. So you're conceding to my definition but still asserting that it's a trend. Now that we are in a different discussion on a different video I don't have to argue within the confines of Western canon. The art tradition is only a drop in ocean compared to all of art. The art tradition is relatively unimportant because it just skewers artistic vision, it's sort of like commercialism in pop.
findingusernamesucks 2 years ago 2
Well to start with, we don't all agree about the vaccuous nonsense of reality TV. TV companies only put out what they know a lot of people will watch. As for a definition of art, it's a word like love, which can be used to describe anything from the most basic human instinct to the highest state of consciousness. The word Art is used here in the context of (most of) four hundred years of the art tradition representing the highest standards of talent, skill, and ideals of aesthetics and morality.
richtomes 2 years ago
Haha, morality, well that just backs up what I said before about none of this mattering. I'm in an ongoing dialogue with a friend in the RL about whether morality exists. Morality I say exists but at the same time does not because it only works as a mechanism of natural selection to trick us into ego death. After ego death we all will die voluntarilly making natural selection's job much easier. Though, it's futile to inquire about the nature of morality just like it is to inquire about art.
findingusernamesucks 2 years ago 3
ha ha morality - the 21st century in 12 characters. Morality is central to human life because the world is constantly engaged in a struggle between good and evil. Though morality is currently out of fashion, like consonance and melody, it is nonetheless fundamental to the inner life, as is consonance and melody to music. No enquiry is futile. All learning is enquiry, all learning is growth.
richtomes 2 years ago
The 21st Century is just realistic. Morality has been preach for forever but everyone who preaches it defies it. Again just like art morality is a personal struggle that's different for everyone depending on where they are that is just culture. I maybe say things a little more deadpan than I should because it's not all clean cut like my words but you can't deny the fluxuation of morality depending on culture.
findingusernamesucks 2 years ago 2
Morality is fake. I know this because everyone is inherently evil. We're rotten to the core. I don't care if you have a different opinion because this subject is one of the few where if you disagree with me I will still know that you are wrong. You can talk about some religion or some philosophy that says otherwise but Christians and Muslims have their crusades and Buddist monks have burned themselves alive in Vietnam. Humans naturally destroy, themselves or others, they still destroy.
findingusernamesucks 2 years ago 2
Know ? For every wrong there's a right, and unfortunately vice versa. You know that. Don't be content with only half the picture, especially if you're going to choose the ugly half.
richtomes 2 years ago
I know there is a right for every wrong in the immediate that's why some feel it's best to live in the moment . . . but the point is the end . . . most of the time things on this world end in a wrong . . .
findingusernamesucks 2 years ago 2
That's just not so..
richtomes 2 years ago
hope you're right but I don't see it that way
findingusernamesucks 2 years ago 4
Well after all the semantics are over I suppose it's personal real experience which colors the way we perceive the world. If we've seen a lot of trouble and pain in our lives then that's unfortunately the way we perceive reality. It's different for everyone however, or in other words it's subjective, and we are not powerless to change our reality. If we want reality to be a good place then we have to make good things happen, for ourselves, for others, not to mention animals and the environment.
richtomes 2 years ago
I believe in that to some extent but whatev
findingusernamesucks 2 years ago
It's really too bad it wasn't a human instead..I'm sorry a dog had to go through that. i wonder if it ended up reaching doggy nirvana in its derangment of the senses. theres no reason why the dog didnt under go some sort of transformation (as side from its body dying on it) im all for the transcendental k-9. this planet feels small dont it
EightyPredatorsWide 3 years ago
We can turn ANYTHING into an emotional exibit if we want to.. Lets take homeless ppl and cage them on the street... then lets take murder victims who are unclaimed by kin and post them on a stake. Theeeen we can take 60 pigeons and tie all their feet together and peg em to the ground. While none of my examples make such a godly statement as the dog, theyre still worthy of a picture as ppl can put their heart out to it. the "Artist", while making a point, contradicts via the problem > solution...
WebsterA 3 years ago
The US Humane Society was informed that the dog was in a state of starvation when captured and escaped after one day of captivity. The organization categorically condemned "the use of live animals in exhibits such as this." The World Society for the Protection of Animals also investigated the exhibit. WSPA found the information regarding the issue to be inconsistent and met with sponsors of the Honduras Bienal to ensure that no animals would be abused at the 2008 exhibition in that country.
richtomes 3 years ago
he did not kill the dog. plain and simple.
he found a starving dog in the street, brought it into the gallery, FED IT, and tied it up for 3 hours, and it later escaped. this is on the humane society's website.
he named it Natividad after a man who was killed by Rottweilers, to no consequence. he wanted to show that an animal that even SEEMED to be mistreated in a gallery would cause an uprage when dogs and people that die in the street every day are ignored. and it worked.
sexywheats 3 years ago 9
We don't tie up sick children in art galleries to make a point about poverty on the streets, neither should we tie up sick animals. Sick animals are not art materials, under any circumstances, period.
richtomes 3 years ago
if he only tied up the animal for 3 hours, i think it's not excessive cruelty -- i've seen animals being tied up for longer than that while the owner gets the hair done or goes shopping... if this brings attention to the mistreatment of animals in general i think it's all to the good.
would've been totally different thing if he had actually *starved* the poor animal though.
earthypig 3 years ago 10
The artist knew that the dog was sick and dying. He said so. the dog shouldn't have been in an art gallery, it should have been taken to a vet. We don't tie up sick children in art galleries to make a point about poverty - why is it ok to use a sick animal ? It isn't.
richtomes 3 years ago
how many people do you know, take a stray sick dog in the street to a vet? have you ever done it?
earthypig 3 years ago 10
I haven't but I know people who have, and I have a lot of respect for them - animals are not art materials under any circumstances.
richtomes 3 years ago
normally i would agree with you.
but I think it was more of a social statement.
at least he brought attention to the fact that animals go hungry and sick in the street all the time without causing half the uproar.
earthypig 3 years ago 10
Next time let him do the same thing with a homeless child. Maybe he would get some publicity and even do some good, but it would just be a campaign, not art.
richtomes 3 years ago
i'm all for animal protection, but a human being and an animal aren't equivalent by any stretch of imagination.
earthypig 3 years ago 3
A human being who mistreats an animal is closer to being one
richtomes 3 years ago
if there was an actual mistreatment i would tend to agree.
my research suggested otherwise.
i'm just wondering -- when i first saw this video i was enraged too, just like you.
but after i did more research, i realized that there was more than just meets the eye here.
so it made me wonder about you -- do you NEVER change opinions on ANYTHING once your mind is made up? :-\
earthypig 3 years ago 3
I do change my opinions, and I do accept that isn't exactly what it first appeared to be, but conceptually it's still unacceptable as art. Whether or not the dog actually died in the gallery makes no difference, it was sick, it should have been cared for, it wasn't an art material. Evaristti put live creatures in kitchen blenders and invited the audience to switch them on. That's unacceptable too because art is supposed to nurture the higher side of human nature, not exploit the lower side.
richtomes 3 years ago
wow u think that whether or not the dog actually died in the gallery makes no difference? whether the dog was actually tied for days and starved to death makes NO DIFFERENCE...? :-\
earthypig 3 years ago 6
It was animal abuse, not to mention an abuse of art, whether or not the sick dog actually died in the gallery or not.
richtomes 3 years ago
and what do you thinka bout the gallery go-ers who did nothing about it? do you thinkthey were complicit in this *animal abuse*?
earthypig 3 years ago 6
In the 21st century people are getting all confused about values, what is legitimate art, and what is morality. If we believed what we are fed by the likes of Evaristti, Habacuc and Abdessmed we might all start thinking that whatever happens in an art gallery is ok because it's art. All I can tell you is if I'd been there I would have done something about it.
richtomes 3 years ago
you did not answer my question.
also, are you primarily upset because the artist did not leave the dog alone to starve in the street? if he had simply not brought the starving animal into the gallery, he would have been a moral upstanding man like everyone else, right?
earthypig 3 years ago 6
Starving animals are a sad fact of life, they are not art.
richtomes 3 years ago
i think he was practicing the art of making people think...
earthypig 3 years ago 6
We have to find ways of making people think which don't abuse living creatures - we don't tie up homeless children in art galleries to make a point about destitution.
richtomes 3 years ago
"in the 21st century people are getting all confused about values"
yeah, as opposed to the earlier centuries when women could not even vote and we had slavery.... please...
"what is legitimate art, and what is morality"
i think this is the art of making you think about morality.
earthypig 3 years ago 7
But you can't use sick animals as art materials
richtomes 3 years ago
yes i can understand your frustration
but think of it this way
it wasn't that he used the dog as art material in the *traditional* sense -- don't you see it? it's not like he put a sale sign on a sick dog and the dog ITSELF became the art work that can be sold etc.
it was the *act* and the *idea* of putting the dog there that was the "art of provoking thought"
earthypig 3 years ago 7
There is the small matter of respect for the well being of the animals - if we allow Habacuc to exhibit a sick dog, if we allow Evaristti to juice live creatures infront of a live audience in the name of art then we have endorsed it. If we endorse these things, what will follow ? Certainly, some 'artist', seeing that Habacuc and Evaristti were praised will want to attract even more attention and provoke even more thought by exibiting something even more 'thought provoking'. More victims.
richtomes 3 years ago
respect for the well being of the animals...
i wonder -- if you are so into well being of animals why you do not spend more time advocating for spaying of the animals and other concerns about actual animal welfare? instead of arguing with me here...?
in your heart of hearts, are you upset with the artist for bringing this plight of the animals into public attention?
u would have really liked him to never have brought the spotlight on this issue?
earthypig 3 years ago 6
Bringing the plight of the animals to the public attention is great, like for instance the work that Greenpeace do. They don't however present wounded whales as if they were artwork. I'm all for animal rights campaigning, but it's best done without further abusing the rights of animals, and without pretending that it's art.
richtomes 3 years ago
i can't keep repeating myself
i will just do it one more time and that's IT.
THE DOG ITSELF WAS NOT THE WORK OF ART.
it's the IDEA of displaying the dog and thereby PROVOKING THOUGHT as to our skewed sense of MORALITY -- that was art.
earthypig 3 years ago 6
It doesn't matter what the theory or intention is, you can't make a point about animal abuse by abusing animals
richtomes 3 years ago
i would agree with u as far as not condoning such an exhibit to repeat itself over and over again - but my reasons r different from yours.
for me, the VALUE of the work itself was that it was original, shocking and thought-provoking.
this type of non-traditional conceptual art, is not something that gains by repetition - indeed, its message will be blunted by repetition, in that people will only get used to seeing sick animals in galleries as we already are of seeing them in streets.
earthypig 3 years ago 4
I can see the THEORY of the value of this - shock - provoke thought - but theory is different to reality. In the real world to condone this is to invite more of it, and that is no good. If we allow and condone this kind of thing as art it will lead not to enlightenment but to people thinking that there's really nothing wrong with abusing animals for entertainment. If artists can do it in an art gallery, then it can't be that bad.
richtomes 3 years ago
didn't the artist himself sign the petition not to allow this type of exhibitions to take place any more? clearly he understands that repetition of such exhibitions will only dilute the effect and lose the overall integrity and intention of the work itself.
(btw, he did not abuse the animal -- it's not like he took a healthy animal then abused it to get it all sick and starving - the animal was already in a poor shape)
earthypig 3 years ago 7
What if Greenpeace exhibited a wounded whale as thought provoking art ? It was already in poor shape - they didn't harpoon it themselves so it's ok to have it in a gallery as art for people to see ? If Habacuc did sign the petition against his own work then that's to the good. It was a wise move on his part because he was receiving massive negative publicity. As long this isn't repeated I'm happy.
richtomes 3 years ago
aside from the enormous difficulty one would have in *displaying* a whale in an art gallery, this work has already been done.
the art of it is in the IDEA of it, not in the physicality of the dog or the animal in question. so it would make no sense to repeat the practice with different animals.
as i mentioned before, this type of non-traditional, conceptual work really LOSES its point/edge through repetition.
earthypig 3 years ago 6
It had to be condemned to make sure it wouldn't happen again - simple
richtomes 3 years ago
hopefully more would be done than simply condemning the work
btw, all the condemnations and the outcry are simply further evidence of the brilliance of the work itself.
a fascinating paradox indeed.
earthypig 3 years ago 7
It's not a work, and it isn't brilliant. It's just a cheap sensationalist way of attracting attention. It's easy to do, it's not art, and it's extremely short sighted, because you can't make a point about animal abuse by abusing an animal.
richtomes 3 years ago
actually such ideas aren't easy to come by.
again -- he did not abuse the animal - he simply changed the location where the animal was suffering, but the animal was already suffering.
the more angry you get about it, the more he had proven his point.
don't you see that?
earthypig 3 years ago 14
How about if we take an animal which has been badly beaten and tie that same animal up in an art gallery to make a point about cruelty - the more you think about it the more stupid it seems. If we allow and condone this kind of thing as art it will lead not to enlightenment but to people thinking that there's really nothing wrong with abusing animals for entertainment. If artists can do it in an art gallery, then it can't be that bad.
richtomes 3 years ago
If we can do it with animals why not abused children ? Tie them up as art exhibits too - I'm sure it would provoke thought.
richtomes 3 years ago
PLEASE!
don't tell me you are as stupid as to equate animals with children!
again, the scenario you are proposing is ludicrous
it's like anti-gay people opposing homosexual marriage by saying "if gays can marry what's to stop them from marryign and raping children?"
this is absolutely ridiculous and is a non-argument.
earthypig 3 years ago 11
perhaps you are an idiot if you can't see that condoning one abuse leads to another
richtomes 3 years ago
Its not stupid at all to equate animals with children
sgd1120 3 years ago
you have already evoked this image of children/people being tied up.
i have already responded to this.
now you r just repeating yourself, and frankly i have other things to do, then sit here and repeat myeslf.. then it becomes much much less interesting.
take care - i'm outta here!
earthypig 3 years ago 11
Goodbye and good luck
richtomes 3 years ago
yes but the scenario you are proposing DID NOT HAPPEN did it?
u can't make an argument against something by making up another, much worse scenario.
that would be like anti-gay people arguing against allowing homosexual marriage by saying "yes but what about incestual marriage? how about marrying underage children? if we allow gay marriage all of these will happen!"
these are not valid arguments.
i gotta go now - hopefully this has been interesting for you too :)
earthypig 3 years ago 12
You've heard of the thin end of the wedge ?
richtomes 3 years ago
yeah -- as i said before, repetition would only get people *used* to seeing sick aniamls in galleries as they are in seeing sick stray animals in streets.
hopefully the outcry over this will translate into more comprehensive spaying programs for pets etc.
earthypig 3 years ago 7
i would have liked to see at least as much outcry for the dismal welfare of the stray dogs and cats as for the exhibit itself...
but looking at this video and your reaction, i somehow don't think that's happening.... :(
earthypig 3 years ago 6
Well, the fact that so many people were outraged by this, instead of just being indifferent does indicate that many people do have feeling for animals and don't want to see them abused. Poverty, destitution, homelessness, are things which no one wants to have in the world but who has the answers ?
richtomes 3 years ago
I hope the artist die a very very bad DEATH
angeliquejenny 3 years ago
Comment removed
earthypig 3 years ago
sorry i hit the wrong button -- i meant to respond to someone else -- so i deleted the post. :)
earthypig 3 years ago
would have been much better if the point had been made"artistically" instead of by killing yet another dog quite deliberately and most cruelly
earthypig 3 years ago
hm... just googled the story -- it seems that the dog was already starving when it was captured, and it escaped after one day. the gallery owner claims that the dog was fed. and the dog didn't actually *starve to death* in the gallery... if this is true, it would change everything....
earthypig 3 years ago 4
We don't tie up sick children in art galleries to make a point about poverty on the streets, neither should we tie up sick animals. Sick animals are not art materials, under any circumstances, period.
richtomes 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Find an photo of the 'artist' and spread it everywhere with his 'art'. He can not hide from his own creation and the fallout that has followed. His name will go down in history as a classic case of why 'modern art' is lost today.
mmlight 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is a shame when a dog has to die in a museum for the sake of fame.
bitachar 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A verdadeira art da maldade.
saguaremense 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That is art? Okay, but it is cruelty to animals as well.
sevofurane 3 years ago
Elegiac music, coffee-klatch hand-wringing, and pretty much no idea of what actually happened. Inform yourselves.
zerozerovich 3 years ago 21
Sick animals are not art materials, unless the artist is sick.
richtomes 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
rotov80 i think just like you... people like this so-called "artist" are nought but sadistic perverts.
well, i cannot blame anyone for being like he oder she IS, but i surely can blame him/her for what (s)he DOES... and i do blame this guy for killing an animal for nothing but his own profit. i cannot endorse that, even if i try really hard. what is mad (or rather sad) about it is that he got the profit...
anykey69 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i hope this fucking asshole dies of aids this fucking son of a bitch idc if he just used the dead dog to intertain people i want this fucking guy dead.and go ahead and fucking put a thumbs down on my comment u motherfucking sons of a bitchs.
ShadowLugia555 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think art is about creation, not destruction. this "artist" is only trying to get some attention, it's sad that he really got it.
rotov80 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy is a fucking bitchhhhhhhh
diverlopez 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy is a fucking bitch..he deserves to die the same way
diverlopez 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
all i have to say is shame on him. F**** B**** ughh i hate animal cruelty! Jeeese
nikkyx2 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Take this vargas and take him out back with his revolting art of a mind and shoot him out of his pathetic misery!!!
egv102 3 years ago