Full Version: Starving Artist
QUOTE
Guillermo Habacuc Vargas had 2 children catch this dog. He paid the kids for this. He then chained the dog and used the dog as “art”. He told everyone not to feed this dog. The dog died in the gallery. He calls himself an artist. I call him an animal abuser. In that event, (in which the dog died) he was chosen to represent his country in the “Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008″.
QUOTE
He tied the dog, according to furious animal lovers, in a corner of the salon where it died after a day. Habacuc’s exhibition included a legend spelled out in dog food reading “You are what you read,” photos and an incense burner that burned an ounce of marijauna and 175 “rock’ of crack cocaine.
In the background, according to reports, the Sandista national anthem played backwards. According to the artist, his “art” was a tribute to Natividad Canda, a Nicaraguan burglar killed in Costa Rica by two rottweilers guarding property he had entered at night. The incident caused friction between the two countries.
Habacuc told the daily La Nacion, “I won’t say the dog died. The importance to me is the hypocracy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death.”
“The same thing happened with poor Natividad Canda. The people sympathized with him only after he was dead,” the artist added.
In the background, according to reports, the Sandista national anthem played backwards. According to the artist, his “art” was a tribute to Natividad Canda, a Nicaraguan burglar killed in Costa Rica by two rottweilers guarding property he had entered at night. The incident caused friction between the two countries.
Habacuc told the daily La Nacion, “I won’t say the dog died. The importance to me is the hypocracy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death.”
“The same thing happened with poor Natividad Canda. The people sympathized with him only after he was dead,” the artist added.
This link contains more pictures of the event.
Questions for debate:
1) Is this art?
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
Questions for debate:
1) Is this art?
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
1) It is some form of expression, to be sure; IMHO, art has certain standards.
2) The person expressing himself should now be staked down in a fenced-in area; rubbed down in wet dog food; and greeted by the 60 or so hungry pit bulls owned by Mr. Vick. One week later, we should come back and look for small bits of bone and hair, put them in a cup, and flush them down the toilet. During this week, the music playing in the background should be the theme from Disney's "101 Dalmations".
This person expressing himself is beyond sick.
1) Is this art?
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
1) It is some form of expression, to be sure; IMHO, art has certain standards.
2) The person expressing himself should now be staked down in a fenced-in area; rubbed down in wet dog food; and greeted by the 60 or so hungry pit bulls owned by Mr. Vick. One week later, we should come back and look for small bits of bone and hair, put them in a cup, and flush them down the toilet. During this week, the music playing in the background should be the theme from Disney's "101 Dalmations".
This person expressing himself is beyond sick.
1) Is this art?
I understand what the artist was going for, but using an animal that had no choice to participate in the exhibit really goes to far. If he wanted to sit there himself and starve, that would be one thing. That would certainly make the statement he wished to make, but I think it unconscionable to force a dog to starve for your art.
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
No. The dog's starvation is overshadowed by the artists act. He has implicated himself in the hypocrisy he wished to highlight.
I understand what the artist was going for, but using an animal that had no choice to participate in the exhibit really goes to far. If he wanted to sit there himself and starve, that would be one thing. That would certainly make the statement he wished to make, but I think it unconscionable to force a dog to starve for your art.
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
No. The dog's starvation is overshadowed by the artists act. He has implicated himself in the hypocrisy he wished to highlight.
QUOTE(quick @ Oct 19 2007, 05:45 PM) 
Questions for debate:
1) Is this art?
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
1) It is some form of expression, to be sure; IMHO, art has certain standards.
2) The person expressing himself should now be staked down in a fenced-in area; rubbed down in wet dog food; and greeted by the 60 or so hungry pit bulls owned by Mr. Vick. One week later, we should come back and look for small bits of bone and hair, put them in a cup, and flush them down the toilet. During this week, the music playing in the background should be the theme from Disney's "101 Dalmations".
This person expressing himself is beyond sick.
Then why would you wish to emulate him? 1) Is this art?
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
1) It is some form of expression, to be sure; IMHO, art has certain standards.
2) The person expressing himself should now be staked down in a fenced-in area; rubbed down in wet dog food; and greeted by the 60 or so hungry pit bulls owned by Mr. Vick. One week later, we should come back and look for small bits of bone and hair, put them in a cup, and flush them down the toilet. During this week, the music playing in the background should be the theme from Disney's "101 Dalmations".
This person expressing himself is beyond sick.
1) Is this art?
Yes.
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
Not in my country. It is illegal to deliberately cause an animal to starve to death. This man must be very cruel to hurt an animal just to make a point about people.
1) Is this art?
I think moif -- who is, as many of us know, himself a very fine artist -- answered this question sufficiently. Sure, it's art. Just because something is "art" does not mean that it is at all worthy of humanity. There is stupid art and evil art; this would appear to be the latter. There are stupid books and evil books; that does not mean that they are not books.
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
I would say not. This is a matter of opinion, based on the degree to which one believes that the suffering of animals is worthy of consideration. On one extreme, animals are no more to be considered as objects of ethical consideration than are rocks. On the other extreme, no animal must be allowed to suffer to any degree, no matter the cost to humanity. Almost all of us would fall somewhere in between.
The devil is in the details.
Is it OK for humans to cause animals to suffer to serve human desires? That depends, I think we would all agree, on how severe the suffering is, and how great the benefit to humanity is. Most of us would think, I hope, that this kind of art is not important enough to justify the extended, severe suffering of an animal capable of experiencing a great deal of physical and emotional misery. (There would be little, if any, controversy, I think, if the art involving killing an oyster.)
If this terrible act of cruelty serves any function at all, perhaps it will make us consider the things we do to animals, and think a little bit more deeply about which of our desires are important enough to justify the suffering of our fellow creatures.
I think moif -- who is, as many of us know, himself a very fine artist -- answered this question sufficiently. Sure, it's art. Just because something is "art" does not mean that it is at all worthy of humanity. There is stupid art and evil art; this would appear to be the latter. There are stupid books and evil books; that does not mean that they are not books.
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
I would say not. This is a matter of opinion, based on the degree to which one believes that the suffering of animals is worthy of consideration. On one extreme, animals are no more to be considered as objects of ethical consideration than are rocks. On the other extreme, no animal must be allowed to suffer to any degree, no matter the cost to humanity. Almost all of us would fall somewhere in between.
The devil is in the details.
Is it OK for humans to cause animals to suffer to serve human desires? That depends, I think we would all agree, on how severe the suffering is, and how great the benefit to humanity is. Most of us would think, I hope, that this kind of art is not important enough to justify the extended, severe suffering of an animal capable of experiencing a great deal of physical and emotional misery. (There would be little, if any, controversy, I think, if the art involving killing an oyster.)
If this terrible act of cruelty serves any function at all, perhaps it will make us consider the things we do to animals, and think a little bit more deeply about which of our desires are important enough to justify the suffering of our fellow creatures.
Dear God, what has this world come to where we cause suffering when we are trying to stop it? Take pictures, not dogs off the street. And, no, this is most certainly NOT art. A political statement, yes. Cruel, incredibly. Art, hell no. Art has to be appreciated by SOMEONE, and if someone appreciates a dog being starved to death in a PUBLIC PLACE, they are incredibly sick. The artist's statement was admirable, but the media he chose to express it in does nothing for it. This man should have the highest punishment for animal cruelty.
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 19 2007, 01:58 PM)
QUOTE(quick @ Oct 19 2007, 05:45 PM)
Questions for debate:
1) Is this art?
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
1) It is some form of expression, to be sure; IMHO, art has certain standards.
2) The person expressing himself should now be staked down in a fenced-in area; rubbed down in wet dog food; and greeted by the 60 or so hungry pit bulls owned by Mr. Vick. One week later, we should come back and look for small bits of bone and hair, put them in a cup, and flush them down the toilet. During this week, the music playing in the background should be the theme from Disney's "101 Dalmations".
This person expressing himself is beyond sick.
Then why would you wish to emulate him? 1) Is this art?
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
1) It is some form of expression, to be sure; IMHO, art has certain standards.
2) The person expressing himself should now be staked down in a fenced-in area; rubbed down in wet dog food; and greeted by the 60 or so hungry pit bulls owned by Mr. Vick. One week later, we should come back and look for small bits of bone and hair, put them in a cup, and flush them down the toilet. During this week, the music playing in the background should be the theme from Disney's "101 Dalmations".
This person expressing himself is beyond sick.
Because it satisfies the sense of equity that is fundamental to Western thought, often expressed as "an eye for an eye"; the sumbitch deserves it. And, of course, by terminating him with extreme prejudice, his art will become much more valuable....
1) Is this art?
Well, it provokes. His message goes something like "It was going to happen anyway, it's only a bit deal because I brought it to your attention, and the truth makes you squirmish." Certainly, there is a grain of truth to that. Honduras is the 2nd poorest country in Central America (according to the CIA World Factbook.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/ho.html
I would imagine the there are people starving on the street right next to those dogs, with the majority of the population below the poverty line. If this dead dog gets ten people fed, that's a net gain, no question, and is certainly more effective than simply eating the dog.
So what's more shocking, really? That a dying dog was allowed to die, or that after 200 years of independence, and with a position of key drug trafficking significance, the life of the average Honduran human is worse than that of the average American street bum?
If we can't accept both, then we should not accept either one. I think it's pretty clear that the lives of humans should take precedence. I would happily shoot dead every dog on earth, if it guaranteed a improved quality of life for all of humanity (though I'd miss the dogs.)
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
Well, it's what stuck to me, once the initial "That poor animal!" thing worn off. Certainly, I couldn't encourage this sort of expression, but it certainly makes one think about how fortunate we are to live in a country where poverty isn't the norm, and try to think up solutions. That's got to be positive, to some degree.
Well, it provokes. His message goes something like "It was going to happen anyway, it's only a bit deal because I brought it to your attention, and the truth makes you squirmish." Certainly, there is a grain of truth to that. Honduras is the 2nd poorest country in Central America (according to the CIA World Factbook.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/ho.html
I would imagine the there are people starving on the street right next to those dogs, with the majority of the population below the poverty line. If this dead dog gets ten people fed, that's a net gain, no question, and is certainly more effective than simply eating the dog.
So what's more shocking, really? That a dying dog was allowed to die, or that after 200 years of independence, and with a position of key drug trafficking significance, the life of the average Honduran human is worse than that of the average American street bum?
If we can't accept both, then we should not accept either one. I think it's pretty clear that the lives of humans should take precedence. I would happily shoot dead every dog on earth, if it guaranteed a improved quality of life for all of humanity (though I'd miss the dogs.)
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
Well, it's what stuck to me, once the initial "That poor animal!" thing worn off. Certainly, I couldn't encourage this sort of expression, but it certainly makes one think about how fortunate we are to live in a country where poverty isn't the norm, and try to think up solutions. That's got to be positive, to some degree.
1) Is this art?
Only if murder is considered art.
My love for animals is well-known here. Less known may be the fact that I am an artist, too. And I think this sort of thing is abhorrent. It's one thing for a piece of art to offend; it's quite another to kill a sentient being and call it "art". “Dying for one’s art” presupposes one has a choice. This poor animal didn’t have a choice. He was held against his will and purposely starved to death; an act borne more from cruelty than any creative thought. There are far better and less cruel ways to bring attention to starving animals or people for that matter, but that was not this person’s intent. On the contrary, this was nothing more than a petulent act of revenge, plain and simple.
The dog he starved to death did no harm to anyone, but he died as a symbol of a p---ed off human’s need for revenge. For a criminal, no less. Bah.
Art is supposed to provoke emotion, but in this case, I think it crossed a line when it used a sentient being in a cruel manner. The so-called “artist” didn’t even have the stones to catch the dog himself; he paid some kids to do his dirty work for him. Where’s the creative process there? I can pay someone else to paint for me; does that make the creation mine? IMHO, no.
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
Oh, sure, his message comes through loud and clear. If a dog kills someone you know, feel free to go out and kill some other random dog. Stupid. It may not be artistic, but it would have been poetic if he had caught the dog himself - and it had rabies - and bit him - in the 'nads.
Only if murder is considered art.
My love for animals is well-known here. Less known may be the fact that I am an artist, too. And I think this sort of thing is abhorrent. It's one thing for a piece of art to offend; it's quite another to kill a sentient being and call it "art". “Dying for one’s art” presupposes one has a choice. This poor animal didn’t have a choice. He was held against his will and purposely starved to death; an act borne more from cruelty than any creative thought. There are far better and less cruel ways to bring attention to starving animals or people for that matter, but that was not this person’s intent. On the contrary, this was nothing more than a petulent act of revenge, plain and simple.
QUOTE
As part of his art exhibit, Vargas included a legend spelled out in dog food reading “You are what you read”, photos and an incense burner. He said his piece was a tribute to a Nicaraguan burglar that was killed in Costa Rica by two rottweilers that were guarding the property. Itchmo
The dog he starved to death did no harm to anyone, but he died as a symbol of a p---ed off human’s need for revenge. For a criminal, no less. Bah.
Art is supposed to provoke emotion, but in this case, I think it crossed a line when it used a sentient being in a cruel manner. The so-called “artist” didn’t even have the stones to catch the dog himself; he paid some kids to do his dirty work for him. Where’s the creative process there? I can pay someone else to paint for me; does that make the creation mine? IMHO, no.
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
Oh, sure, his message comes through loud and clear. If a dog kills someone you know, feel free to go out and kill some other random dog. Stupid. It may not be artistic, but it would have been poetic if he had caught the dog himself - and it had rabies - and bit him - in the 'nads.
1) Is this art?
It may have been art in the "mind" of the person who "created" it, but that's about all. This is almost like saying toilet paper is art after it's been used.
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
No. There are subjects on this board that deserve serious consideration. This isn't one of them.
It may have been art in the "mind" of the person who "created" it, but that's about all. This is almost like saying toilet paper is art after it's been used.
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
No. There are subjects on this board that deserve serious consideration. This isn't one of them.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 22 2007, 02:35 PM)
QUOTE
“Dying for one’s art” presupposes one has a choice. This poor animal didn’t have a choice. He was held against his will and purposely starved to death; an act borne more from cruelty than any creative thought.
I believe the dog was already starving before they found it. It seems to me what this man did was largely the same as most of Mother Theresa's work. Let them die under some shelter. Certainly, he could have fed it, but where is the symbology there? Also, as most people in Honduras live below the international poverty line, I imagine even a animal lover like yourself would have to agree it would make good sense to feed the humans first, right?
QUOTE
There are far better and less cruel ways to bring attention to starving animals or people for that matter, but that was not this person’s intent. On the contrary, this was nothing more than a petulent act of revenge, plain and simple.
QUOTE
The dog he starved to death did no harm to anyone, but he died as a symbol of a p---ed off human’s need for revenge. For a criminal, no less. Bah.
I fail to see how allowing a starving animal to finish starving counts as revenge. Surely, a simple-minded type would be looking for something a little more direct, like arson. If we give him the benefit of the doubt as a deep-thinking artiste, I'll bet that his tribute is more aimed at how the burglar was "forced" to commit crime due to poverty or at some apparent injustice re: being killed by guards dogs. I looked, but I can't find a decent English link for Natividad Canda.
In terms of effectiveness, it's pretty hard to trump death as an eye-opener. Of course, that isn't working out so well in Darfur.
QUOTE
Art is supposed to provoke emotion, but in this case, I think it crossed a line when it used a sentient being in a cruel manner. The so-called “artist” didn’t even have the stones to catch the dog himself; he paid some kids to do his dirty work for him.
And probably paid them more money than they see in a year. Dead and dying dogs is what these kids have to play with. And it would take more brass than I have to tie a dog up and watch it starve. Sure someone attending the "show" felt the same as we?
QUOTE
Oh, sure, his message comes through loud and clear. If a dog kills someone you know, feel free to go out and kill some other random dog. Stupid. It may not be artistic, but it would have been poetic if he had caught the dog himself - and it had rabies - and bit him - in the 'nads.
You seem to despise the guy, but he didn't actually do anything to the dog. It was starving before he brought in, and it would have starved if he hadn't, so the only difference is that people were aware of the dogs misery. Certainly, that can only help motivate people to take better care of their own animals, yes?
Are you angry with animal cruelty, or the thought that life is often cruel, with or without human intervention?
QUOTE(WillyPete @ Oct 22 2007, 05:57 PM)
QUOTE
Oh, sure, his message comes through loud and clear. If a dog kills someone you know, feel free to go out and kill some other random dog. Stupid. It may not be artistic, but it would have been poetic if he had caught the dog himself - and it had rabies - and bit him - in the 'nads.
You seem to despise the guy, but he didn't actually do anything to the dog. It was starving before he brought in, and it would have starved if he hadn't, so the only difference is that people were aware of the dogs misery.
Are you angry with animal cruelty, or the thought that life is often cruel, with or without human intervention?
The difference is that the "artist" intentionally starved the dog. People who failed to act didn't did so out of indifference, not malice.
QUOTE
Certainly, that can only help motivate people to take better care of their own animals, yes?
As anyone who has been here a while knows, DaffyGrl cares for her animals and cares for their needs.
BTW: I personally spent $84 and a couple of hours time getting annual physical exams and shots for my two cats today . So WilliePete, you might want to preach to the right audience, or better yet, to that contengent on the board that thinks animals are nothing more than property.
QUOTE(WillyPete)
I believe the dog was already starving before they found it. It seems to me what this man did was largely the same as most of Mother Theresa's work. Let them die under some shelter. Certainly, he could have fed it, but where is the symbology there? Also, as most people in Honduras live below the international poverty line, I imagine even a animal lover like yourself would have to agree it would make good sense to feed the humans first, right?
You can’t be serious. Comparing the exhibition of a starving a dog to Mother Teresa?! That’s a helluva stretch. The dog may have been starving before, but at least if he hadn’t been tied up, he could have foraged for food. I don’t know why people keep bringing up Honduras. The so-called “artist” is from Costa Rica and the “exhibit” was in Nicaragua. He has been invited to a show in Honduras (for some ungodly reason). I wonder who is going to steal a dog for him there? If Honduras is so poor, why mount an art show – why not have a fund raiser for the poor? And once again, this guy's exhibit was NOT about starving people.
QUOTE(WillyPete)
I fail to see how allowing a starving animal to finish starving counts as revenge. Surely, a simple-minded type would be looking for something a little more direct, like arson. If we give him the benefit of the doubt as a deep-thinking artiste, I'll bet that his tribute is more aimed at how the burglar was "forced" to commit crime due to poverty or at some apparent injustice re: being killed by guards dogs. I looked, but I can't find a decent English link for Natividad Canda.
Well, since that was his stated reason for it, I can’t explain the inexplicable. I’m really surprised at some of the people supporting this guy. After all, he is angry about a man who broke into someone’s home and was killed by the homeowner’s guard dogs. Sheesh, some of the people griping now are the ones who’d advocate blowing the guy’s brains out! He was breaking the law. The dogs were protecting their owner’s property. A case of just desserts, if you ask me.
QUOTE(WillyPete)
And probably paid them more money than they see in a year. Dead and dying dogs is what these kids have to play with. And it would take more brass than I have to tie a dog up and watch it starve. Sure someone attending the "show" felt the same as we?
Ah, yes, let’s reward children for wanton cruelty. That sends such a positive message.
I guess if they sold their baby sister to a pervert tourist for sex, it would be just as acceptable? After all, it would be more money than they see in a year, no? Where do you draw the line?Yes, there were. And they pleaded with the guy to be allowed to feed the animal, but were ordered not to. I find it even more cruel (as if that were possible) to spell out his silly statement in dog food out of reach of the dog. That’s like tying a roast chicken just out of reach of a starving child. Just plain cruel.
Yes, I despise this guy. Perpetuating cruelty under the guise of “art” is offensive to me as an artist and as a human being. I acknowledge that animal cruelty exists (just recently, Puerto Rico officials rounded people's pets in a housing project and threw them off a bridge), but I would like to see programs and yes, even art exhibits, that work positively toward preventing it, no perpetuating it. Having respect for all life is the first step to a kinder world.
I also detest "artists" like Christo, who think harming the environment for their "art" is acceptable. It's not. How ironic that one of his "installations" ended up killing a person.
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 22 2007, 04:29 PM)
The difference is that the "artist" intentionally starved the dog. People who failed to act didn't did so out of indifference, not malice.
But he didn't do anything malicious. He showed people a starving dog. If he hadn't shown it, it still would have starved. Sad, yes. Reality, yes. Abuse?
QUOTE
As anyone who has been here a while knows, DaffyGrl cares for her animals and cares for their needs.
BTW: I personally spent $84 and a couple of hours time getting annual physical exams and shots for my two cats today . So WilliePete, you might want to preach to the right audience, or better yet, to that contengent on the board that thinks animals are nothing more than property.
BTW: I personally spent $84 and a couple of hours time getting annual physical exams and shots for my two cats today . So WilliePete, you might want to preach to the right audience, or better yet, to that contengent on the board that thinks animals are nothing more than property.
I didn't intend to preach, and I got that very impression about DaffyGrl, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. I'll bet she takes excellent care of all of her animals, and you as well. I take good care of my pets, also, but that's not my point.
How many people in Honduras do you think can afford $84 for their pets?
Does than make a Honduran whose dog has no shots an animal abuser?
How many veterinarians are there in Honduras, anyway, and how many spend time treating pets rather than draft animals? (I'll try to look that up later.)
I guess I just get a weird vibe from hard-core animal people, and I want to understand it. Is it animal=human to the extent that human suffering shouldn't take priority? Is it some form of guilt regarding taking over their natural environment, so that human somehow deserve suffering more?
QUOTE(WillyPete @ Oct 22 2007, 07:14 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 22 2007, 04:29 PM)
The difference is that the "artist" intentionally starved the dog. People who failed to act didn't did so out of indifference, not malice.
But he didn't do anything malicious. He showed people a starving dog. If he hadn't shown it, it still would have starved. Sad, yes. Reality, yes. Abuse?
Quite the contrary. Once he took custody of the dog and let it starve, he did do something malicious. At that point he had choices.
QUOTE(WillyPete @ Oct 22 2007, 07:14 PM)
Is it animal=human to the extent that human suffering shouldn't take priority? Is it some form of guilt regarding taking over their natural environment, so that human somehow deserve suffering more?
Aren't you reading into this a human vs. animal battle that doesn't really exist? No one has said human=animal. It seems like everytime we have a thread about animals, this ridiculous human vs. animal rubric gets put in play.
Can I answer anymore than your endless line of questions?
QUOTE(quick @ Oct 22 2007, 01:38 PM)
the sumbitch deserves it.
You must be from Texas quick. That's exactly how the sumbitch element from Texas pronounces "sumbitch."
QUOTE(willypete)
I guess I just get a weird vibe from hard-core animal people, and I want to understand it. Is it animal=human to the extent that human suffering shouldn't take priority? Is it some form of guilt regarding taking over their natural environment, so that human somehow deserve suffering more?
Well, I’m sure you’d get a weird vibe from me, too.
It has nothing to do with guilt or human suffering being greater than that of a companion animal. When man domesticated dogs and cats, they assumed responsibility for their care. I simply believe that no one has a right to torture or mistreat an animal. Animals can’t call the police for help. they depend on us for their welfare.The biggest difference to me is that people aren’t considered property. If someone violates a human, there is a heavy price to pay. You couldn’t chain up a child and withhold food and water without a massive hue and cry and criminal charges. There are multitudes of laws keeping humans safe from other humans, and multitudes of federally and state funded organizations to support those humans who were abused by other humans. Our society doesn’t take kindly to human abuse. Why should a civilized society condone animal abuse, especially when it has been proven that early abuse of animals leads to abuse of humans? Why is there a portion of the population that believes it’s somehow OK for a human to abuse an animal without considering the future consequences of such abuse?
QUOTE
If you break it down to its bare essentials:
"Abusing an animal is a way for a human to find power/joy/fulfillment through the torture of a victim they know cannot defend itself."
<snip>
In 88 percent of 57 New Jersey families being treated for child abuse, animals in the home had been abused.
Of 23 British families with a history of animal neglect, 83 percent had been identified by experts as having children at risk of abuse or neglect.
In one study of battered women, 57 percent of those with pets said their partners had harmed or killed the animals. One in four said that she stayed with the batterer because she feared leaving the pet behind. Pet Abuse
"Abusing an animal is a way for a human to find power/joy/fulfillment through the torture of a victim they know cannot defend itself."
<snip>
In 88 percent of 57 New Jersey families being treated for child abuse, animals in the home had been abused.
Of 23 British families with a history of animal neglect, 83 percent had been identified by experts as having children at risk of abuse or neglect.
In one study of battered women, 57 percent of those with pets said their partners had harmed or killed the animals. One in four said that she stayed with the batterer because she feared leaving the pet behind. Pet Abuse
I’ve had pets since I was in diapers. They bring me great joy, love, comfort and entertainment, and taught me early that all living things should be treated with care and respect. Nothing like trying to carry a cat by its tail to learn that lesson!
I find it extremely difficult to wrap my mind around how a person can justify even the most heinous treatment of animals. The Animal Cops shows on Animal Planet flabbergast me. People who have dogs that are walking skeletons make excuses that “I feed him, he’s fine” when the evidence before their eyes says otherwise. People who chain a puppy to a fence and let the chain cut into its neck as it grows until the wound is putrefied and reeking of infection saying “I didn’t notice”. My first question is always “why do these people even HAVE pets?” And I still don’t have an answer. Getting a pet isn’t the same as going out and buying a PlayStation game, to be disposed of when it’s no longer wanted or enjoyed. I see animal cruelty on a daily basis; I care for a feral cat colony that was in all likelihood started by someone dumping an unwanted (and unspayed) cat. Or several someones dumping several unwanted and unaltered cats.
I believe that people who believe animals have no rights to be treated humanely should never, ever have a pet. I believe a civilized society doesn’t deserve to be called civilized if it condones animal cruelty in any form.
And now, I’ll dismount my soapbox.
Oh, just one more thing. Just because I care about animals doesn't mean I don't care about people. Why is it that people make that erroneous assumption anyway?
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 22 2007, 09:06 PM)
QUOTE(quick @ Oct 22 2007, 01:38 PM)
the sumbitch deserves it.
You must be from Texas quick. That's exactly how the sumbitch element from Texas pronounces "sumbitch."
I am actually not from Texas, but I knew that spelling would get past the censors....and indeed the "shoes" fit this "artist", and if the shoe fits....
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 22 2007, 04:58 PM)
You can’t be serious. Comparing the exhibition of a starving a dog to Mother Teresa?! That’s a helluva stretch. The dog may have been starving before, but at least if he hadn’t been tied up, he could have foraged for food. I don’t know why people keep bringing up Honduras. The so-called “artist” is from Costa Rica and the “exhibit” was in Nicaragua. He has been invited to a show in Honduras (for some ungodly reason). I wonder who is going to steal a dog for him there? If Honduras is so poor, why mount an art show – why not have a fund raiser for the poor? And once again, this guy's exhibit was NOT about starving people.
Well, that was a bit over the top, as it wasn't intended for display. I apologize for my confusion over the location. Costa Rica appears to be in much better shape than Nicaragua, economically. In terms of why an art show, why ever an art show? There's always something arguably more important going on.
QUOTE
Well, since that was his stated reason for it, I can’t explain the inexplicable. I’m really surprised at some of the people supporting this guy. After all, he is angry about a man who broke into someone’s home and was killed by the homeowner’s guard dogs. Sheesh, some of the people griping now are the ones who’d advocate blowing the guy’s brains out! He was breaking the law. The dogs were protecting their owner’s property. A case of just desserts, if you ask me.
I'm all for guard dogs attacking burglars. I haven't seen that statement from the artist. Do you have a link to share?
Those are two totally difference types of crime. My point was that these children, and our "artist," live if functionally different realities than we do, and have different priorities. The suffering of an individual dog is a candle next to a forest fire of poverty. It does make it right or nice or anything more positive than what it is, it just makes it matter less in context.
That certainly casts a different light on things. I didn't see that in any of the links I've read. If you have them handy, I'd love to read them.
Without getting into the subjective nature of words like art and acceptable, I accept that you find this more offensive than I do. Since I'm no fan of suffering in general, I certainly hope this display was a one-time thing, and the artist feels he's made his point.
I'm all for guard dogs attacking burglars. I haven't seen that statement from the artist. Do you have a link to share?
QUOTE
Ah, yes, let’s reward children for wanton cruelty. That sends such a positive message. I guess if they sold their baby sister to a pervert tourist for sex, it would be just as acceptable? After all, it would be more money than they see in a year, no? Where do you draw the line?
I guess if they sold their baby sister to a pervert tourist for sex, it would be just as acceptable? After all, it would be more money than they see in a year, no? Where do you draw the line?Those are two totally difference types of crime. My point was that these children, and our "artist," live if functionally different realities than we do, and have different priorities. The suffering of an individual dog is a candle next to a forest fire of poverty. It does make it right or nice or anything more positive than what it is, it just makes it matter less in context.
QUOTE
Yes, there were. And they pleaded with the guy to be allowed to feed the animal, but were ordered not to. I find it even more cruel (as if that were possible) to spell out his silly statement in dog food out of reach of the dog. That’s like tying a roast chicken just out of reach of a starving child. Just plain cruel.
That certainly casts a different light on things. I didn't see that in any of the links I've read. If you have them handy, I'd love to read them.
QUOTE
Yes, I despise this guy. Perpetuating cruelty under the guise of “art” is offensive to me as an artist and as a human being. I acknowledge that animal cruelty exists (just recently, Puerto Rico officials rounded people's pets in a housing project and threw them off a bridge), but I would like to see programs and yes, even art exhibits, that work positively toward preventing it, no perpetuating it. Having respect for all life is the first step to a kinder world.
I also detest "artists" like Christo, who think harming the environment for their "art" is acceptable. It's not. How ironic that one of his "installations" ended up killing a person.
I also detest "artists" like Christo, who think harming the environment for their "art" is acceptable. It's not. How ironic that one of his "installations" ended up killing a person.
Without getting into the subjective nature of words like art and acceptable, I accept that you find this more offensive than I do. Since I'm no fan of suffering in general, I certainly hope this display was a one-time thing, and the artist feels he's made his point.
QUOTE(WillyPete)
I'm all for guard dogs attacking burglars. I haven't seen that statement from the artist. Do you have a link to share?
QUOTE(WillyPete)
That certainly casts a different light on things. I didn't see that in any of the links I've read. If you have them handy, I'd love to read them.
It was in my first post here (Itchmo, in the quote box).
QUOTE(WillyPete)
Those are two totally difference types of crime. My point was that these children, and our "artist," live if functionally different realities than we do, and have different priorities. The suffering of an individual dog is a candle next to a forest fire of poverty. It does make it right or nice or anything more positive than what it is, it just makes it matter less in context.
Why are they different? Both are examples of poverty-stricken children being paid a sum of money for something they are able to provide. Their “reality” may mean that selling their sister is not out of the realm of possibility in order for them to get that money. Just as it was not out of their realm to provide a dog for this guy (who knows if they knew what Vargas intended to do with it, or if they even cared). The comparisons of a particular instance to the larger issue of poverty in general is disingenuous. You eat three meals a day while people in other parts of the world starve. Does that mean you should starve yourself? You get malaria; should you refuse treatment because there are others in the world who don’t have access to treatment?
This case should only be compared to other cases of human/animal interaction.
Edited to add:
A semi-interesting aside - the guy named himself after an obscure prophet. Says a little something to me about his ego.
QUOTE
In this absence of authentic tradition, legend, not only Jewish but also Christian, has been singularly busy about the prophet Habacuc. It has represented him as belonging to the tribe of Levi and as the son of a certain Jesus; as the child of the Sunamite woman, whom Eliseus restored to life (cf. IV Kings, iv, 16 sqq.); as the sentinel set by Isaias (cf. Is. xxi, 6; and Hab., ii, 1) to watch for the fall of Babylon. Habacuc
What are people upset about? The fact that the dog died? Or the fact that someone might have been able to keep a sick and starving dog from dying and didn't?
Dogs die every day so I can't imagine people are upset about the simple fact that a dog died.
So, I think this has more to do with the lack of prevention.
Who could've prevented it? Well, Vargas could've prevented it. Anyone attending the exhibit could've prevented it. Anyone passing the dog on the street corner where it was previously tied prior to being tied up in the exhibit could've prevented it.
Now, let's consider Natividad Canda - for whom the dog was named:
Natividad was a criminal. The story is that he was going to rob a mechanic's shop. I say this with a bit of incredulity because of this information:
This is ultimately irrelevant to the issue at hand, but for the sake of accuracy, there it is.
The guard dogs attacked Natividad on the property. The police showed up. The fire department showed up. The news showed up. While these people stood by and watched, two Rottweiler's mauled Natividad for, oh... about 90 minutes. The mauling was broadcast on television. Eventually, the fire department turned a hose on the dog and it let go.
I also read another reason for not assisting the man:
People got upset. What were they upset about? The fact that a man died? Or at the fact that someone could've kept the man from dying and didn't?
They were upset that nobody did anything to prevent it until it was too late.
And here we are condeming the artist - after the dog has died - for doing nothing (except changing the venue for the dog's death), just as people condemned the officials in Costa Rica for doing nothing to prevent Canda's death. Some people, in both cases, were happy to watch it happen, though, weren't they? But which is the worser of the two?
I don't know if I agree with the artist's means. But what did he do exactly that is worthy of more condemnation than the officers in Lima de Cartago? He simply changed the venue of the dog's death. The officers in Lima de Cartago didn't seem to get any worldwide condemnation when they allowed Canda to be mauled for 90 minutes by two Rottweilers. When people had a chance to feed the dog on the street, did they? No. The dog was tied by a rope in the gallery... did anyone try to free it? No. Where is the outrage about that?
Perhaps this is the hypocrisy that Vargas was attempting to highlight - in a very disturbing manner.
Now, Canda was a criminal and perhaps he would've been a criminal even if he wasn't subject to racism in the schools of Jena... oops, that's a different incident.
But he was a human being. And isn't it interesting that the world cares about more about a dog that was going to die anyway than a man who's life could've been saved.
Appreciation comes in many forms... not all of them happy.
Dogs die every day so I can't imagine people are upset about the simple fact that a dog died.
So, I think this has more to do with the lack of prevention.
Who could've prevented it? Well, Vargas could've prevented it. Anyone attending the exhibit could've prevented it. Anyone passing the dog on the street corner where it was previously tied prior to being tied up in the exhibit could've prevented it.
Now, let's consider Natividad Canda - for whom the dog was named:
Natividad was a criminal. The story is that he was going to rob a mechanic's shop. I say this with a bit of incredulity because of this information:
QUOTE
In a surprising development, the victim's brother, Regino Canda, said at the press conference yesterday that the guard on the property knew him and his brother well, information that in the three weeks since the attack had yet to come to light. He explained that he has been married to one of the guard's daughters for eight years and living in the same home, and the victim had been with another daughter of the guard for three years, and had stayed at the guard's home on multiple occasions. However, the victim and the guard's daughter had ended the relationship prior to his death, and Regino Canda said that there had been problems between the two brothers and the guard as of late.
-Tico Times 12/05
-Tico Times 12/05
This is ultimately irrelevant to the issue at hand, but for the sake of accuracy, there it is.
The guard dogs attacked Natividad on the property. The police showed up. The fire department showed up. The news showed up. While these people stood by and watched, two Rottweiler's mauled Natividad for, oh... about 90 minutes. The mauling was broadcast on television. Eventually, the fire department turned a hose on the dog and it let go.
QUOTE
Footage of the attack broadcast on Channel 7 TV News showed the dogs alternately biting and tugging at the immobile body of the victim. Although a police vehicle is present, no officials are seen intervening. Officials later said they could not fire upon the animals because they feared hitting the victim.
- Tico Times 11/05
- Tico Times 11/05
QUOTE
Police officials said they could not fire upon the animals because they feared hitting the victim, though on multiple occasions the news footage shows the animals leaving the body and walking a few feet away.
-Tico Times 11/05
-Tico Times 11/05
I also read another reason for not assisting the man:
QUOTE
In Lima de Cartago, where the rottweiler attack happened, Fuerza Pública officers would not enter the mechanic's property because it was private, the Defensoria said. The defensoria recommends to the Fuerza Pública that officers protect human life over the rights of private ownership, it said.
- A.M. Costa Rica
- A.M. Costa Rica
People got upset. What were they upset about? The fact that a man died? Or at the fact that someone could've kept the man from dying and didn't?
They were upset that nobody did anything to prevent it until it was too late.
And here we are condeming the artist - after the dog has died - for doing nothing (except changing the venue for the dog's death), just as people condemned the officials in Costa Rica for doing nothing to prevent Canda's death. Some people, in both cases, were happy to watch it happen, though, weren't they? But which is the worser of the two?
I don't know if I agree with the artist's means. But what did he do exactly that is worthy of more condemnation than the officers in Lima de Cartago? He simply changed the venue of the dog's death. The officers in Lima de Cartago didn't seem to get any worldwide condemnation when they allowed Canda to be mauled for 90 minutes by two Rottweilers. When people had a chance to feed the dog on the street, did they? No. The dog was tied by a rope in the gallery... did anyone try to free it? No. Where is the outrage about that?
Perhaps this is the hypocrisy that Vargas was attempting to highlight - in a very disturbing manner.
Now, Canda was a criminal and perhaps he would've been a criminal even if he wasn't subject to racism in the schools of Jena... oops, that's a different incident.
But he was a human being. And isn't it interesting that the world cares about more about a dog that was going to die anyway than a man who's life could've been saved.
QUOTE(Swimmerwolf247)
Art has to be appreciated by SOMEONE
Appreciation comes in many forms... not all of them happy.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 23 2007, 05:55 PM)
What are people upset about? The fact that the dog died? Or the fact that someone might have been able to keep a sick and starving dog from dying and didn't?
Dogs die every day so I can't imagine people are upset about the simple fact that a dog died.
So, I think this has more to do with the lack of prevention.
Who could've prevented it? Well, Vargas could've prevented it. Anyone attending the exhibit could've prevented it. Anyone passing the dog on the street corner where it was previously tied prior to being tied up in the exhibit could've prevented it.
Now, let's consider Natividad Canda - for whom the dog was named:
Natividad was a criminal. The story is that he was going to rob a mechanic's shop. I say this with a bit of incredulity because of this information:
This is ultimately irrelevant to the issue at hand, but for the sake of accuracy, there it is.
The guard dogs attacked Natividad on the property. The police showed up. The fire department showed up. The news showed up. While these people stood by and watched, two Rottweiler's mauled Natividad for, oh... about 90 minutes. The mauling was broadcast on television. Eventually, the fire department turned a hose on the dog and it let go.
I also read another reason for not assisting the man:
People got upset. What were they upset about? The fact that a man died? Or at the fact that someone could've kept the man from dying and didn't?
They were upset that nobody did anything to prevent it until it was too late.
And here we are condeming the artist - after the dog has died - for doing nothing (except changing the venue for the dog's death), just as people condemned the officials in Costa Rica for doing nothing to prevent Canda's death. Some people, in both cases, were happy to watch it happen, though, weren't they? But which is the worser of the two?
I don't know if I agree with the artist's means. But what did he do exactly that is worthy of more condemnation than the officers in Lima de Cartago? He simply changed the venue of the dog's death. The officers in Lima de Cartago didn't seem to get any worldwide condemnation when they allowed Canda to be mauled for 90 minutes by two Rottweilers. When people had a chance to feed the dog on the street, did they? No. The dog was tied by a rope in the gallery... did anyone try to free it? No. Where is the outrage about that?
Perhaps this is the hypocrisy that Vargas was attempting to highlight - in a very disturbing manner.
Now, Canda was a criminal and perhaps he would've been a criminal even if he wasn't subject to racism in the schools of Jena... oops, that's a different incident.
But he was a human being. And isn't it interesting that the world cares about more about a dog that was going to die anyway than a man who's life could've been saved.
Appreciation comes in many forms... not all of them happy.
Dogs die every day so I can't imagine people are upset about the simple fact that a dog died.
So, I think this has more to do with the lack of prevention.
Who could've prevented it? Well, Vargas could've prevented it. Anyone attending the exhibit could've prevented it. Anyone passing the dog on the street corner where it was previously tied prior to being tied up in the exhibit could've prevented it.
Now, let's consider Natividad Canda - for whom the dog was named:
Natividad was a criminal. The story is that he was going to rob a mechanic's shop. I say this with a bit of incredulity because of this information:
QUOTE
In a surprising development, the victim's brother, Regino Canda, said at the press conference yesterday that the guard on the property knew him and his brother well, information that in the three weeks since the attack had yet to come to light. He explained that he has been married to one of the guard's daughters for eight years and living in the same home, and the victim had been with another daughter of the guard for three years, and had stayed at the guard's home on multiple occasions. However, the victim and the guard's daughter had ended the relationship prior to his death, and Regino Canda said that there had been problems between the two brothers and the guard as of late.
-Tico Times 12/05
-Tico Times 12/05
This is ultimately irrelevant to the issue at hand, but for the sake of accuracy, there it is.
The guard dogs attacked Natividad on the property. The police showed up. The fire department showed up. The news showed up. While these people stood by and watched, two Rottweiler's mauled Natividad for, oh... about 90 minutes. The mauling was broadcast on television. Eventually, the fire department turned a hose on the dog and it let go.
QUOTE
Footage of the attack broadcast on Channel 7 TV News showed the dogs alternately biting and tugging at the immobile body of the victim. Although a police vehicle is present, no officials are seen intervening. Officials later said they could not fire upon the animals because they feared hitting the victim.
- Tico Times 11/05
- Tico Times 11/05
QUOTE
Police officials said they could not fire upon the animals because they feared hitting the victim, though on multiple occasions the news footage shows the animals leaving the body and walking a few feet away.
-Tico Times 11/05
-Tico Times 11/05
I also read another reason for not assisting the man:
QUOTE
In Lima de Cartago, where the rottweiler attack happened, Fuerza Pública officers would not enter the mechanic's property because it was private, the Defensoria said. The defensoria recommends to the Fuerza Pública that officers protect human life over the rights of private ownership, it said.
- A.M. Costa Rica
- A.M. Costa Rica
People got upset. What were they upset about? The fact that a man died? Or at the fact that someone could've kept the man from dying and didn't?
They were upset that nobody did anything to prevent it until it was too late.
And here we are condeming the artist - after the dog has died - for doing nothing (except changing the venue for the dog's death), just as people condemned the officials in Costa Rica for doing nothing to prevent Canda's death. Some people, in both cases, were happy to watch it happen, though, weren't they? But which is the worser of the two?
I don't know if I agree with the artist's means. But what did he do exactly that is worthy of more condemnation than the officers in Lima de Cartago? He simply changed the venue of the dog's death. The officers in Lima de Cartago didn't seem to get any worldwide condemnation when they allowed Canda to be mauled for 90 minutes by two Rottweilers. When people had a chance to feed the dog on the street, did they? No. The dog was tied by a rope in the gallery... did anyone try to free it? No. Where is the outrage about that?
Perhaps this is the hypocrisy that Vargas was attempting to highlight - in a very disturbing manner.
Now, Canda was a criminal and perhaps he would've been a criminal even if he wasn't subject to racism in the schools of Jena... oops, that's a different incident.
But he was a human being. And isn't it interesting that the world cares about more about a dog that was going to die anyway than a man who's life could've been saved.
QUOTE(Swimmerwolf247)
Art has to be appreciated by SOMEONE
Appreciation comes in many forms... not all of them happy.
Starving the dog and allowing the man to be mauled both suck. I do not know about Costa Rica, but here we do have such concepts as criminal acts of omission. Doing one reprehensible thing in response to another does not a happy ending make.
QUOTE(quick)
Starving the dog and allowing the man to be mauled both suck. I do not know about Costa Rica, but here we do have such concepts as criminal acts of omission. Doing one reprehensible thing in response to another does not a happy ending make.
Hold the presses! Quick and I agree on something!
I don't know if police corruption is as rampant in Central America as it is in Mexico, but maybe that played a part in the authorities standing by and watching a man get mauled to death? Especially as Canda was well known by the authorities as an illegal immigrant and a criminal. Regardless, someone should have done something. There's no excuse for that sort of behavior. And I can't believe they filmed and broadcast the whole episode. I guess the Rodney King debacle hasn't made it that far south.
Art history has a complex set of facts and figures surrounding the desire for artistic freedom and of course the varied degrees of cultural reaction. Artistic history as in regards to cultural norms is also typically intertwined with movements in a giving society such as a change of perception, global scale not just a single group or what not.
Personally I don’t know much about this piece to speak on it to any real extent. Also unlike people I don’t really think the dog has the same mental faculties as a person as to make a choice and understand the ramifications of such. Then again it seems using live action events as art seems to have some roots in southern American expressions of such, which this could be just another morphology of such really. These kind of artful invention which seem to be vacuums of various cultural reactions structured in some general motif to make a message and or impact. It uses heavy symbolism.
Such a piece of art could also be produced in which a human mind could understand such without the need to starve an animal. Personally none of it makes sense to me, but again it is art it does not have to make sense to everyone and or anyone. I treat art like most anything else, I mean we could probably learn a lot about reality from nuclear experiments, but I would not suggest total freedom for such. Then again such a question all on its own is a good topic for an artistic piece, entitled, ignorance, confusion and a starving dog
Personally I don’t know much about this piece to speak on it to any real extent. Also unlike people I don’t really think the dog has the same mental faculties as a person as to make a choice and understand the ramifications of such. Then again it seems using live action events as art seems to have some roots in southern American expressions of such, which this could be just another morphology of such really. These kind of artful invention which seem to be vacuums of various cultural reactions structured in some general motif to make a message and or impact. It uses heavy symbolism.
Such a piece of art could also be produced in which a human mind could understand such without the need to starve an animal. Personally none of it makes sense to me, but again it is art it does not have to make sense to everyone and or anyone. I treat art like most anything else, I mean we could probably learn a lot about reality from nuclear experiments, but I would not suggest total freedom for such. Then again such a question all on its own is a good topic for an artistic piece, entitled, ignorance, confusion and a starving dog
QUOTE(quick @ Oct 23 2007, 05:11 PM)
Starving the dog and allowing the man to be mauled both suck. I do not know about Costa Rica, but here we do have such concepts as criminal acts of omission. Doing one reprehensible thing in response to another does not a happy ending make.
Both suck equally? Is there a moral equivalence between allowing a known criminal and illegal immigrant to be mauled by dogs for 90 minutes until he bleeds to death and allowing an already sick and starving. The dog would've died the same day had it been tied up in the gallery with nobody helping it or - as it was - tied up on the street corner with nobody helping it.
I'm not advocating or supporting what the artist did, but if he his point was to point up the hypocrisy, I think he was quite successful. And who said anything about a happy ending?
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
Especially as Canda was well known by the authorities as an illegal immigrant and a criminal.
Well known as an illegal immigrant and a criminal before he was mauled? Really? I found no reference to that. Could you supply some source for that fact?
For those of you that propose the dog was going to die anyway - I propose those Iraqis were going to die anyway and anyone who is mourning their loss is wasting time and tears on them.
*
*
*
*
Yes that was sarcasm.
*
*
*
*
Yes that was sarcasm.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 23 2007, 08:11 PM)
For those of you that propose the dog was going to die anyway - I propose those Iraqis were going to die anyway and anyone who is mourning their loss is wasting time and tears on them.
*
*
*
*
Yes that was sarcasm.
*
*
*
*
Yes that was sarcasm.
Thanks for sharing. Now, do you actually have something to contribute to the argument or was a nod in for sarcasm all you had the stamina for?
The dog was going to die that day either in the gallery or on the street willy-nilly.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 23 2007, 11:13 PM)
The dog was going to die that day either in the gallery or on the street willy-nilly.
Once the artist took the dog in he had a responsibility to feed it. End of story. No stamina necessary.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 24 2007, 06:48 AM)
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 23 2007, 11:13 PM)
The dog was going to die that day either in the gallery or on the street willy-nilly.
Once the artist took the dog in he had a responsibility to feed it. End of story. No stamina necessary.
Yes, no stamina, indeed.
First, why?
Second, once the news crew showed up at the scene of Navitidad's mauling, did they have a responsibility to refrain from filming the event and help get the dog off the man? Do documentary crews have a responsibility to put the cameras down and feed the starving children they are documenting in their film?
“‘A dog,” says one of the English poets, “is an honest creature, and I am a friend to dogs.’”
. . .
“Of all beasts that graze the lawn or hunt the forest, a dog is the only animal that, leaving his fellows, attempts to cultivate the friendship of man; to man he looks in all his necessities, with a speaking eye for assistance; exerts for him all the little service in his power with cheerfulness and pleasure; for him bears famine and fatigue with patience and resignation; no injuries can abate his fidelity; no distress induce him to forsake his benefactor; studious to please, and fearing to offend, he is still an humble and steadfast dependent; and in him alone fawning is not flattery. How unkind then to torture this faithful creature, who has left the forest to claim the protection of man! How ungrateful a return to the trusty animal for all its services!
- Oliver Goldsmith, Mad Dogs
. . .
“Of all beasts that graze the lawn or hunt the forest, a dog is the only animal that, leaving his fellows, attempts to cultivate the friendship of man; to man he looks in all his necessities, with a speaking eye for assistance; exerts for him all the little service in his power with cheerfulness and pleasure; for him bears famine and fatigue with patience and resignation; no injuries can abate his fidelity; no distress induce him to forsake his benefactor; studious to please, and fearing to offend, he is still an humble and steadfast dependent; and in him alone fawning is not flattery. How unkind then to torture this faithful creature, who has left the forest to claim the protection of man! How ungrateful a return to the trusty animal for all its services!
- Oliver Goldsmith, Mad Dogs
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 24 2007, 08:31 AM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 24 2007, 06:48 AM)
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 23 2007, 11:13 PM)
The dog was going to die that day either in the gallery or on the street willy-nilly.
Once the artist took the dog in he had a responsibility to feed it. End of story. No stamina necessary.
Yes, no stamina, indeed.
First, why?
Second, once the news crew showed up at the scene of Navitidad's mauling, did they have a responsibility to refrain from filming the event and help get the dog off the man? Do documentary crews have a responsibility to put the cameras down and feed the starving children they are documenting in their film?
The people who let Navitidad get mauled, for lack of a better word, suck. What they did was wrong. However, they didn't put him there, they didn't put the dogs there. Standing around and doing nothing is disgusting. What the "artist" did was intentional, malicious and frankly evil.
As for documentary crews - yeah, they should feed starving people. I suspect they do.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 24 2007, 08:38 AM)
The people who let Navitidad get mauled, for lack of a better word, suck. What they did was wrong. However, they didn't put him there, they didn't put the dogs there. Standing around and doing nothing is disgusting. What the "artist" did was intentional, malicious and frankly evil.
As for documentary crews - yeah, they should feed starving people. I suspect they do.
As for documentary crews - yeah, they should feed starving people. I suspect they do.
So, what if, say, the artist had taken a camera to the street corner, set it up, and just filmed the dog dying of starvation. Would that have been okay?
QUOTE(entspeak)
Well known as an illegal immigrant and a criminal before he was mauled? Really? I found no reference to that. Could you supply some source for that fact?
Yes, really. I read it in one of quick's links to the Tico Times here.
I'm not saying that it was in any way acceptable for the authorities and media to stand around while a man was being mauled. But, that being said, what exactly should they have done? Got in between the dogs? As anyone who has witnessed or been involved in a dog attack, you don't want to get in between a dog and its prey unless you want to be added to the casualty list. Should they have shot the dogs? Eh, maybe. But, if they had accidentally shot the victim trying to do so, there would be a protest just as loud. I wasn't there, I didn't witness the attack. Second-guessing the police actions has nothing to do with the subject of this thread as why starving a dog should be considered art.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 24 2007, 10:23 AM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 24 2007, 08:38 AM)
The people who let Navitidad get mauled, for lack of a better word, suck. What they did was wrong. However, they didn't put him there, they didn't put the dogs there. Standing around and doing nothing is disgusting. What the "artist" did was intentional, malicious and frankly evil.
As for documentary crews - yeah, they should feed starving people. I suspect they do.
As for documentary crews - yeah, they should feed starving people. I suspect they do.
So, what if, say, the artist had taken a camera to the street corner, set it up, and just filmed the dog dying of starvation. Would that have been okay?
Well that isn't what happened. This wasn't benign. This was intentional. I am not sure which part of that is escaping you. However, to play into your concept I suppose setting up a camera on a corner would have been fine. As long as he didn't tie the dog up.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 24 2007, 09:58 AM)
QUOTE(entspeak)
Well known as an illegal immigrant and a criminal before he was mauled? Really? I found no reference to that. Could you supply some source for that fact?
Yes, really. I read it in one of quick's links to the Tico Times here.
Well, first off, those were my links being quoted by quick. Secondly, not a single one of them mentions the fact that Canda was well known as an illegal immigrant and a criminal.
QUOTE
I'm not saying that it was in any way acceptable for the authorities and media to stand around while a man was being mauled. But, that being said, what exactly should they have done? Got in between the dogs? As anyone who has witnessed or been involved in a dog attack, you don't want to get in between a dog and its prey unless you want to be added to the casualty list.
The hose ended up working pretty well... 90 minutes later. I've been involved in a dog attack. I was in fact attacked by a dog, and I don't know what the heck you're talking about. Dogs tend to focus on the object they are attacking. If provoked by another perceived threat, the dogs would've backed off or moved away from the victim in order to take in the new threat, allowing the police to shoot the dogs.
One of the reasons the police didn't move in, they claim, was because it was private property.
QUOTE
Should they have shot the dogs? Eh, maybe. But, if they had accidentally shot the victim trying to do so, there would be a protest just as loud. I wasn't there, I didn't witness the attack. Second-guessing the police actions has nothing to do with the subject of this thread as why starving a dog should be considered art.
You're right. I wasn't there either. There are just reports based on the video that was shot by a news crew that was there. The police never entered the premises. They never attempted to stop the attack. The firemen took 90 minutes to have the brilliant idea of using the hose.
And it has everything to do with this thread because it deals with the meaning of the alleged piece of art.
QUOTE
Well that isn't what happened. This wasn't benign. This was intentional. I am not sure which part of that is escaping you. However, to play into your concept I suppose setting up a camera on a corner would have been fine. As long as he didn't tie the dog up.
Well, the dog was already tied up on the street corner. If the artist was going to intentionally go to the corner and intentionally film this dog... wouldn't he have the moral responsibility to untie the dog and feed it rather than simply film it dying? Why would the artist changing the venue make it somehow suddenly evil?
Isn't that the point of the piece... to illustrate that very hypocrisy? A dog dies of starvation on the street tied to a post, people pass by... no problem. Move the dog to a gallery, people pass by, the dog dies... evil. You're talking about a simple change in location for a dogs death creating a leap from okay to evil.
Meanwhile what happened to Canda - who probably suffered significantly more intensely than this dog as he was mauled for 90 minutes - merely sucked, or was wrong, or shouldn't have happened. But that wasn't evil.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 24 2007, 11:36 AM)
Well, the dog was already tied up on the street corner.
If the dog was tied up why did the artist hire children to catch it?
Where are you sourcing that from?
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 24 2007, 11:52 AM)
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 24 2007, 11:36 AM)
Well, the dog was already tied up on the street corner.
If the dog was tied up why did the artist hire children to catch it?
Where are you sourcing that from?
From one of the links in your original post:
http://www.theginblog.com/2007/10/artist-c...r-animal-abuse/
Perhaps you should actually read it.
QUOTE
Guillermo "Habacuc" Vargas allegedly found the dog tied up on a street corner in a poor Nicaragua barrio and brought it to the showing.
He paid the children to bring the dog to the gallery.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 23 2007, 11:49 AM)
Why are they different? Both are examples of poverty-stricken children being paid a sum of money for something they are able to provide. Their “reality” may mean that selling their sister is not out of the realm of possibility in order for them to get that money. Just as it was not out of their realm to provide a dog for this guy (who knows if they knew what Vargas intended to do with it, or if they even cared). The comparisons of a particular instance to the larger issue of poverty in general is disingenuous. You eat three meals a day while people in other parts of the world starve. Does that mean you should starve yourself? You get malaria; should you refuse treatment because there are others in the world who don’t have access to treatment?
My point is that we can't expect people in dire straights to apply the same priorities, up to and including the value of life. I'm not suggesting that because we have things easier, that we should make them harder on ourselves, I'm saying that the rules we take seriously are different, because we aren't fighting for survival or basic comfort. We have these things by default, and THAT is what allows us to worry about things like how animals feel and how we treat them. This simply isn't true in a large portion of the world.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 23 2007, 02:55 PM)
The guard dogs attacked Natividad on the property. The police showed up. The fire department showed up. The news showed up. While these people stood by and watched, two Rottweiler's mauled Natividad for, oh... about 90 minutes. The mauling was broadcast on television. Eventually, the fire department turned a hose on the dog and it let go.
I also read another reason for not assisting the man:
QUOTE
Footage of the attack broadcast on Channel 7 TV News showed the dogs alternately biting and tugging at the immobile body of the victim. Although a police vehicle is present, no officials are seen intervening. Officials later said they could not fire upon the animals because they feared hitting the victim.
- Tico Times 11/05
- Tico Times 11/05
QUOTE
Police officials said they could not fire upon the animals because they feared hitting the victim, though on multiple occasions the news footage shows the animals leaving the body and walking a few feet away.
-Tico Times 11/05
-Tico Times 11/05
I also read another reason for not assisting the man:
QUOTE
In Lima de Cartago, where the rottweiler attack happened, Fuerza Pública officers would not enter the mechanic's property because it was private, the Defensoria said. The defensoria recommends to the Fuerza Pública that officers protect human life over the rights of private ownership, it said.
QUOTE
And here we are condeming the artist - after the dog has died - for doing nothing (except changing the venue for the dog's death), just as people condemned the officials in Costa Rica for doing nothing to prevent Canda's death. Some people, in both cases, were happy to watch it happen, though, weren't they? But which is the worser of the two?
I don't know if I agree with the artist's means. But what did he do exactly that is worthy of more condemnation than the officers in Lima de Cartago? He simply changed the venue of the dog's death. The officers in Lima de Cartago didn't seem to get any worldwide condemnation when they allowed Canda to be mauled for 90 minutes by two Rottweilers. When people had a chance to feed the dog on the street, did they? No. The dog was tied by a rope in the gallery... did anyone try to free it? No. Where is the outrage about that?
Perhaps this is the hypocrisy that Vargas was attempting to highlight - in a very disturbing manner.
I don't know if I agree with the artist's means. But what did he do exactly that is worthy of more condemnation than the officers in Lima de Cartago? He simply changed the venue of the dog's death. The officers in Lima de Cartago didn't seem to get any worldwide condemnation when they allowed Canda to be mauled for 90 minutes by two Rottweilers. When people had a chance to feed the dog on the street, did they? No. The dog was tied by a rope in the gallery... did anyone try to free it? No. Where is the outrage about that?
Perhaps this is the hypocrisy that Vargas was attempting to highlight - in a very disturbing manner.
Thank you, entspeak, for adding this depth to our understanding of the situation. I knew there had to more to this than the initial links indicated.
I think the disporportionate responses between these two incidents highlights my concerns perfectly.
What kind of jacked up nation doesn't allow police to enter private property to protect a human life that is plainly in danger?
While they are only indirectly related incidents, if a guy that allows a a starving dog to starve deserves to be punished, then a police officer that fails to even try to protect a human life deserves the same. Worse in my book.
It doesn't make starving a dog right, but it helps explain that sequence of events that would make a person feel it was necessary to make their point.
QUOTE(WillyPete @ Oct 24 2007, 02:43 PM)
It doesn't make starving a dog right, but it helps explain that sequence of events that would make a person feel it was necessary to make their point.
Good grief write a letter to the editor. Pen a play. Paint a mural. Leave a sickly dog alone!QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 24 2007, 12:02 PM)
QUOTE(WillyPete @ Oct 24 2007, 02:43 PM)
It doesn't make starving a dog right, but it helps explain that sequence of events that would make a person feel it was necessary to make their point.
Good grief write a letter to the editor. Pen a play. Paint a mural. Leave a sickly dog alone!As I said before. It's hard to trump death as an eye-opener.
It's the only reason I'm aware of the Navitidad Canda incident, which strikes me as the MUCH greater injustice. It probably doesn't mean that major laws will change regarding police procedure or animal rights in that region, but I'd submit that such changes are more likely after the dog was starved than if had the artist written a letter that no one read, or put up yet another mural.
Would any of those thing you preferred have gotten your attention? Or do you wish you had never heard of either of these incidents?
QUOTE(WillyPete @ Oct 24 2007, 03:28 PM)
Would any of those thing you preferred have gotten your attention? Or do you wish you had never heard of either of these incidents?
I'll be frank here. What humans do to each other rarely amazes me. So when a group of humans do nothing while a man is being mauled to death by dogs - I'm not shocked. When a man takes a dog in and intentionally starves it to death - I feel far more outrage. The starved dog is completely innocent. The starved dog had no stake in this and the "artist" who did this to him is reprehensible. He should suffer some consequences.
And frankly I could have gone the rest of my life not knowing anything about this.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate)
1) Is this art?
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
2) Does the artist's message supercede the outcome?
1. No!
2. No!
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate)
Once the artist took the dog in he had a responsibility to feed it. End of story.
I agree with BA entirely here.
As a pro-lifer, what would anyone think about my getting pregnant and having the termination of my pregnancy videotaped to highlight how wrong it is to have an abortion? Could I call myself an artist with a message and actually have someone agree that it was art?
The death of the dog was senseless and cruel. It seems to me that the Holocaust museums don't have corpses of people who died in the Nazi death camps on display, much less a person chained up and forced to starve, in order to bring home the horror of what happened.
Yes, there is a difference between humans and animals. However, we know that animals suffer as well, and to allow and--even more--provoke suffering in another mammal is reprehensible. If you're going to kill an animal, kill it. Euthanize it if it cannot be saved.
But don't hide behind the excuse of calling it "art".
This man needs to be incarcerated and fed only enough to keep him alive until he understands that what he did was WRONG.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 24 2007, 05:05 PM)
Yes, there is a difference between humans and animals. However, we know that animals suffer as well, and to allow and--even more--provoke suffering in another mammal is reprehensible. If you're going to kill an animal, kill it. Euthanize it if it cannot be saved.
But don't hide behind the excuse of calling it "art".
This man needs to be incarcerated and fed only enough to keep him alive until he understands that what he did was WRONG.
But don't hide behind the excuse of calling it "art".
This man needs to be incarcerated and fed only enough to keep him alive until he understands that what he did was WRONG.
And at what point did Vargas kill the dog? What through neglect? He killed a neglected dog that was sick and wouldn't eat by... doing what... moving it to the gallery? Would the dog have survived tied to a post on the street corner?
QUOTE
As a pro-lifer, what would anyone think about my getting pregnant and having the termination of my pregnancy videotaped to highlight how wrong it is to have an abortion? Could I call myself an artist with a message and actually have someone agree that it was art?
Sure you could.
QUOTE(BA)
And frankly I could have gone the rest of my life not knowing anything about this.
Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
QUOTE
He killed a neglected dog that was sick and wouldn't eat by... doing what... moving it to the gallery? Would the dog have survived tied to a post on the street corner?
How do you know the dog wouldn't eat? Where, in any of the sources does it say the dog "wouldn't" eat?
You miss the point. If the dog had been left to its own devices, it would have either foraged for food and survived, or if it were sick enough, died of whatever illness it had. The difference is in removing any choice from the animal, and the intent of purposely starving it to death. If you saw a starving person on a street corner and passed on by, and that person starved to death, you don't bear any personal responsibility for that happening (morality aside), but if you took posession of that person, chained that person up and deprived that person of food and water in order to watch him/her die, then you are personally responsible for that person's death, regardless of what "might" have happened if you had passed on by.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 24 2007, 07:37 PM)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 24 2007, 05:05 PM)
Yes, there is a difference between humans and animals. However, we know that animals suffer as well, and to allow and--even more--provoke suffering in another mammal is reprehensible. If you're going to kill an animal, kill it. Euthanize it if it cannot be saved.
But don't hide behind the excuse of calling it "art".
This man needs to be incarcerated and fed only enough to keep him alive until he understands that what he did was WRONG.
But don't hide behind the excuse of calling it "art".
This man needs to be incarcerated and fed only enough to keep him alive until he understands that what he did was WRONG.
And at what point did Vargas kill the dog? What through neglect? He killed a neglected dog that was sick and wouldn't eat by... doing what... moving it to the gallery? Would the dog have survived tied to a post on the street corner?
QUOTE
As a pro-lifer, what would anyone think about my getting pregnant and having the termination of my pregnancy videotaped to highlight how wrong it is to have an abortion? Could I call myself an artist with a message and actually have someone agree that it was art?
Sure you could.
QUOTE(BA)
And frankly I could have gone the rest of my life not knowing anything about this.
Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Vargas killed the dog by not providing for it what it clearly needed--nourishment. If Vargas was free to rescue it from the street corner, he was also free to care for it in a humane way. Did someone go after Vargas for taking the dog away? I didn't think so.
Vargas became complicit as soon as he removed the dog to have it starve to death in a gallery. He clearly intended for the dog to die, so not only did he neglect to feed and water the dog, he directed others not to feed or water the dog either. This was sick and WRONG.
It would not be "art" no matter how hard I tried to package the videotape of an abortion or tried to characterize myself as an artist. Killing is not art.
A person who willfully mistreats and kills pets cannot be trusted to treat his fellow human beings right, either.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 24 2007, 06:48 PM)
How do you know the dog wouldn't eat? Where, in any of the sources does it say the dog "wouldn't" eat?
Interesting, that tidbit seems to be disappearing from the web. If you Google +"Vargas" +"requenaba", you will find the statement that the dog wouldn't eat... but if you click on a link, that information can't be found. It's becoming a ghost in the caches of Google.
But here are some examples of the results of the search:
QUOTE
thequestionclub: Guillermo Habacuc Vargas had 2 children
The dog was extremely sick, renqueaba [limping] and did not want to eat anyway, ... perhaps Vargas can be costumed in orange and displayed in a cage as a ...
community.livejournal.com/thequestionclub/27934016.html - 85k - Cached - Similar pages
The dog was extremely sick, renqueaba [limping] and did not want to eat anyway, ... perhaps Vargas can be costumed in orange and displayed in a cage as a ...
community.livejournal.com/thequestionclub/27934016.html - 85k - Cached - Similar pages
QUOTE
For The Love of the Dog » A Dead Dog as Art? Petition
Guillermo “Habacuc” Vargas allegedly found the dog tied up on a street corner .... The dog was extremely ill, renqueaba and it did not want to eat anyway, ...
petloverstips.com/ForTheLoveoftheDog/ news-updates/a-dead-dog-as-art-petition - 165k - Cached - Similar pages
Guillermo “Habacuc” Vargas allegedly found the dog tied up on a street corner .... The dog was extremely ill, renqueaba and it did not want to eat anyway, ...
petloverstips.com/ForTheLoveoftheDog/ news-updates/a-dead-dog-as-art-petition - 165k - Cached - Similar pages
QUOTE
You miss the point. If the dog had been left to its own devices, it would have either foraged for food and survived, or if it were sick enough, died of whatever illness it had.
Okay... and how would the dog have "foraged for food" when it was tied to a post on a street corner? Explain that one to me? It was obviously sick... it was refusing food (as can happen with a very sick dog).
QUOTE
The difference is in removing any choice from the animal, and the intent of purposely starving it to death.
Dog wouldn't eat. What choice did a sick, starving animal tied to a post on a street corner have that Vargas removed?
QUOTE
If you saw a starving person on a street corner and passed on by, and that person starved to death, you don't bear any personal responsibility for that happening (morality aside), but if you took posession of that person, chained that person up and deprived that person of food and water in order to watch him/her die, then you are personally responsible for that person's death, regardless of what "might" have happened if you had passed on by.
And if you saw a starving person tied by a rope to a street corner, passed on by and that person starved to death, would you bear any personal responsibility? If you saw a starving person tied by a rope in the corner of a gallery, passed on by, and that person starved to death would you bear any personal responsibility? What's the difference there? It, again, seems to be the change in location. That sounds absurd. What difference does it make where the person is... they are starving and you should help them, right?
And I don't believe Vargas stuck around "in order to watch" the dog die. Nobody attempted to free the dog. It was just a rope, after all. And what charges would've been brought against a person freeing the dog from the exhibit? All Vargas did was change the environment from one in which people could casually walk by and not notice the dog to one in which people are intently looking at the dog... that didn't seem to change the dog's fate. In both places, nobody did anything to help the dog. The dog would've died either way.
QUOTE
Vargas killed the dog by not providing for it what it clearly needed--nourishment.
So, Vargas killed the dog by continuing to neglect the dog that was already being neglected and would've continued to be neglected even if he hadn't moved it to the gallery. So, I ask you - as I asked BA - what if he had simply taken a video camera to the street corner and taped the dog dying... would he have been guilty of killing the dog? He still wouldn't be providing it with nourishment.
QUOTE
Vargas became complicit as soon as he removed the dog to have it starve to death in a gallery.
It takes a village. Everyone who passed by the dog, tied up to a post on a street corner, is complicit... everyone who did not free the dog in the gallery is complicit. But, I think that's the point.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 25 2007, 12:35 AM)
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 24 2007, 06:48 PM)
How do you know the dog wouldn't eat? Where, in any of the sources does it say the dog "wouldn't" eat?
Interesting, that tidbit seems to be disappearing from the web. If you Google +"Vargas" +"requenaba", you will find the statement that the dog wouldn't eat... but if you click on a link, that information can't be found. It's becoming a ghost in the caches of Google.
But here are some examples of the results of the search:
QUOTE
thequestionclub: Guillermo Habacuc Vargas had 2 children
The dog was extremely sick, renqueaba [limping] and did not want to eat anyway, ... perhaps Vargas can be costumed in orange and displayed in a cage as a ...
community.livejournal.com/thequestionclub/27934016.html - 85k - Cached - Similar pages
The dog was extremely sick, renqueaba [limping] and did not want to eat anyway, ... perhaps Vargas can be costumed in orange and displayed in a cage as a ...
community.livejournal.com/thequestionclub/27934016.html - 85k - Cached - Similar pages
QUOTE
For The Love of the Dog » A Dead Dog as Art? Petition
Guillermo “Habacuc” Vargas allegedly found the dog tied up on a street corner .... The dog was extremely ill, renqueaba and it did not want to eat anyway, ...
petloverstips.com/ForTheLoveoftheDog/ news-updates/a-dead-dog-as-art-petition - 165k - Cached - Similar pages
Guillermo “Habacuc” Vargas allegedly found the dog tied up on a street corner .... The dog was extremely ill, renqueaba and it did not want to eat anyway, ...
petloverstips.com/ForTheLoveoftheDog/ news-updates/a-dead-dog-as-art-petition - 165k - Cached - Similar pages
QUOTE
You miss the point. If the dog had been left to its own devices, it would have either foraged for food and survived, or if it were sick enough, died of whatever illness it had.
Okay... and how would the dog have "foraged for food" when it was tied to a post on a street corner? Explain that one to me? It was obviously sick... it was refusing food (as can happen with a very sick dog).
QUOTE
The difference is in removing any choice from the animal, and the intent of purposely starving it to death.
Dog wouldn't eat. What choice did a sick, starving animal tied to a post on a street corner have that Vargas removed?
QUOTE
If you saw a starving person on a street corner and passed on by, and that person starved to death, you don't bear any personal responsibility for that happening (morality aside), but if you took posession of that person, chained that person up and deprived that person of food and water in order to watch him/her die, then you are personally responsible for that person's death, regardless of what "might" have happened if you had passed on by.
And if you saw a starving person tied by a rope to a street corner, passed on by and that person starved to death, would you bear any personal responsibility? If you saw a starving person tied by a rope in the corner of a gallery, passed on by, and that person starved to death would you bear any personal responsibility? What's the difference there? It, again, seems to be the change in location. That sounds absurd. What difference does it make where the person is... they are starving and you should help them, right?
And I don't believe Vargas stuck around "in order to watch" the dog die. Nobody attempted to free the dog. It was just a rope, after all. And what charges would've been brought against a person freeing the dog from the exhibit? All Vargas did was change the environment from one in which people could casually walk by and not notice the dog to one in which people are intently looking at the dog... that didn't seem to change the dog's fate. In both places, nobody did anything to help the dog. The dog would've died either way.
QUOTE
Vargas killed the dog by not providing for it what it clearly needed--nourishment.
So, Vargas killed the dog by continuing to neglect the dog that was already being neglected and would've continued to be neglected even if he hadn't moved it to the gallery. So, I ask you - as I asked BA - what if he had simply taken a video camera to the street corner and taped the dog dying... would he have been guilty of killing the dog? He still wouldn't be providing it with nourishment.
QUOTE
Vargas became complicit as soon as he removed the dog to have it starve to death in a gallery.
It takes a village. Everyone who passed by the dog, tied up to a post on a street corner, is complicit... everyone who did not free the dog in the gallery is complicit. But, I think that's the point.
Yes, it does "take a village," and everyone who walked by this dog tied up and starving shares some responsibility in the dog's death. Vargas acted on what he saw, but what did he do? He did not rescue the dog; he prolonged the dog's agony in another venue, so that he could receive recognition for his "message."
That makes Vargas worse than the casual passerby who decided not to get involved.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 25 2007, 12:55 AM)
Yes, it does "take a village," and everyone who walked by this dog tied up and starving shares some responsibility in the dog's death. Vargas acted on what he saw, but what did he do? He did not rescue the dog; he prolonged the dog's agony in another venue, so that he could receive recognition for his "message."
That makes Vargas worse than the casual passerby who decided not to get involved.
That makes Vargas worse than the casual passerby who decided not to get involved.
Well, at least we're getting somewhere. Perhaps we should take everyone who walked by this dog and maybe tie them up and starve them, but just not as long as we would Vargas, eh?
But, if Vargas hadn't simply changed the venue for this dog's death, the world would never have known about Natividad Canda or this dog. That doesn't make his piece art, per se, but it also doesn't make Vargas evil any more than it makes every person in that gallery who walked by the dog, every person on the street who walked by the dog, every person who watched and did nothing as Canda was mauled evil.
Vargas did not kill the dog, the dog died. He did not prolong the dog's agony... the dog would have died the very same moment on the street as it did in the gallery. Only the venue changed, not the continuing deterioration of the dog. He did not rescue the dog, true... nobody rescued the dog - and that was the "message" you refer to.
QUOTE
Okay... and how would the dog have "foraged for food" when it was tied to a post on a street corner? Explain that one to me? It was obviously sick... it was refusing food (as can happen with a very sick dog).
I also found no evidence that this dog was "tied to a post". Vargas hired the kids to "catch" a dog, not "bring" him a dog who had already been caught. If the dog was tied to a post, he was probably tied there by the kids hired to catch him.
We're just going around in circles here. In parting, I'd just like to reiterate that I don't believe murder is art; regardless of the life form being murdered. The art world has been hijacked by these kinds of stupid stunts, and I find that sad. I wish there were another category and another word for morons like Vargas and Christo and all the rest to "display" their destructive urges, and the people who patronize them. Art is supposed to be constructive (at least to me it is) and contribute something to the world, not take something away. Creativity and destruction should not go hand in hand. There's enough ugliness in the world without people like Vargas.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 25 2007, 09:35 AM)
QUOTE
Okay... and how would the dog have "foraged for food" when it was tied to a post on a street corner? Explain that one to me? It was obviously sick... it was refusing food (as can happen with a very sick dog).
I also found no evidence that this dog was "tied to a post". Vargas hired the kids to "catch" a dog, not "bring" him a dog who had already been caught. If the dog was tied to a post, he was probably tied there by the kids hired to catch him.
Then I would suggest you folks actually research the story before you start ranting. If you look at the link provided by BA in the original post, you will see that the dog was tied to a post on the street corner. Vargas paid the children to get the dog and bring it to the gallery. You must also remember that this is something being translated to no end, so if the words don't exactly match up it could be related to the translation.
QUOTE
In parting, I'd just like to reiterate that I don't believe murder is art; regardless of the life form being murdered.
Vargas did not murder the dog.
Eh...but he sat there, chained it in his basement, and let it starve to death. I mean...isn't it really just a question of semantics, Enspeak?
Or do you mean "Not murder" in the sense that killing animals cannot be defined as "murder," by right of elevated sentience?
Just looking for clarification.
Or do you mean "Not murder" in the sense that killing animals cannot be defined as "murder," by right of elevated sentience?
Just looking for clarification.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.