Dog Abuse? or Art Simply For The Sake Of Art?

Todays post isn't about polymer clay or any of the artists/artisans I usually talk about. I choose to put up a post about this situation as it does, somewhat, apply to "Art" in general and for the simple fact that I'm a dog lover. While you read this, please keep in mind I did do my research on the case but that the facts surrounding this so-called "Installation Piece" still remain somewhat murky and no one seems to know whether or not the dog died as a result. My whole point here is, even if the dog didn't die, why use a dog, or any animal for that matter, to express yourself.  For those of you that are saying that this is old news, c'mon......does it really matter?

Guillermo Habacuc Vargas is a Costa Rican artist who allegedly used a stray dog as a conceptual work of art to promote the fact that people are "hypocritical sheep". Apparently his focus was to  show how a starving dog suddenly becomes the center of attention at an art gallery but, not when it is out on the street where most people would ignore it. Though I may not agree with his methods, you have to admit a certain visceral reaction to the work. After doing quite a bit of research on this, I can safely say that he definitely grabbed peoples attention and certainly made his point. Whether this work qualifies as art, conceptual or not, I leave it to you to decide for yourself. Was it necessary to use a living creature in this manner simply to make a point? What do you think?

Comments

[Timeless]

I've heard that he 'did not starve the dog because he was feeding it when the gallery was closed'. Big deal. He still had that dog sitting there, tied to a rope, without any food or water during opening hours, only to have people stare at it and go 'oohhh, so sad to see it starve, let's go grab a bite to eat after this, shall we?'

If he was so concerned about stray dogs, he could've taken pictures of them, and have them up in the gallery. Or he could have tied that rope around his own neck and 'starved' himself. Not sure if that would've been art either, but at least he would have done it on his own accord. The dog never had a choice.

[Ragtree]

If he didn't do anything to help the dog, what point is he proving? That he is no different to the unaffected people on the street? I think he would have made a better point to save the dog. Wow. Can just ANYTHING pass as art?

[karin Grow]

That is so disgusting! He's a total coward. He should have tied to that rope without food or water to express himself.

[nicole]

Tim said:
Actually the truth is he didn't kill a dog for his art. Amazing what people are so ready to believe on the internet.
........
Whether the dog died, or did not die, is NOT the point. The point is that the dog is|was a living creature, with at least the intellectual capacity of a 3 year old human being, and his torture by starvation was intentional, very wrong, and NOT art!
What was done was not art in any sense of the term, and the "artist" needs psychiatric assistance.

[nicole]

Animal abuse is not only not art, in this country, it is illegal. He's an idiot, and he is scum.
As Margaret said, "art my a$$".

Btw, those of you who are trying to spin this to make it seem relevant as social commentary or art, are not the sophisticates you wish to paint yourselves as. Rather, you are simply followers, friggin' stupid sheep.

[Tim]

Actually the truth is he didn't kill a dog for his art. Amazing what people are so ready to believe on the internet.

[Francis Scudellari]

I don't see anything artistic in it at all. To me, it's more an attempt at social commentary. In allowing the dog to die, he actually becomes that which he is allegedly criticizing. A more noble act would be to document in some way the lives of stray dogs in the city and then give people a way to positively affect the situation.

[HoundsGood]

Unfortunately, dogs are treated like garbage there. Unfortunately "bad press" seems to be good press for this person as this is the second time he has done something like this.

I hope it inspires people to help pets in their own area. what this person is doing is HORRIBLE but a lot of people will come to the aid or protest the mistreatment of a dog in another country but will not look at the end of their noses at a dog in the neighborhood suffering in their own area. I think many folks have the attitude that "someone should do something." Oh but often We/you are that someone and we don't do a thing.

[anamcaracandles]

This is sick, he could use his "talent" and make a lifelike dog rather than using a real one. Perhaps he could stand in place of the dog for "art" sake.

[Canny Granny]

I am too shocked to think straight. Surely he should be charged with an offense?

[Nurses Naturally]

Not art.Stop him.

[Margaret]

All I can say is, God has a special place reserved for people who do these kinds of things to innocent animals.

Art my a$$

ê¿ê