BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?

Subject: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,caitlín
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 09:59 AM

No one seems to be able to tell if this is a hoax or not. Even the strongest debunkers aren't really sure, including the humane organisations.

The story is that an artist named Guillermo Habacuc Vargas caught a stray dog from the streets, put a rope around its neck, tied it to a corner of a museum exhibition room, and left it there without food or any other life-necessities until it died of hunger, in full view of the public, with slogans on the wall above lettered in dried dogfood pellets.   

Plenty of pictures, for what that's worth - a YouTube clip which gives mostly the wall-messages, and elsewhere a series of stills (the same few shots - who took them?) showing a dog in the stages of starvation, a fur-covered skeleton of an animal which in itself can't be faked, however he got that way.

Google " Guillermo Habacuc Vargas " and take a look around.

The truly objective observers - SPCA and the like - can't say exactly what took place. Some blogs are outraged, there are petitions in every language, and other sites cynically dismiss it as a hoax - but that comes down to being no more than their personal opinions. No reliable source has been able to confirm facts one way or the other. The only reports that this was a publicity stunt come from Vargas and the museum. But after all the fury, they would, wouldn't they? They've never produced the one thing which would prove their case - the live dog. What happened to it, if it didn't die? Oh, right, it ran away - on those emaciated, weak legs, from that large public building. The only evidence of their innocence and they lose it. My other car's a Porsche.

Snopes has classified it as Undetermined

http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp   

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/starving-dog-art.shtml

So what do you think? True? False?   

In any case it's disturbing that Vargas could use an animal in this way, even if the most lurid details are exaggerated - they're built on SOMEthing. And then go on to be honored by the Costa Rican Ministry of Art & Culture as their country's representative at an important Central American exhibition. Even if no more animals are mistreated/killed - and the jury's still out on that one - he's sure got himself a lot of attention. At the very least I don't think he deserves to profit from it but he probably will.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bee
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 10:22 AM

I can't find it at the moment, but a month or more ago I found and presented on another forum a statement from the Director of the actual gallery where the event was staged. It appeared to be a legitimate gallery website.

The Gallery Director stated that the dog was a street dog, that it was fed and watered and exercised except for the fairly short periods it was tied in the gallery space. After hours, it was given the run of a large part of the gallery. Unfortunately (according to the director), although they made every effort to keep the dog inside, a maintenance person accidentally let it out of the building, after which they were unable to find it again.

The artist stated that his doing this was to point out the hypocrisy of people getting all worked up over the fate of a dog they would normally allow to starve in the streets anyway, while also having no emotional or sympathetic response at all to the recent death, by being attacked by dogs, of a homeless man the artist knew.

I think the artist expected and desired the responses he's gotten, because he believes it proves his point. I believe most of this piece was theatrical in nature, like almost every other performance artwork with animals I've ever seen, many of which have elicited similar responses in spite of the fact no animal was actually hurt in the process of the artwork.

I think my estimation of the incident is backed up by the Costa Rican Ministry of Art & Culture's continued support for the artist, as they are well aware of this controversy and most likely investigated thoroughly.

Do I think it was a good piece of art? Actually, no, it is too derivative of pieces performed as early as the late sixties with dead rabbits, and the early seventies with a German artist who pretended to be starving a cat in a closed box in a gallery, and various other artists since then. Great public outrage accompanied those works as well, and often people recalled the piece but not the reality behind the piece (no animal actually abused).

Why am I familiar with this kind of art? Because I spent the late sixties and early seventies attending art colleges and schools in Canada and the Netherlands which were closely affiliated with and sometimes taght by the artists that were at the time well known for their outrageous pieces. I know the territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,caitlín
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 10:26 AM

A very fine post Bee - but I'm only wondering whether to believe them or not. The artist made his intention clear enough, but WAS no animal hurt? We don't know and probably never will.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 10:32 AM

To my sense of aesthetics that's as stupid (even if no animal was harmed) as "postmodern deconstructionism." If an animal WAS harmed it should be treated as a criminal act and punished accordingly.

And why was the "artist" more concerned with the fate of starving dogs than the fate of starving children?

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 10:51 AM

Seems like a good PR stunt...

We organized a "puppy burn" back 'round '67 at VCU and got about 1000 students show up who couldn't have cared less about Vietnam and, of course, there was no puppy but...

... a danged good way to get a few folks thinkin' about the killin' that was going on in Vietnam...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 10:55 AM

Hard to picture any public facility director allowing any animal to be at large after hours, or even tied up. Dogs poop and pee, ya know, besides being a health hazard, bite hazard, allergy hazard.....

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bee
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 11:05 AM

Rapaire: read my post. The artist was outraged that a human being was killed by dogs and no one cared. The attitude towards street dogs was secondary.

Susan: the gallery Director stated the dog was walked. Also, galleries will put up with a lot of disgusting or unsanitary aspects of art - remember the Meat Dress, made by a Toronto artist a few years ago and displayed for quite a while in a major gallery? And the gallery in question is in Costa Rica, which may or may not have less strict sanitary regulations.

Caitlin, my education, knowledge, experience, and the Director's statement (which I'll continue to try to re-find) all tell me that my post is as close to the truth as you're going to get. It is in the artist's interest to be ambivalent in order to maintain the integrity of his premise.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 11:17 AM

I'm just a bit surprised at Repaire; whatever the other merits and implications of this, there's really no implication that the artist was "more concerned with the fate of starving dogs than the fate of starving children".
I don't know that I could fault the artist for pretending to do something vile to force attention to a tragic situation. It seems like a major stretch of credibility to think that everyone connected with the gallery, and everyone aware of the situation, would have allowed the "real thing" to happen. But if Snopes et al can't disprove it, I certainly can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 11:20 AM

I was writting while Bee posted; I wasn't upset enough with Rap to "jump on the bandwagon" after the point was already made.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 03:05 PM

"there's really no implication that the artist was "more concerned with the fate of starving dogs than the fate of starving children"."

The Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) was founded six decades before the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) - 1824 as opposed to 1884.

The majority of people will 'not hear', or gloss over reports of children dying in their hundreds, but if one fluffy, dewy-eyed doggie gets kicked, those same people will be up in arms.

I'm not advocating animal abuse, and certainly not in the so-called name of "art" - far from it; but I am suggesting that maybe some need to sort their priorities.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 04:11 PM

There were reports yesterday in the British press that the donkey sanctuary near Sidmouth receives £20m a year in donations compared with £17m for battered wives' charities....

I also yesterday received an e-mail from BB seeking signatures for this
petition
Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,caitlín
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 04:15 PM

Being concerned about this doesn't mean thinking that it's more important than the suffering of children, which of course it isn't. But why the assumption that because someone's angry about the deliberate mistreatment-for-show (however far it went) of a dog, that their priorities are screwed? That's quite a judgmental leap, and (in my case anyway) it's false. A greater wrong does not mean that the lesser wrong is nullified.

As for fluffy and dewy-eyed, did you SEE those pictures? Whatever about the artist's creative purpose and his ambiguity, we still only have his word for it that it all happened as he said it did. That on its own does not convince me. Whether this issue should be ignored because there are worse things to worry about, which there always are, is another subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,caitlín
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 04:16 PM

Sorry, cross-posted with Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: *Laura*
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 04:17 PM

Maybe people find it easier to care about the fate of cute fluffy little animals rather than having to think about what people do to other people.

I think it's up to the artist/individual as to WHAT they choose to represent in their art (animal/child abuse) but if what happened here is true then it's pretty sick, even if it was done to prove hypocrisy or however it's justified....

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,caitlín
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 04:29 PM

Representing animal/child abuse is one thing. Actually doing it is another.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 04:41 PM

IIRC, artists (including George Stubbs?) have recorded deaths at which they were present. And in line with what Caitlin says, is not the same as causing the deaths.

Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 04:44 PM

Outrageous exhibits don't really get people to notice the 'other side'. They get people to notice the incredible cruelty people are capable of when they think they're showing the stoopid masses the light. "You don't see what I do because I'm so much smarter than you, so I'll just slap you across the face to get your attention."

It's not about how children should be treated better than dogs or dogs treated worse than children. It's about how people will do damn near anything if they can fool themselves and others into thinking they're above considerations of right and wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: *Laura*
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 04:48 PM

"Representing animal/child abuse is one thing. Actually doing it is another."

That's my point.
I was saying that people shouldn't have their priorities attacked for choosing to support one or the other - that's up to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: SINSULL
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 05:02 PM

When I received an email about this, I spent a lot of time googling the artist and the exhibition. Vargas has repeatedly contradicted himself and at least one time said "The dog was going to die anyway".
He has stated his purpose was to call attention to starving dogs, then to contrast concern with a dog with concern with lack of concern for starving children, then to protest wild dog attacks, then...
The museum too has changed its story from the dog got away to the dog died to we let the dog go.
My comment on the petition was "How about we tie him up and let him starve so we can all relate to the fate of the starving artist."

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 05:06 PM

Doesn't anyone wonder about what kind of people would see the dog tied like that and not do their best to unleash it and let it go? The 'artist' was an asshole, but the spectators weren't much better--if at all..

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: pdq
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 05:37 PM

A great deal of art has been pitiful for a long time.

Putting a Christian cross in a jar of urine and showing in a gallery ain't my idea of art.

Neither is laying out gallery desplay so that all visitors must step on an American flag to get through.

Sticking bullwhip up someone's ass and taking a closeup photograph is rubbish.

Taking a box full of tiny chicks (no, not the Dixie kind), setting them on the stage during a rock consert is also cruel, but flipping the mike stand upside down so the audience can hear you stomp on them, smashing them to death one at a time. When did that become art?

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: meself
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 08:17 PM

When, oh when, will performance artists begin to starve?

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 09:06 PM

Sorry -- it was early, I'd had a lousy night, and I misread the post.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: alanabit
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 06:58 AM

I signed the petition with the caveat that I hoped the stunt was just a wind up. There is never any excuse for deliberate, bestial cruelty. I still suspect it is a wind up.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 07:08 AM

Wind up or not, just the thought of it has made me feel sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 09:26 AM

This one's been bothering me. One thing is the conflicting claims Vargas makes as to what really happened to this "unharmed" dog, which neither he nor the museum can produce. The commonest story seems to be that it ran away. Even allowing for the unlikelihood of this, given the weakened state of those stick-thin legs and the fort-like nature of museums, this excuse simply fails to take account of canine behaviour. A dog which has been starved in the streets is not going to run away from shelter where he is given food. If you've ever fed stray animals you'll know that it's the best way there is of keeping them hanging around your door. Remember your mom telling you when you were a kid, "Don't feed him, he'll just keep coming back for more"? And yes, dogs poo and pee but that depends a lot upon how much first goes into the other end.   

Also - I know this point has already been made but it needs repeating - don't confuse "the dog was fed & walked etc" with they said the dog was fed & walked. Big difference. If it was fed, why did it look like that? It's not something you can fake. And if Vargas and the museum lied about one thing, they can lie about another. They certainly have every incentive to. The whole inconsistent story starts to unravel.

Here's a newsflash for ya - I don't give a flying fork about this guy's visionary premise. I want to know: DID THIS EMACIATED ANIMAL DIE IN HIS CUSTODY OR DIDN'T IT? Who cares whether it was a political statement, an artistic statement, an unintended outcome, or a wind-up?   

And that brings me to this exhibition's title, "Eres Lo Que Lees" ("You Are What You Read") and the slogans displayed above the dog. What you read?? As in, see the writing on the wall?   

There's an unpleasant whiff of trolling about this. And there is a difference between a troll and a hoax. Is this guy primarily concerned about starvation, or does he just want to manipulate and divide people? Maybe his purpose is not so much to call attention to deprivation as it is to push everybody's buttons. Get them arguing. And talking about him. The perp - ever notice how much that word sounds like Perv? - says it was a publicity stunt to alert us all to [fill in the blank]. Well, there is no such thing as bad publicity, is there? It sure as hell has alerted the world to Guillermo Habacuc Vargas. If the dog dies in the process, so what? That "if" gives him the only get-out clause he needs.

P. T. Barnum's dictum about fooling the people rings true. But: Which of the "some" are being fooled? Those who believe this a hoax initiated by Vargas to make a statement, or those who think Vargas, whatever his "art" is supposed to be about, is a manipulative, lying dog-killer?

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:36 PM

Oh come on guys what are you up to?

1. The animal was treated well

It was taken off the streets and given food and water and the run of the museum.

2. The point of the installation was:

why do people make such a big noise about a dog being tied up yet not know/care about the death of a human?

Also, why make such a big noise about a dog being tied up when they wouldn't have cared about it if it had stayed to fend for itself on the streets.

That seems pretty clear eh?

no?

So the artist agrees

mistreating animals is bad

ignoring suffering humans is also bad

are we there yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:37 PM

ok but where does "the dog was fed and walked" translate into "the dog was starved"?

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:39 PM

There are people who make such a big deal of it because they love animals. I do. I also love people and make a big deal of it when fu#kin governemnts help starve humans. It's not an either/or situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:52 PM

In looking around for Info I encountered this point.

The writing around the dog was done in dog food and dog biscuits.

How would a hungry dog behave surrounded by food?

Would he eat it?

Would he try to eat it?

Would he make a fuss about it?

what do you think?

I think he might.

Another interesting point is that the exhibition lasted 3 hours.

Not enough time to starve to death.



As an artist he is clearly superb.

Everyone is debating exactly what he wants them to debate.

He's certainly influenced more people than me.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:57 PM

This is not art. And the folks who caused it ain't artists.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:01 PM

Lox, you're buying the official version of the story, that's all. Those are the "facts" you choose to believe, fine, you're free to think what you like. But you don't have access to the objective truth of this situation any more than anyone else has.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:01 PM

Thanks peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:02 PM

Good to see you posting, Lox. I've missed you.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:07 PM

So none of us have any reason to assume anything as any story is as believable as any other.

Which means that there is no reason to "buy into" any of the panic.

There's no proof that there aren't UFO's and I'm not worried about them either.

My comments bout the food (if you would care to read that part too) satisfy me that there was no abuse.

In the pictures there is no indication that the dog is trying to get at any food.

Bit like what was said earlier in this thread about dogs being happy where there is food?...

If in london, under the bridge, there is a man sodomizing a goat then that would be very upsetting and I would condemn it.

And if in Nicaragua there was a man abusing a dog then that is bad too.

But there is no information or evidence apart from the speculation and conjecture of an animal rights group that this has happened.

The dog in the picture isn't trying to get to the food.

That's not conclusive but it's the best evidence we have.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:09 PM

The dog in the picture isn't trying to get to the food.

That's not conclusive but it's the best evidence we have.





just wanted that bit to be given clarity.

sorry but I find this stuff a bit frustrating.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:28 PM

All of the pictures that I have seen show the dog on a short lead and no food anywhere within reach near him, only bare walls; and the messages are done in dry kibble, not fresh food, so it won't have much scent. The emaciated state of the dog is pretty good evidence too. The food on the wall satisfies you as evidence. It doesn't satisfy me. So?

Why do you find it frustrating that this story upsets people? It doesn't mean it's considered equal in importance with the other atrocities that go on in the world, just that it's upsetting. It certainly won't give you any idea as to what people's priorities are. Mine anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 06:32 PM

Sorry Bonnie

I have gone away and come back and my responses were a bit strong. I think the grumpy gene kicked in for a bit.


But to respond to a couple of points and to explore why I think this is a storm in a teacup,

Firstly the dog isn't just on a short lead.

The lead is attached to a line which gives the dog a certain amount of mobility as the lead can slide up and down it. Different photos show the lead in a different place on this line in each picture.

Secondly, it's not that the story upsets peple, it's that the story is unsubstantiated and most of it is unverifiable.

I can think of a story right now that could be potentially upsetting, but before we start expressing our outrage at the abuses suffered by red riding hoods gran, why not find out there is actually anything to be upset about.

Thirdly - and most tellingly - In Nicaragua there are no animal cruelty laws and therefore no reason why the museum should cover anything up.

No reason to lie.

So what reason to doubt?

I think that the dog was brought in off the street for a few hours and then kicked out the back door at the end.


I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to the seriousness of the allegations, and certainly not enough information to censor an artists work and destroy his livelihood and reputation.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 07:41 PM

Thanks for the longer explanation - but I think we need to agree to differ, rather than going on for another ten pages in an argument that neither of us is going to win. It really does depend on whom one believes. Vargas' side of the story is just as unverifiable, unless one takes his word for it, which you do and I don't. Destroy his livelihood? Intentionally or not, it's the best career move he ever made.

I know that Nicaragua has no animal cruelty laws, but that doesn't really prove anything. In view of the worldwide revulsion over this, the museum might well want to deny it, if only to protect themselves. Lot of heavy emotion out there -

I haven't changed my mind, you haven't changed yours, we're not going to change each other's. We're hardly alone in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 08:01 PM

But that's the thing - I don't support vargas' side of the story - I am saying there isn't enough info full stop - so there is no case against him.

And I uphold the view that the burden of proof is on the accuser not on the accused.

There's loads of conspiracy sites and other special interest sites where people build circumstancial towers of cards which get blown down by the first gust of doubt.

I see no difference here.

I therefore refuse to be a part of the lynch mob.

I don't hold with kangaroo courts or witch-hunts.

Has he done something wrong? show me the proof.

or does everyone who hasn't done aanything wrong have to prove it to you too?

or just the ones you are sitting in judgement over?

If you have a case to make then back it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 08:05 PM

No, I'm going to move on. Maybe you should too.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 08:06 PM

oh and you mentioned something about the dog food not being very appetizing.

Is it dog food or not?

do they eat it or not?

what is their incentive to eat it if it has no smell?

without smell there is no taste (hold your nose and eat something if you don't believe me).

If a dog is hungry do you think it is going to be picky?

do you think the man in peaces picture is going to insist on perrier?

The only evidence available is contrary to your case.

Whiach leaves me waiting for your case to be backed up.

Until then it has no merit.

You may disagree to your hearts content.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 10:04 PM

Much has been based on 'what if'. If the story is true, the 'artist' deserves a kick in the stones. If not, then the person who did it as a publicity stunt deserves a kick in the stones.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,caitlín
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 11:19 PM

The whole problem about this is that nothing can be proved, on either side. In the end there are only opinions, pro or con, based on whatever version of this event people decide to believe. We don't know for sure what really happened, only what Vargas says happened and not everyone buys it.

What they actually saw was a skeleton-thin dog tethered in a bare corner of a room (which wasn't done in Vargas' own country where they have anti-animal cruelty laws) about which Vargas said that it 'would have died in the streets anyway'. No one really knows for sure what went on between shows or afterwards, and that's the bit that's bothering people. The rest of the story hinges entirely on what we have been told, which means what we've read (You Are What You Read, remember). It's fair to call it into question.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 01:53 AM

If anyone here has actually seen a starving animal, then they will know that near the end of its life, it simply won't have the energy or inclination to accept food. From what I see of the pictures, it looks to me as if this animal has reached that stage.

Starving animals (and humans!) need to be fed a bland diet, little and often or else they will suffer terrible intestinal pain, diahorrea and vomiting. A huge plate of rich food would kill them as surely as a bullet in the head.

If this dog had recently been fed well, in the condition it appears to be you'd be able to see the bulk of the food in its stomach. It would also be rolling around the floor in agony or barfing up in a corner.

And as for kibble not being smelly - it may not be to humans, we have pretty poor olofactory skills on the whole - but to a canine schnozz, it's smellable from 40 ft away. We may have 5-10million sensory cells up there, but a dog has 125million. It has to, otherwise we would be able to track criminals and sniff out explosives ourselves. Even a poorly pooch would be able to smell the kibble stuck on a wall 10ft away.

Personally, I don't know which is worse - the obvious suffering of the starved dog for which no-one has an adequate or acceptable explanation, or the not so obvious torture of a starving dog surrounded by smelly food it cannot get to.

Real animals in "art" has always been controversial, but at least Damien Hurst had the decency to put his animals out of their misery.

If this is art, then I know what I like and this isn't it. Give me a nice Pre-Raphaelite any day!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bee
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 09:47 AM

Thanks, Lox.

Guys, performance/installation art isn't for everybody. There's lots of it I don't much like, same as there's lots of paintings I don't much like. A good deal of this kind of art depends on obscuration, misdirection and ambivalence to suggest or illustrate a message. This piece is a perfect example of that, and in that context, it has certainly been successful. I can't prove it, but I seriously doubt that a dog was starved to death during a three hour presentation in a gallery.

Bonnie mentioned the "fort like nature of museums". In fact, most small to medium sized galleries and museums are not very secure at all - there isn't enough profit to be made to spend money on huge amounts of security if you aren't holding a collection of Rembrandts or Jasper Johns or some other big names. Most of the small galleries around here are hardly more secure than my house - less so, as people wander in and out at will, the room might be empty while the single attendant is in the bathroom or a back office, there's nobody there after hours, etc.

By the way, your nice Pre-Raphaelite may have depended on the services of an abused model-prostitute. Throughout the history of painting, most artists employed street prostitutes as models. Gaugin's beautiful paintings of young Tahitian girls illustrate the fact that he was essentially a pedophile who regularly lived with twelve year old girls. Art and artists can be exploitive, and the age/beauty of the work is not an indicator of the moral atmosphere in which it was created, nor of the good conduct of the artist.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: r.padgett
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 09:58 AM

NO is not Art

I forwarded the email I recieved from Joe Stead who had it from Bernard Wrigley

Please sign the petition so that this is not repeated as was suggested as a further example of Art

This is CRUELTY and not an Art form!

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bee
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 11:10 AM

r.padgett, I see like others you are jumping on the bandwagon without so much as bothering to investigate or even reading this thread - at least it looks that way.

But go ahead. Your doing so assists the artist in getting what he wants - publicity and notoriety, and likely encourages other artists to emulate his success.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,caitlín
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 01:37 PM

Investigate HOW? One of the whole problems with this thing is that you can't. Even the animal organisations haven't been able to, conclusively. And what is this bandwagon that keeps getting invoked? There's no bandwagon, just a lot of people the world over who feel disgusted by this and don't really care whether it's art or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 05:07 PM

"Even the animal organisations haven't been able to, conclusively"


Exactly.

Case closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,caitín
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 08:02 PM

>Investigate HOW? One of the whole problems with this thing is that you can't. Even the animal organisations haven't been able to, conclusively.

is what I wrote. In your selective quoting you missed the fact that I was saying that the organisations haven't been able to INVESTIGATE. You've obviously read what you wanted to in the last nine words and interpreted it as "proved". Vargas hasn't proved his side either.

The case isn't closed just because you (a) think it is (b) say it is (c) want it to be. For a lot of people it's still wide open.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 09:20 PM

Lox, you have your own opinions on this issue. But not everyone shares them, and we are all entitled to the right of free discussion and our viewpoints. No one can claim the final word and declare the matter closed. As long as there is doubt and debate, it is not closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 06:14 AM

Oh ... so you've got some new leads then?


"In your selective quoting you missed the fact that I was saying that the organisations haven't been able to INVESTIGATE"

Yes - they haven't EVEN been able to do that.

Let alone find any evidence that there is anything wrong.

Your point STRENGTHENS mine.


So ... any verifiable reasons why we should be talking about stopping this guy?

Any proof that he is an animal abuser?

Why should I join the witch-hunt ... I mean sign the petition?

I believe in Innocent until proven guilty.

Thankfully so do most other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 06:19 AM

There is enough material out there to swamp fifty Mudcats. I'm not going to use up time and bandwidth writing out a summary rehashing it all. But that does not mean it doesn't exist. All you have to do is an internet search. If you want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 06:29 AM

"And then go on to be honored by the Costa Rican Ministry of Art & Culture as their country's representative at an important Central American exhibition."

Collaborators! Obviously in cahoots with him to cause pain and misery to animals.

I'm still not reading any reasons to lynch him ... er ... I mean sign a petition ... convincing or otherwise.

I have on my own noticed several reasons to doubt the authenticity of the allegations.

If you're going to condemn someone you better have a verifiable reason.

How dare you accuse, judge and sentence somebody without evidence and then blithely turn round to me and say we'll have to agree to disagree.

The onus of proof is on YOU as you are bringing the allegation.


We all get upset about things, shooting from the hip based on our feelings is an attitude from the dark ages that we can do without.

It is the reason why a Paediatrician in portsmouth had to hide in his house from a rabble who had made the leap to defenders of the community based on the fact that they didn't know the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile.

Show me evidence that he did something wrong or be quiet.

And DON'T SHOUT AT ME.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 06:41 AM

Speaking of being quiet and not shouting . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 09:26 AM

"So what do you think? True? False?"

Whether we 'think' it is True or False has no bearing on whether it happened or not...


MUDCAT RULE OF DEBATE ON BS THREADS - RULE NO 1:

"The amount of hot air produced is in inverse proportion to the amouont of material to be burnt."

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 04:56 PM

Foolestroupe I absolutely agree with your point, and on the question of "true or false" I am not bothered.

But a serious issue has emerged during the course of this thread, of people running up campaigns to 'do something about it'.

That's a seperate point which I believe should be tackled head on.

I have a deeep abiding distaste for kangaroo courts, witchhunts and lynch mobs.

I deplore the sanctioning of any campaign to take the livelihood of a person away from them based on unfounded allegations.

And where I encounter it I will speak out.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 05:13 PM

> But a serious issue has emerged during the course of this thread, of people running up campaigns to 'do something about it'.   

Not everyone who expresses an opinion has any intention of "doing anything" further. (I don't, for one.) But we have the right to free speech and free thought. There are some valid questions which have been asked and never answered, and it is fair to raise them - please don't confuse that with activism, or distort things by blanket accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 07:14 PM

Well I'm obviously not talking about you then ...

Just as I obviously wasn't commenting about your shouting - you will find the intended recipient of my response on that issue quoted in my post of 27 Apr 08 - 06:14 AM

There are people other than you on this thread who disagree with me and some have stated that they intend to 'do something'

This thread has grown from a website that exists for the purpose of running a campaign to 'do something'.

I have neither the time nor the energy to waste accusing you of something you haven't done.

I disagree with that approach as you will note if you actually get round to reading anything I have posted.

I have no interest in misrepresenting you or anyone else.

If you read back through the thread you will find that the links and some posters are all about 'doing something'.

I have made no blanket accusations, just responded to what has been written and the main website upon whose 'information' this whole thread was based.

There is a single specific issue which you Bonnie seem completely oblivious to as you stumble aimlessly about intermittently dropping weak 'insights' and 'witticisms' on the subject of what I personally may or may not do.

Has this artist done something wrong? we don't know.

Do we therefore have the right to call judgement on him and pass sentence? No!

Is this important? Yes.

Why? Because there are people who have stated that they would like to do something to shut him down and take away his livelihood.

Are they justified in doing anything without any evidence of wrongdoing? Absolutely not!

What are your views on that?

And as for this swathe of online information you mention, if you have found one website that gives us any more real information than our imaginations have so far managed to concoct then feel free to post a link.

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: Bee
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 08:20 PM

Lox, you keep talking like a reasonable person - bound to get you yelled at. Tsk!

Subject: RE: BS: Starving a dog to death publicly = art?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 08:45 AM

MUDCAT RULE OF DEBATE ON BS THREADS - RULE NO 2:

Never be unbiased. Remember that if you sit on the fence, the bigoted bastards from BOTH sides get clear shots at you!