to think this isn't art?

[mrz]

In 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope in an art gallery, and starved him to death. For several days, the 'artist' and the visitors of the exhibition have watched emotionless the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, until eventually he died.

But this is not all... the prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of the Central American decided that the 'installation' was actually art, so that Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the biennial of 2008.

PLEASE HELP STOP HIM.

www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition.html
It's free of charge, there is no need to register, and it will only take 1 minute to save the life of an innocent creature.

I think she means getting upset people are sad about the dog, I'm not sure either, this thread ahs completely baffled me tbh.

A dog may have been harmed.
A petition has been created.
A thread was started to ask people to sign it.
People signed it.
It all kicked off.

FWIW, I can kind of see your point Colditz, I mean if I had to choose between that dog and that child being 'real' incidences, obviously I would've chose the dog, but sadly, there is nothing I can really do with either except possibly sign the petition, so sign it I did.

When I was in art school there was a student who killed rabbits to use them as "stencils" in their paintings. ALthough I thought he was a nice person, I never could look at him in the same way after I learned how the rabbit figures where created.

Now, regarding Habacuc's work... I'm afraid he is not the first artist killing animals for art sake. Nitsch is another one, and from what I understand, a world respected one.

Yes, and when I was young, some teenagers caught cats and spit roast them on open fires, alive, "just for fun". Shocking animal cruelty, and Art was not even an excuse.

I've signed it

IT'S NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

whats not true????

Twiglett, no-one knows if it was true or not.
The gallery owner apparently said the dog ate, they also said it didn't die but somehow managed to escape during the night (A dog that was obviously very ill, probably with little energy spent the whole day tied up, but managed to get free when no-one saw it...)
That is questionable enough in itself.
If you can prove to me it's not true, fair enough, but you can't.

The whole thing is a stunt to ... well who knows, but perhaps stimulate debate about what we should get angry about.

Hmm, it seems this is not actually true doesn't it? As revealed early on in this thread. The dog was fine.

Also, you can look at it in the context of Central America, where stray animals are going to be seen all over the streets, as well as street children. It's part of poverty there. So, what would this 'art' be saying? What response would it be aiming for? If, as it says in the guardian article, it was chained up for 3 hours, then fed and let go, for those three hours, it was actually making quite an interesting point wasn't it - and quite powerfully too. Who in that country would be going to a gallery? Probably not the poor, probably people in some position to do something - and they're confronted with a starving animal, with the reality of what would be all around them, but in a very different and surprising context.

It's not something that would work in a developed country - but it sounds to me like a very political and interesting statement and I would imagine this artist is not merely torturing an animal, but making a statement that is important and valid. Bearing in mind the animal was NOT starved to death, the reactions seem a bit misplaced to me.

i aggree with boco

Oh FGS.
It hasn't been proved not to be true!
Why does an article in the Guardian mean it's not true?

The 'artist's' changing statements.
1st the dog 'would've died anyway', then 'he didn't know if it died or not, then it didn't die

Why do you think it IS true?

Do you honestly think the point of this is to starve a dog for a laugh because this man is a twisted psychopath? There are lots of those people, probably fairly close by, who might starve a dog, they don't need a gallery and publicity. or do you think he had some kind of point to make? And if he had a point, do you think it is one that could make people think about starvation and cruelty and change something, in the country this was done? I think that it is at least possible.

And I don't think this reaction of 'string up the sick fucker' is quite the right one, it's pointless, the artist here is not the one people should be aiming their petitions against - plenty of animal welfare organisations who would help animals, banning this artist is not going to save animals, It is totally misplaced fury.

That site is daft - the quotes from ghandi ffs.

Sorry I can't say if it is a myth or fact BUT felt revulsion when I saw it. The "artists" own blog seems to indicate that it is truth.

That's probably the 'art' though - in getting people to react, in his case to a starving dog and in MN's case to a maybe startving dog.

It;s all a bit too postmodern for me