Sign this if you don't believe this is Art.

Courtesy of Mata Hari on the scorp board:

Hi all. This is a very serious matter...

In 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope in an art gallery, starving him to death. He called this a 'Visual Arts Installation'.

For several days, the 'artist' and the visitors of the exhibition watched the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, until eventually the dog died.







Does it look like art to you?

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


Let's STOP HIM!!!!!

http://www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition-sign.html<BR>

Please do it.

It's free of charge and it will only take 1 minute to save the life of an innocent creature.

Where was PETA while this was taking place?

"It's not right to torture animals, no - so why didn't anyone call the cops? Dogs die on streets in YOUR city every day, what have you done to stop THAT—"

I somewhat agree. There are millions of people on this earth dying every single day & yet, we only see maybe 3 or 4 news stories about those the News stations chose to display. Your neighbors might be abusing their dog in the house right next to yours. Worse, off 3 BILLION people are considered STARVING on this earth & yet, I still see LITTLE being done about it.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
I'm sure people wouldn't feel this was art if this was THEIR dog. It is NEVER justified to purposely starve an animal & put it out on display for others to watch. Sheesh, why couldn't he have just painted a picture of a starving dog or something. Or hell, if he was going to starve the dog, the LEAST he could've done was made sure the dog didn't die (because when the dog was alive, it was considered as "art" but when it dies, it's considered cruelty because right then people start realizing the dog's life was at the mercy of a money hungry artists)

Snopes say it's "undetermined".

"Dogs die on streets in YOUR city every day, what have you done to stop THAT—"

There is nothing wrong with people professing outrage at something they are not active against. For example, many people protest murders quite vocally, yet not as many moonlight as costumed heroes, or even form a neighborhood guard.

"On second thought, keep up your pathetic protesting...it sounds like a million other people are doing the same. Continue to make it tough on all artists who express something you "don't like". Continue to raise a fuss without getting your facts straight, so that thousands of museums and art galleries across the world have to close because they don't receive financial contributions necessary to stay afloat."

Thousands of museums and art galleries across the world close because of people protesting their art? Really?

"Continue to help take art out of schools. Why not start burning books while you are at it?"

I don't think this is an attack on the art-world as much as it's an attack on dog-starving.

And regarding what Juanita said, well, I'm sure being known as "the gallery in which that one dog was starved" is not very good for business, so I'd take that with a pinch of salt.


Anyway, this does raise some interesting questions: what is it about the circumstances of the dog's supposed death that makes people so angry? Is it because it could've easily been avoided? As Bijou alluded to(I think) quite a few animal deaths could have been avoided if people actually got off their asses and helped feed strays.

Is it because they were actually forced to confront with the reality that there are dogs starving out there in a very direct way? I mean, they must know thousands of dogs are starving out there, but are they really upset about it?

Are humans mostly reactive creatures, prone to shrugging off sad facts saying "this is they way of the world", only to explode in anger when those facts take up a new, unfamiliar form? Would people have really cared if this sort of thing happened since they could remember? If butchering animals for meat was unheard of, and one guy in Costa Rica decided to try it, would it have created such a furor?

Am I asking too many questions? Quite possibly.

It's funny how we care so much about a starving dog but do nothing about homelessness and starvation in America, do nothing about genocide in Africa, do nothing about the the war which so many have lost there lives so some greedy jerk could fill his own pockets with the all mighty dollar, we do nothing about the things that mean the most on this planet, he's showing humanity how misplaced our intentions are, we sit here and scream foul over a dog thats dying which is the same reaction we should all have about animals and human life but most of us blatantly ignore cruelty thats placed against human beings unless its shoved in our face, maybe thats one of the points he was making with his art display.

I totally agree with paper-folding enthusiast

I jus feel people have to be jolted into caring, jolted into discussing the issues of the world, if that wasn't the case we wouldn't have so much inhumanity in society, if it means watching a dog starve and dye to get us to open our hearts then in my eyes that dog didn't die in vain.

it's because people don't like to be confronted with unpleasant realities. as long as it's not staring you in the face, you don't have to think about it, so it's not there. why should you be bothered to do anything about what doesn't exist?

i don't support his actions. i don't think it's right to starve an animal.

however, since it's already been done and it's too late to stop it, i think that the message should be considered. it looks to me as if this dog had been starving for a long time. the artist wasn't responsible for it. i hope that it was fed and nurtured between exhibits (which were reported to last 3 hrs...dogs can go that long without food) and after the exhibits, because if it was that is the only way that i would support this type of display.

apparently he was trying to provoke a violent reaction to draw attention to the plight of the human race - not the canine.

p-f e already answered that question. because what kind of a reaction are we going to get from something that isn't even alive? maybe an iota.

and why would he need to use papier mache when the dog was starving on the streets? i guarantee the dog was in that condition long before the exhibit.

i don't know if he fed the dog, but if he did i really don't see the problem with it.

Xun it's okay if you disagree with me or with anyone here because I believe partially thats what the exhibit is all about, it's about getting people to explore what they feel and explore what they believe is wrong and right and do something about inhumane treatment towards life.

he hasn't confirmed or denied whether the dog died. the owner of the museum claimed that it escaped.

"Q. Is it true that a Central American artist used a starving dog in an art exhibit?

We are aware of this story and have asked our contacts in Central America for more information. According to local animal welfare organizations, the dog was in a state of starvation when he was captured from the street for display in the exhibit. We have also been informed that the dog spent one day in the exhibit and later escaped the gallery. We do not condone the actions of this so-called "artist," and condemn the use of live animals in exhibits such as this. An animal welfare organization in Honduras, where the next art show will be held, is keeping close watch on the case and assures us that the artist will not repeat his objectionable exhibit.

Sadly, thousands of street dogs in Central America are in as poor shape as this one. HSI works throughout the world to prevent the circumstances that allow such a tragic event to take place. We encourage you to learn more about our street animal welfare programs."

http://www.hsus.org/contact_us/humane_society_international.html#Q_dog_artist

I agree with Shaka. Rather unfortunately, art is becoming increasingly driven by narcissistic motives. And that is just a reflection of where this world is headed. Most people's actions today are not motivated by the greater good, but rather by the ego. If PFE is right, that this can be considered art, than one can reasonably say that anything can be considered art, as it's part of the human experience. By the same token, the reaction of an audience to the same dog being burnt alive or a child being beaten while they watch is also art. Where are you going to draw the line? One would hope it is whenever unnecessary suffering is inflicted, but also unfortunately, the line is usually only drawn when a person or those close to them are directly affected. I'm quite sure that if someone you cared about was forced to suffer for the sake of ?art?, you would no longer be advocating for the restraining of judgment. Whatever happened to empathy? And for the record, there are more fundamental things than even art. I worked my way through a similar question when I studied anthropology as an undergrad. While things such as female circumcision and bullfighting have to be understood within the framework of the societies in which they have developed, which is the idea of moral relativism (which I happen to be a proponent of in most cases), at the same time, human culture (as well as products of that culture such as art), are not of supreme importance and should be secondary to the fundamental right of the individual (be it a man, woman, child, or dog). To say otherwise, is biased in it and of itself and involves a different kind of judgment, one that positions the thoughts of the privileged (which is essentially what the artist is as the observer) above even the life of their subject.

In order for someone to understand the motivation behind something, we have to suspend judgment, or the emotional aspect will get in the way of analyzing the "why." If you can't do this, or if you do not choose to do this, then that is fine with me.

PFE, you can understand why a person did something and at the same time work to ensure that it never happens again (it's about placing blame outside of the person and rather, putting it on the circumstances that lead up to this person doing what they did). The holocaust has been studied from many angles, and yet, I guarantee most historians and social scientists would not condone what happened there (and probably dedicate themselves to studying and understanding why the holocaust happened just so such atrocities never happen again).

And I assume that he felt disgusted by the condition of the dog, and so he used the dog to make a bigger statement--a statement that would communicate to others the feeling that he had for the condition of the dog.

Pictures of a starving dog would also have gotten the message across, but how clever the artist was to actually keep the dog tied up just out of reach of food, until days later after suffering excruciating pain, the dog finally (and most likely) starved to death. That was definitely a more effective way of getting his point across .. just as it would be more effective to tie up a starving child as s/he wastes away for the cause of ending poverty in this world. I think I will write to Save the Children and propose this monumental idea. World hunger will be a thing of the past in no time!

250,000 people viewed this exhibit according to an article I read ... and out of those 250,000 people .. not one of them rescued the dog.

A statement about human nature, and our indifference .. doesn't get more profound than that.

We have all seen pictures of the starving, the suffering .. in which has been suggested that this would have gotten the point across to us instead ... certainly, all those 250,000 viewers have seen pictures of the starving and suffering ... so, if they still failed to save the dog, then it would be safe to assume that mere pictures have no effect on humans to bring them to a place of mercy and compassion .. because they all walked by and let the dog die.

The showing of pictures argument is weak ...

250,000 people viewed this exhibit according to an article I read ... and out of those 250,000 people .. not one of them rescued the dog.

Sounds like it was effective then.

Even if it were effective, the ends only justify the means in the minds of a hypocrite, and one who never knew the value of the cause in the first place. You can't say that it's deplorable for a dog to die of starvation, and then be instrumental in allowing a dog to die out of lack of food.

I understand what you're saying, but correspondence bias (or attribution error) wouldn't apply here. Correspondence bias means that one should not cite a person's disposition as the cause of their behavior, when it has already been explained by the situation or environmental factors. This question is entirely different than asking whether the artist performed the act at all. But in terms of the question you're asking, in either case, it's irrelevant. Whether he took an otherwise healthy dog and let it starve to death, or found the dog already starving on the street and continued to let it starve to death, when he could have saved it, doesn't matter. In either case, he was responsible for the dog's death. Now, once we have established whether the artist did or didn't do such and such, we can ask whether our perception of the person's actions is more a result of their internal disposition or whether it is a direct result of environmental factors. One way of discerning which of the two is more likely the case, you just have to ask yourself whether most people, when put in the same situation, would have acted in the same way. And my wager is that most people, upon seeing a dog or person at that extreme state of atrophy, would feed it, and I am absolutely sure that very few people would actually be active agents in letting a dog die of starvation while charging admission for others to see the suffering. That, then, is a result of something internal to that person and would answer the question posed by the theory of correspondence bias. Though, mind you, I am of the opinion that the actions of everyone are, to a degree, a result of environmental factors that have developed from the very moment we are born. H/r we all have to function and relate to one another in a framework of order where respect and altruism should guide our behaviors. Where respect for life is foremost and unconditional.

PFE, with all due respect, every post of yours on this thread, but the last, has been based on the same assumption.

"Yes, it does look like art to me.
The dog was NOT the art.
The process of starving the dog was NOT the art.
Your reaction to the process of starving the dog

We should perhaps go after the art gallery.

Im still wondering where PETA was in all of this...

I'm with you there Lady_M ! Unfortunately though, I don't think there are animal rights laws in Costa Rica making this illegal. Though I think the gallery might have been afraid of the backlash as word got out and that's why they may have claimed (now I'm not saying they did PFE 🙂 ) that the dog didn't die there but rather escaped.

Its funny though how Americans react when a dog dies as oppose to a human life.

Its funny though how Americans react when a dog dies as oppose to a human life.

Why do people automatically draw the conclusion, that in order to care about animals, you have to be a total misanthrope who would walk over a person as they lay dying? I am actually more active in terms of my commitment to helping people (and esp. as it relates to peace building b/c conflict is the source of many more of the worlds humanitarian/environmental crises), but I'm also very concerned about the welfare of animals. We all feel pain and we all have a very limited amount of time on this planet. Why do you have to differentiate? Life is life. What I used to tell my dad when he would hunt is that what may constitute a few meals for you, is the entire life of that animal. Like Gandhi once said ?The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated". And what is especially unnerving to me is when someone helpless is hurt (and children and animals are particularly vulnerable b/c they can't really help themselves).

If you help only animals it can be interpretted as "it's easier to help animals, because they are helpless, and can't argue with my help". It's a matter of control.

huh? Most people when in need of help also wouldn't argue against it.

Now, personally, people who are self-proclaimed animal lovers, and show it by keeping 20+ cats, dogs, fish, parrots etc. in their house strike me personally, as control freaks. Since people are overly intelligent to be controlled like that, it's actually a replacement for that desire to be in control of others lifes. For me, life in wilderness is where I think the animals are happiest. They don't need a human who trives on his desire to be useful to help them live a happy life.

Well, it really depends. I think for a lot of people, having a pet isn't just so they can have control over something. For many, it is the need to give and receive unconditional love and to feel needed. There is a reason why the saying, "a dog is a man's best friend" exists. And for a lot of people who can't or just choose not to have kids, it gives them that sense of fulfillment. Why is that so wrong? And a lot of animals also are happy to be in a loving home, believe it or not. My cat once jumped out the window and I later found her, a few hours later, after running through the streets in torrential rains in my pajamas, hiding under the deck. She was soo relieved that I was there to rescue her from the cold unknown world out there. And when I leave the house, she is right at the door waiting for me when I get home. She is not a substitute for human affection though; I have my friends, family, and b/f. You can love both humans and animals. Why is that so hard to understand?

What Lady_M adressed to, though, was a fad in the USA showing your "humane" side by treating animals right, since we all know it's an easy way out and a replacement for treating humans well.

Well, a lot of Americans are self-involved and can only empathize with those close to them. I believe it was Edward Carr who once wrote that in the US, it takes the deaths of 10,000 Africans, 1,000 Asians and 50 Europeans, yet one American to make the news (I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but you get the point). And it's really sad but true.

animals are killed every day in abbatoirs. We eat them. Yet if someone killed a cow (humanely) in an art gallery and called it art, I'm sure there would be a similar outcry.

People don't like to be confronted with the truth, which why many people can still eat meat. If they actually witnessed or even thought about what the animal went through in order for them to feed on it, they would probably no longer be able to eat the animal. And that is why most of the time, animals are transported from farms to slaughterhouses at night.

By tying up one hungry dog the artist has made people around the world question their views about many things and that has to be a good thing, because it is only by constantly challenging our prejudices that we learn.

But the dog isn't just some thing to be sacrificed. As I mentioned before, the ends never justify the means but in the mind of a hypocrite.

Nicaragua is a country of great dog lovers. They even dress their dogs up and take them to church for a special blessing. At the same time countless dogs roam the streets and die of starvation. I guess this artist was trying to make a point with his "art". If you don't see it then you are blinkered in the same way as the dog lovers of nicaragua who pamper their own pets but kick starving dogs out of the way in the street. I guess it's important to research the origins of the artist and the environment where the exhibition took place.

In the same way, people will give more regard to those they care about, while at the same time, entirely disregarding the feelings and welfare of someone else they don't know, esp. if they happen to be of a different country or culture. It's unfortunately human nature to sympathize with those closest or most similar to you.

oops, the second to last paragraph was meant to be italicized

Art is defined as trying to express something through the arts to an audience. It doesn't have to be good or successful. It is an expression through art regardless of the impact. Saying something is art doesn't mean anything nor does it excuse reprehensible acts. The outcome of the dog is vague so who knows what happened to it but the idea that the artist would subject an innocent dog to portray exactly what If what he's supposed to be against is pathetic and ridiculous.

In the US, we have numerous charities that benefit the hungry/homeless. I have yet to see a starving homeless person. There is no such thing as anyone who wants a free meal in any city can get one. But if he's trying to show how dictators and communist governments kill and starve their people, he failed since he chose a dog. You need a starving North Korean for that with a Kim-Jong-Il impersonator lording over them. But wait, artists love communist dictators like Kim-Jong-Il and oh, Castro. Communist dictators have killed and starved more of their own people than any other regime. But very few people know that or care. His 'art' failed in that respect. He made no real impact on the world if it's just about one dog.

OH JESUS CHRIST!

I can't look at this anymore

My god, that poor dog, how could someone just LOOK at a suffering animal ...

Have we established that as fact? I DON'T believe we have.

You're right. While it does seem pretty conclusive that a dog at the brink of starvation was, at the very least, tied up (for three hours, 5 days or until it died), You're right, we can't prove the dog suffered during this time. In fact, come to think of it, he might actually have quite liked it. Or do you deny the dog, who appeared very hungry in the photos, was tied up without food at all?

What I don't understand is that when given a situation where very little fact is actually known about the situation, why is it that most people assume the worst? What does that say about how we perceive others and does it show a propensity toward believing man is innately evil, as opposed to man is innately good?

It's because we have lived long enough on this planet to know a thing or two about human nature. If you disagree on this point, maybe your experiences or knowledge of the world have not been the same. But all you have to do is pick up a newspaper to see the extent of suffering that people have had no problem unleashing on others.

you can't state "there is no absolute truth to anything", meaning nothing is absolute, without framing your entire argument on this thread around absolutes, then why bother making the statement? You do nothing more than contradict yourself by saying this. It would have helped your argument more if you had simply said that everything is absolute.

That is how all of us go about framing our knowledge of the world, nothing is absolute and is open to modification after the introduction of further information (or proof of the null hypothesis). While most evidence points to the existence of gravity, just because there is the slightest chance that it may not exist, that doesn't mean I'm going to try walking up a wall. We all have to function in the most current framework of contemporary "truths".

Yet for some reason that is considered far more acceptable than this, because we assume that they are being looked after. As this artist made a point of saying the dog was being starved, we again assume the dog somehow suffered more than millions of animals held in captivity around the world. How many chickens are tortured in battery farms and how many chickens have been singled out in the news as one individual victim of sacrifice? It's hypocrisy to be shocked by this and not be equally shocked by the rest - yet people are not sitting here discussing each chicken with the fervour they are discussing this dog. Why? Because the artist has created a challenge to our perceptions.

Whose perceptions? Certainly not mine. I've been involved in animal rights since I can remember, and I've been vegetarian for at least as long.. and I didn't need to see a starving dog to realize, that starving a dog just maybe wasn't right.

In truth the instinct for survival overtakes the tendency to compassion. They say that is why man has an individualist nature - to survive. The survival instinct allows us to separate ourselves from the rest of the world, but in this day and age instead of using it to survive we use it to create the illusion that we are somehow not part of the whole.
Again that is about survival. But in this case the need for the group versus the need to be separate. We create the illusion that others are part of us if they agree with us and there is a strong human need to be part of a group so our views alter over time to fit in.

Actually, this is similar to what I did my graduate studies in. There is a theory that states that belonging to a group fulfills two important functions for humans, the need to be seen as distinct (group identity differentiates members of one group from another) and the need to be part of something larger than oneself as part of the group. But at the same time, human beings have evolved to function at a level that has become more than just survival. Humans have an extra degree of consciousness so that we can make decisions that benefit more than ourselves.

Whatever make you feel better. If it makes you feel good to think that the dog suffered and died at the hand of this man, then so be it.

Aqua_agi. I would never think that. You're too cool to be for torturing dogs unnecessarily. You're just a stubborn aquarius, that's all. But don't worry. I don't hold it against you 😉