Controversial Dead Dog is Art

J*sus F'ing Christ. That's just inhumane. Imagine the outcry if a starving infant had been tied up. Deliberately causing pain or failing to intervene when you can alleviate pain is not art.

On the other hand (since I like to look at things from all sides), I did appreciate this quote from the artist: "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.”

I think, though, that he could have, should have, and would have been better off making his point another way.

Viva la vida!
http://current.com/items/85088451_better_the_devil_you_...

Did he give the dog any food? That would've been nice, and still could've been part of the art exhibit?

That's really sad :(

How totally callous - and certainly not art.

A better artistic statement would have been to feed the creature and let it remain free.

What a poor attitude on the part of the artist to think he could do that in the name of art.

He should now tie himself up on the street where the street dogs hang out and see what happens.

This is just wrong wrong wrong.

this makes me literally sick to my stomach. you can tell from the pics how sweet this poor dog was. how barbaric. i hope we all sign the petition; the link is embedded in the article-- here it is again:


http://www.petitiononline.com/13031953/petition.html


i am so overwhelmed by his absolute disregard for this creature's life and his belief that its torture and murder was somehow justifiable because it made a statement about a burglar who was killed by guard dogs.... <cue twilight zone music>

I believe the proper term for this is murder. There is nothing "artistic" about this. If the artist's aim was to make a "statement" one would think that he would possess the creative skills to illustrate his point without torturing an innocent creature. To involve children in this disgusting event is beyond depraved.

um, paying children to chase down a starving dog and then justifying its death as you "exhibit" it as "art" in some twisted belief that it represents our neglect of the impoverished and suffering in the world are enough facts for me to believe that this is completely sadistic lunacy.

This is beyond revolting. How can you justify murdering a creature and calling it art? Should this site even report this? Are we reporting on man's inhumanity or are we providing noteriety to this piece of human filth? I refuse to even glance at these photos. I get that he was trying to make a point, but this is not the way to do it.

Interesting story... the one of a man whose artistic egoism balloons over the very principle on which his art is founded.

This is cutting off the nose to spite the face.

I would prefer to see a person tied up and starved. Now that would be interesting.

This is just another example of how stupid and mean the human animal is.

Thats pretty sick
The dude needs to be locked up
And tied up

Eating Air: The difference is that those people choose to put themselves through that kind of abuse.

Its a dog!! not a person, it doesnt have rights, you cant get it social security, it doesnt even have thumbs. Its sad a dog had to die, but in all its still just a dog.

First I have to say, thedochst, I wouldn't ask you to mind my house plants, much less my dog, or my kid.

I've been to Costa Rica. It's common there to see street dogs kicked. I stayed with a family which had two pet dogs. They were kept locked up in a hovel next to the house most of the time. They were very sweet, as were the kids who played with their dogs. The father and mother treated the dogs as nuisances. If the dogs died, I doubt tears would have been shed, except maybe by the young daughter. It's a great country - no standing military, higher literacy than the US, last time I checked - but the way they treat animals, even pets, is terrible.

thedochst: What does having social security or thumbs have to do with needless suffering?

There was a time when blacks had no rights and could be similarly tortured. Rights involve politics, not necessarily morality.

According to the post by FridaKahloLives, the artist justifies his actions with the following statement, "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.”

This is confusing at best. I would venture to guess that the people who are upset by the dog being starved in the gallery are the same people who are bothered by dogs dying of starvation in the streets. The outrage just intensifies when we witness a person plan to exploit another creature's suffering. It is the reason why murder is punished more severely than negligent homicide.

I am almost more disturbed by the compliance of the visitors to the gallery. When told not to feed (or touch??) the dog, they comply with cocktails in hand. I know the Milgram experiment was contaminated by bad science, but it does bring to mind the horror of people's willingness to follow rules at whatever cost.
Were they that afraid of being accused of censuring an artist's work?

So, what is next? An artist showcases a prostitute being raped with the justification that he is underscoring the hypocracy of people caring more when she is raped in the gallery than when she is raped on the street? Oh, but she has thumbs and a social security number. My bad.

hey jgabel - I'm not sure catching up on pop culture will help you understand whether or not this is art. At its best, art can only exist where 'pop culture' is weak.

Reading over everyone's reactions, it's clear that this piece - however cruel - has had a strong effect on its audience. I wonder how many people who responded here, after calling the artist a "murderer" for his "absolute disregard for this creature's life," actually did something to alleviate the suffering of an animal. Am I to believe that everyone who posted before me is a vegetarian? SPCA members? Donated to PETA?

Before you write off the artist, read his statement. There's nothing cryptic about it, 0friends. Maybe some of the people who came to see the dog WERE animal lovers, but -as you pointed out- they still didn't feed the dog. And that's the sad truth about this piece, about this artist, and about our society: still, no one is feeding the dog.

Gandhi said you could judge a society by the way it treats its animals. This artist may have treated this dog cruelly, but ultimately he won't be the one remembered for letting scores of animals starve or thirst or go extinct. It will be the rest of us.

This was a classic work of art.

Mulcahey,

I'm not sure what your point is about having a strong effect on an audience. Are you saying that his is a worthwhile venture as long as it sparks a debate? I hope that is not your assertion, because it is too close to the way advertisers think about their commercials to be of much value as an argument.

Yes, I'm a vegan, give to PETA and the HSUS, regularly rescue dogs and find homes for them, etc., etc. But, who are you to question the level of commitment of the people who are outraged by this cruel stunt? According to your book of morality, people should not speak out against something unless their actions are 100% in alignment with their opinion. The world would be a silent and passive place if we followed your rules. When were you born? The 1980s?

Question: if I'm tired of living in a world populated with people who have no regard for life, and I tie up one of them and starve him, deny him water then beat his head in with a hammer and shoot him full of holes, can I call it art?

Grakus,

According to Mulcahey, not only can you call it art but you can also live without fear of being labeled a murderer (unless, of course, your accusers can claim that they are working to alleviate human suffering, donating to organizations that fight for human rights, and are never cruel to other humans).

Sorry guys, but I think you're still missing the point here. This isn't a movie meant to entertain you. It's a work of art that targets you and asks you to put what you're seeing in the appropriate social context. Yes, you are watching a dog die, and yes, that is disturbing. But art isn't always polite, and when we put this piece in context - it's exhibited in a country where stray dogs starve in plain sight and domesticated ones are beaten- we realize that there's more to this than simply "That guy killed a dog," however tempting that conclusion is.
I ask about PETA and co. not because it's a prerequisite for an opinion, but because I want to see who, if anyone, has taken the time to put the piece in context, and to think about what the artist is trying to say. As audience members, we owe it to the artist to at least do the work he's asked of us. I know that concept might sound strange, but again, this is not a movie, where we can just sit there and be entertained.
Grakus raises a really good point about the ethics of this work, and unlike most people on this board, he proves that he at least has some concept of the piece. But grakus, we can hyperbolize and decontextualize this until we're blue in the face, and it won't answer the ethical questions posed here. No one beat this dog or shot him. The artist let the dog live a life that's all too similar to those led by many dogs in Nicaragua. The major difference is that most dogs in Nicaragua don't have an audience that feels bad for them. Should we hate the artist for pointing out this hypocrisy? Should we shoot the messenger? I should think not.

Mulcahey,

Do you really think that you are the first person in this discussion to think about the social context of this stunt, to note that art isn't always polite? Didn't your film school teach you it is better to show than tell?

Here is what you seem to be missing: The man (I won't sully the term "artist") who paid children to capture this dog and then tied her/him up to die on the man's terms is one more example of a person who believes he is superior to animals because he has more rights. The man knows he will not be placed in prison for casting this dog in his pseudo snuff film and he is exploiting that legal fact. He is the one who thinks he is involved in a movie. Perhaps he is arrogant enough to think it is a thought-provoking political film. But, he is not simply directing a film. He is taking this REAL dog's last moments and exploiting them (for the sake of all dogs?). As far as cruelty goes, starving on the street with the ability to move around, take cover, and die alone is a far more dignified and gentle death. At the very least, this dog deserved that ending.

What you don't seem to understand is that grakus and others are not employing hyperbole when they make their analogies. They are trying to contextualize the cruelty of this real man's treatment of this real dog; they are acknowledging Guillermo's context and arguing that this event belongs in another context. They are trying to say that this ends doesn't justify this means, whether or not the magical word "art" has been invoked.

I can't say I agree that an animal's lonely death in the back of an alley is any more dignified than a lonely death for an artistic and socially-conscious purpose. It is, however, a death that's easier for the rest of us to ignore. I'm not accusing you, 0friends, of being ignorant of animal suffering. You seem to be very much in touch (and active) with that issue. But I don't think you were the intended audience, and that fact brings us back to the issue of context. Grakus can try to shift it all he wants ('What if he killed 30 Hutus at the height of the Rwandan genocide???'), and to some people that comparison might hold water, but I think those people are seeking a context not for the piece, but for art as a whole. The artist is not a government committing genocide or a quarterback killing dogs for sport. He is not free to act immorally, but his deeds cannot be treated with the same kind of blanket morals which govern politics, sports, entertainment, etc. A lot of people take issue with that. And - to be frank - those people should stick to pop culture.

I don't know if there's anyone still reading this but the two of us, but I found this sponsored link to feed starving animals. One of those "Click this and our sponsor will pay for the rest." I think it's something we can all agree on.
< http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/
home.faces?siteId=3&link=ctg_ars_home_from_
thankyou_back>

Mulcahey,

I don't understand your argument that an artist's deeds cannot be morally treated the same as actions in politics, sports, entertainment. Why? That sounds like a dangerous line of reasoning to me. What if Bush pulls a Duchamp move and says, "This war is a work of art, because I say it is"?

I will visit the link to sponsor.

What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am? (2 Samuel 9:8)
I was an dead dog but chosen by His mercy and grace.

We read in Ephesians 2:1-10: And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

I like to visit the dear people in Costa Rica to share the True Gospel of Salvation with the tract “¿Sabe Usted si DIOS lo Ama?” of Family Radio: http://209.10.202.163/graphical/literature/tracts/frame...

¿ESTÁ USTED LISTO PARA ENCONTRARSE CON DIOS?

Sincerely in Christ,
Cornelis Droog

¿Mande?

i'm very troubled by this whole thing.... could the artist please explain why he chose this method to make the alleged point he was trying to make? ........ could he explain why he chose this method over all other possible methods? ......... it's certainly gut-grabbing, and it seems that his message is, "people here will be upset if i starve this dog, chained up in a public place, but will not be upset if other people in the same country beat dogs, starve them and generally make their brief lives into living hell "because it's a cultural thing here..."..".......... that's the part i'm having trouble with.... maybe he has created more visibility for the horrible treatment of dogs in that culture than he could have in decades of collecting donations and adopting or sheltering dogs????? i kind of doubt it..... i'm for the shelter and adoption direction, myself, and strongly support my wife's local efforts with dog rescue groups......... the sad thing is, every week or every month, some "puppy mill" in our state or county goes belly-up and dozens or scores of vermin-infested, horribly malnourished, mistreated, unhealthy, pregnant or dead dogs need to be taken care of.... and that's often blamed on the "local culture"..... in North Carolina......... and NC isn't unique in the country at all, and many other countries are more cruel and uncaring about dogs and other animals than the US.... a very sad commentary on the human species, altogether, imho...

Plusaf, I'm with you! I'm so sick of people justifying cruel or amoral acts as part of the "culture," especially if that culture is poor or marginalized in some way. I grew up in Texas and witnessed a lot of racism, but I never hear anyone argue that it is acceptable because it is part of the culture. The logic is off: powerful people must be held accountable for acts of cruelty, because their culture is the dominant one and they have gotten away with too much already. But, the disenfranchised can have a pass if they are cruel to animals because they have lost too much of their culture. How patronizing!

the REAL ART that comes from the appreciation of life's creation happens when the artist unties the dog and realizes he cannot continue an installation that defeats its own purpose. But, well, this did not happen.

this is a f...ing disgrace!!! i would do the same to the f....ing twat!!!I happen to save dogs' lives rehoming them and rescuing them from death and I can't understand why all these pretencious arty-farty twats are standing them as if nothing ever happned!! f...ing dickheads!!! this is f...ing sick!!! I wish the f...ing dickhead slow death! I, like many other poeple in Poland, have signed the petition against such acts of cruelty

An artist? NO no no no noooooooooooooo!
Rather a killer, or f...ing idiot!!!!No mercy for such an ass-hol.

Thank you for bringing awareness to this horrific event!

As a practicing artist and having a rescued dog as part of my family, my heart aches. This is not our practice and I truly wonder how this has been allowed to happen.

These are many reasons we need to rescue animals, the difficult issue of being neglected is a major one. To put any animal into harms way for the purpose of one's own gain, it pure madness.

Not good, not good at all. On ther other hand if the artist was starving/sick/near death and someone tied him up to the gallery floor until he died that might have been interesting. Imagine the cries of the art community.