TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Starving animals - Art??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Starving animals - Art??

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
For those who did not hear, an artist from Costa Rica by the name of Guillermo Vargas Habakkuk paid children to catch a dog off of the streets for his installation. He then took the dog, tied it to a gallery wall with no food or water until the dog eventually starved to death. Habakkuk has been invited to repeat this piece for the Central American Biennial of Art 2008, which I believe is to take place in Honduras.


I tried my hardest to write that much as objectively as possible, so what is your opinion of this?
post #2 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteforest View Post
For those who did not hear, an artist from Costa Rica by the name of Guillermo Vargas Habakkuk paid children to catch a dog off of the streets for his installation. He then took the dog, tied it to a gallery wall with no food or water until the dog eventually starved to death. Habakkuk has been invited to repeat this piece for the Central American Biennial of Art 2008, which I believe is to take place in Honduras.


I tried my hardest to write that much as objectively as possible, so what is your opinion of this?
Yes I have seen this! And it breaks my heart!!! I did read on a blog that he is trying to make a point because there is thousands of starving dogs that die there in Costa Rica and he was just proving that people over there simply dont care!!!

I just think its horrible...
post #3 of 19
Thread Starter 
I forgot to add this when I posted the question, but I'm also interest to know where the line is drawn with art. Where do you draw a line between art and political statements? Do you think they are different, or are they the same thing?



I'm very good at being objective, especially when it comes to art, but this one I don't know about. If he was trying to make a statement about the population of strays in Costa Rica, could he have gone about it in a different way and still gotten his point across? He had the option to help the dog, but instead he starved the dog to it's death. But would photographs, or video documentation, or any other medium been as effective? Is he receiving the attention for this piece for the reason in which he [claims was] indented, or has the message been lost all together? Will the impact of this piece have an influence on people's views of the stray animal population, or just on his potential future repeat of this installation?

To be honest, I don't think another medium would have gotten his point across as strongly as this, but I'm not sure that it will make a difference for the homeless animals in Costa Rica either. This story and this installation has only reached as many people as it has because anyone with a place in their heart for animals cannot believe the cruelty involved, or what kind of sick person would do this (and don't get me wrong, I'm appalled by this as well). People are concerned only with not allowing this installation to be repeated. Do I think this should be allowed to be repeated, let alone encouraged to be repeated? Absolutely not. I think if his concern was in helping the stray dogs, he could have taken a different approach. I'm afraid that the only "good" that could have possibly come from this will be lost.
post #4 of 19
If there are so many starving dogs in Costa Rica, he could surely have found one already dead to use!!!
If he really wanted to make a strong statement, why didn't he starve himself and takes pics of himself.
Bottom line, his work is a major crime against one of God's creatures
post #5 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsknowme View Post
If there are so many starving dogs in Costa Rica, he could surely have found one already dead to use!!!
No kidding!!!! People like him make me SICK! The next thing that's going to happen is that people are going to say, "I didn't MURDER them, I just wanted to make some art!"

post #6 of 19
I agree with everyone. And at least the street dogs have a chance to eat. This one was tied up away from food and just starved to death.
post #7 of 19
So since he a "Artist" trying to see this objectively as possible?
There are not or should not be different sets of rules for right and wrong.
The idiot tortured to death another living animal. For his own Amusement.

the dude is to sick to live among normal people
post #8 of 19
there is nothing objective about this. He is sick and twisted. Anyone who could do that to ANY other living thing deserves an eye for an eye. sick. sick. sick.


edit: there were a lot more colourful words I would have liked to use here to describe this person and the people who allow this, but I don't think the moderators would like this. My point is that this isn't even debatable.
post #9 of 19
Thread Starter 
Nobody has even commented at all on the fact that this installation won and award and is to be repeated again for the Biennial.

[Side note...I completely agree with you all. This "art installation" makes me physically ill. I would like to tie him to a gallery wall and let him starve to death while everyone watches.]
post #10 of 19
Gee, maybe he should collaborate with this artist. They sound like they're cut from the same cloth --- "artists" killing innocent animals to (supposedly) make a twisted "point".
post #11 of 19
"Art" shouldn't hurt another living being, human or animal. What would have happened if he had tied a person to the wall and let him/her starve to death? So, the next axe murder can paint a picture with the blood and call it "art"?

While I do think he got his message across (since we are talking about it on this forum, and I'm sure other people are talking about it), taking pictures of actual strays would have been better, but probably not as affective. In my opinion, he just added to the problem, because instead of helping those poor animals, he starved one on his own.
post #12 of 19
True artists are about the gift of creation. As an artist myself I wish I could spit on this man, he just reminds me of another heartless selfish wanna be in need of some attention. Maybe I am just a simple un cultured, uneducated girl, but I just don't get it.
A good artist doesn't have to use shock value to get noticed. Talent is the honorable way.
If he is trying to evoke powerful emotions in people, he should take photographs..but wait, photo equipment is alot more expensive than not feeding a poor helpless dog, huh?
Jerkoff.
post #13 of 19
Dont tell me that is true?

I once read of an installation artist that bored holes in his head with a drill until he died. People just watched him kill himself.

The world is a scarry place, run and hide!
post #14 of 19
Cruel...plain and simple...
post #15 of 19
I read about this a few days ago! I love good art, but to me, this is not art! It's just cruel. Starving an animal to death is in no way considered as "art" to me.

post #16 of 19
I was as shocked when I first got that email a few weeks ago, then went and looked it up on Snopes. According to their research, he picked up a starving dog from the street, tied it up during the day, then fed and watered the animal during the evening, when the show was closed. According to the gallery, the dog didn't die, but simply managed to escape at the end of the "exhibition". I thought it was still way too cruel, but at least nobody sat there watching the dog die, I guess. What I don't understand is that even just tying up a dog during the day with no food or water is at the very least neglect, and probably cruelty to animals. You'd think this would be a punishable crime, call it art or whatever other name you want to come up with...

Oh, and Snopes did mention that while he was invited to the biannelle in 2008, it won't be with the same exhibition, but something different (and hopefully not related to animals!).
post #17 of 19
There is even more to it that that. Do please read this link:
http://thepetextraordinarium.blogspo...d-as-hoax.html

What the artist was trying to do was show what hypocrites his countrymen are. They ignore sick and emaciated dogs if they are on the streets or beaches or begging for food in the local eateries, but get all outraged if the same dog (who is treated better than it would be if left to fend for itself by the way) is in an art gallery. The dog was given food and water, just not during the exhibit.

I was in Costa Rica last month coincidentally and they have a terrible problem with feral dogs. I could tell you stories about what I saw (and post pictures of me feeding dogs) but I'll spare you. But it is incomprehensible what goes on there. I wanted to bring about a half dozen dogs back home with me. But the citizens live with it day in and day out. And even the "wealthier" people seem not to have heard about s/n. In the house next to where we were staying they had about four dogs, one was a bitch in heat, some kind of terrier mix. She was tied up and ALL the neighborhood males were standing in line to take their turns. Every 20 minutes or so the father of the household would come out with a BB gun and drive them off to about 20 ft away. This went on for about 4-5 days. This is one isolated incident, but that was actually a fairly nice home. Made me wonder what goes on among the poor people who have dogs.
post #18 of 19
I heard this was a hoax...

If not though, quite sick and appalling. Unfortunately, alot of things like this go on in the world
post #19 of 19
Hoax or not I still think it's cruel!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Starving animals - Art??