Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Artist-Leaves-Dog-To-Die-on-Exhibition-Display-82091.shtml

Cue posts about torturing Habacuc to death in three, two, one...

omg they should hang him by his scrotum and pull his intestines out of his anus!!!

If I would meet that guy I would break every bone in his body with a baseball bat, then I'd use a rusty nail to torture him for a few hours, finally poking out his eyes and eardrums. Then I would pour acid on his genitals and hang him by them until they rip off...after that I would impale his ass on a huge and very pointy stake where I would let him starve for 10 days in the hot sun and finally put him in a little pool and get people to urinate and shit on him until he drowns.

Because that's what justice is all about.

...and good morals. you forgot morals.

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1520/artistleavesdogtodieoneoc3.jpg

Those people dont even look like they give a shit, and the artist is copping all the crap for leaving it there to die.

Yeah, I seen the youtube videos of people protesting this kind of stuff.

This isn't art...I don't give two shits what philosophical mumble jumble tries to defend this garbage.

"In any case, except from being a murderer, what is Vargas' artistic contribution to this exhibit? What did he do, what talent did he put on display?"

I'm a fan of some transgressive art. If people are, look up Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano, Pepe Smit...

I only say this because of the quote from the article I selected.

Ok, I'll go out on a limb and say that there is some meaning to be taken from suffering and death. If art is about evoking a response in a viewer, I can think of little else more troubling than watching an innocent animal suffer until death. So, maybe he does have an argument about it being 'art' (what a dumb question anyways).

But, and I'll compare it to Serrano, this is the easiest and least thought out way to do it. Even if we accept that there is some artistic merit to the work, it is so overly uncreative and uninspiring that it should hardly be looked at as quality art. Serrano has a series called "the morgue" where he takes pictures of bodies in a morgue. Some burnt, some violently attacked, etc. It is POWERFUL stuff. Each shot shows painstaking preparation and intention on the part of the artist. In many ways, although the experience of watching something die is probably unique, I feel it addresses many of the points this artist was trying to make. And in this case, not only is it morally and humanely less atrocious, it actually makes for good art.

Then again, he could just be another talentless artist who has to go to extremes to be noticed and then has the nerve to say "look, be awed by my talents, recognize my artistic genius!" When in reality, all he did was tie a dying dog to a lease.

Edit: I couldn't find it, but years ago an American man was found guilty and charged because he tied his dog to a stake and let it starve to death in his backyard, he claimed it was to "teach the dog a lesson". If this guy had said "it's art depicting the suffering of children in Africa.", would it then be okay?

There are several similar stories to the one I mentioned above, here is one I Googled. http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/11136/NY/US/ Art?

There is such a thing as BAD art, and letting a dog die of starvation is defiantly BAD art.

Makes me wonder whats next. Get some Sudanese and Somalis and tie them in art galleries?

Its fair enough that artists need to break boundaries to make an impact but they should do so with respect towards other living things, most espeially creatures.

Originally posted by GCG
Makes me wonder whats next. Get some Sudanese and Somalis and tie them in art galleries?

Its fair enough that artists need to break boundaries to make an impact but they should do so with respect towards other living things, most espeially creatures.

I agree. Once you take a dog off the street, then you have to feed it.

That guy truly is an artist in my opinion. An artist at being a kocksucker.

It might have meant something if it illuminated anyone to suffering. I mean other than watching another living creature suffer to death.

there may be some artistic merit in watching another creature die

I don't think any human gets to take credit for that however...

Originally posted by inimalist
there may be some artistic merit in watching another creature die

I don't agree. Artists are subject to moral behavior before they are granted artistic freedom.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think any human gets to take credit for that however...

I agree.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't agree. Artists are subject to moral behavior before they are granted artistic freedom.


Forget about morals, the dude tied a dying dog to a leash and put it on display, yea, artistic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't agree. Artists are subject to moral behavior before they are granted artistic freedom.


not to drag this into a philosophy of art debate, but my personal opinion is that anything, created by man or not, can be "art", so long as it evokes an emotionally significant and recognized response in the viewer. This can be as simple as aesthetics or as deep as strong emotional reactions. Further, this means that stuff like nature and the sky, in my opinion, can be looked at as art, given I feel art is defined by the viewer rather than the creator (blah, philosophy of art is lame).

In this light, death of any kind can be taken as artistic, as a situation in which you experience a strong and meaningful emotional reaction. I wouldn't equivocate, there is a huge difference between a Picasso and a star filled sky, and I would never presume as a spectator to what Picasso was trying to say with his work, I just feel that there is an openness to the term "art" that allows it to be defined as natural and accidental phenomena, and not just that which receives human intention.

So, the death of an animal has some artistic merit, to me, the same as anything in nature does, so long as it evokes the emotional response. That a person would CAUSE that, yes, I obviously think is immoral, though I hardly think morality is a measure of the artistic quality or merit of a work. Not to cite Serrano for the 3rd time today, but look up his "history of sex" gallery. Some rather "immoral" stuff there, depending on your moral stance, or his work on Klansmen, or the previously mentioned morgue series.

Woot, double post time!

Anyways, for some other proof of offensive/transgressive/"immoral" art, these are by a chick named Pepe Smit. Um, ya, don't look if disturbing stuff bothers you.

http://www.pepesmit.com/content/break.htm
http://www.pepesmit.com/content/fire.htm
http://www.pepesmit.com/content/bedtimestory.htm
http://www.pepesmit.com/content/oneformommy.htm
http://www.pepesmit.com/content/nurse1.htm
http://www.pepesmit.com/content/puzzled.htm

Originally posted by inimalist
not to drag this into a philosophy of art debate, but my personal opinion is that anything, created by man or not, can be "art", so long as it evokes an emotionally significant and recognized response in the viewer. This can be as simple as aesthetics or as deep as strong emotional reactions. Further, this means that stuff like nature and the sky, in my opinion, can be looked at as art, given I feel art is defined by the viewer rather than the creator (blah, philosophy of art is lame).

In this light, death of any kind can be taken as artistic, as a situation in which you experience a strong and meaningful emotional reaction. I wouldn't equivocate, there is a huge difference between a Picasso and a star filled sky, and I would never presume as a spectator to what Picasso was trying to say with his work, I just feel that there is an openness to the term "art" that allows it to be defined as natural and accidental phenomena, and not just that which receives human intention.

So, the death of an animal has some artistic merit, to me, the same as anything in nature does, so long as it evokes the emotional response. That a person would CAUSE that, yes, I obviously think is immoral, though I hardly think morality is a measure of the artistic quality or merit of a work. Not to cite Serrano for the 3rd time today, but look up his "history of sex" gallery. Some rather "immoral" stuff there, depending on your moral stance, or his work on Klansmen, or the previously mentioned morgue series.

I understand your wide interpretation of the word art, but I was using the narrow interpretation that requires a person to manipulate objects or materials to create a new idea that is not exclusive to the objects or materials in question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I understand your wide interpretation of the word art, but I was using the narrow interpretation that requires a person to manipulate objects or materials to create a new idea that is not exclusive to the objects or materials in question.

alright, have at thee!

person manipulates objects - must they have an intent when manipulating? can the intent be utilitarian? must it express an idea? must materials be used? is there a limit on what materials are artistic?

not to press the issue, but you are saying art cannot be spontaneous, cannot be accidental, must express specific meaning and must be novel. I'd argue that modernism challenges most of these exceptionally well, even without arguing that art doesn't require a creator. Unfortunately, given that it is art and not science, when tearing down these barriers, other barriers must also be brought down, for there is no fundamental or objective reason that "art" must have them.

It is for this reason that I feel art is defined not by the artist, but by the observer. For instance, the work in question involved all of the steps alluded to above, so by your own definition, this person is creating immoral art, which is therefore valid art because humans have different views on the treatment of animals. However, as I understand it, the man is not an artist, but, allowing art to happen in a controlled environment. In this way he is ring-leading essentially torture, though the expression in the act he is showing off still exists.

An artist or art should have some measure of skill or mastery, setting it apart from others. Otherwise, someone can take a shit on the floor and declare it art, by their own views. When all it really is is a turd on the floor, no more, no less.

Originally posted by Robtard
An artist or art should have some measure of skill or mastery, setting it apart from others. Otherwise, someone can take a shit on the floor and declare it art, by their own views. When all it really is is a turd on the floor, no more, no less.

Well, if the turd was one of those spiral kind pointed at the tip, then spray painted gold after it dried up, that could arguably be art.

Originally posted by inimalist
alright, have at thee!

person manipulates objects - must they have an intent when manipulating? can the intent be utilitarian? must it express an idea? must materials be used? is there a limit on what materials are artistic?

not to press the issue, but you are saying art cannot be spontaneous, cannot be accidental, must express specific meaning and must be novel. I'd argue that modernism challenges most of these exceptionally well, even without arguing that art doesn't require a creator. Unfortunately, given that it is art and not science, when tearing down these barriers, other barriers must also be brought down, for there is no fundamental or objective reason that "art" must have them.

It is for this reason that I feel art is defined not by the artist, but by the observer. For instance, the work in question involved all of the steps alluded to above, so by your own definition, this person is creating immoral art, which is therefore valid art because humans have different views on the treatment of animals. However, as I understand it, the man is not an artist, but, allowing art to happen in a controlled environment. In this way he is ring-leading essentially torture, though the expression in the act he is showing off still exists.

Spontaneity or randomness maybe the idea, but before the academic world will recognize something as art, it must be a manipulation of icons that create a new idea. At least that is what was drilled into my head over and over again when I was in college. And yes, I have an art degree.

You are correct that something can be immoral, disgusting, and even down right bad and still be art. However, artists are humans first and should be subject to international law that forbids miss treatment of animals.

Originally posted by Robtard
An artist or art should have some measure of skill or mastery, setting it apart from others. Otherwise, someone can take a shit on the floor and declare it art, by their own views. When all it really is is a turd on the floor, no more, no less.

That would be considered a craft, not art.

Art is sooooooooooooooo subjective, arguing about what is or isn't art is rather pointless. Whether what he did was art or not, who gives a shit.

Porn is art....no argument.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Porn is art....no argument.

Only if you put couples into new positions.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Only if you put couples into new positions.

Let's see...Art is suppose to bring out our emotions.....well, Porn can make either disgust or horny....

....Porn is art. 313

Originally posted by Robtard
An artist or art should have some measure of skill or mastery, setting it apart from others. Otherwise, someone can take a shit on the floor and declare it art, by their own views. When all it really is is a turd on the floor, no more, no less.

well, as embarrassing as it might sound, yes, I actually believe that. If someone is emotionally moved by the work (I'd say being pissed that someone shit on your floor does not count) then why not? What distinguishes that emotional power from the emotional power of something more "academic". Andy Warhol did a piece where he and some friends continually urinated on a piece of metal to make it rust.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Spontaneity or randomness maybe the idea, but before the academic world will recognize something as art, it must be a manipulation of icons that create a new idea. At least that is what was drilled into my head over and over again when I was in college. And yes, I have an art degree.

I'll gladly continue arguing my point if you want, but I do understand this is a matter of subjectivity. I also understand that my opinions are not that of the art world, and I'll gladly express my opinions about that too. I think its awesme you have an art degree, and so clearly you would know the matter of "high art" more than I, so ya, I'm both technically out of my league and admitting its all subjective, but ya, I hold by my claims, regardless of whether the art world does

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are correct that something can be immoral, disgusting, and even down right bad and still be art. However, artists are humans first and should be subject to international law that forbids miss treatment of animals.

I never argued he should be above the law, only that he is more of an exhibitor than an artist.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Porn is art....no argument.

no argument

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is such a thing as BAD art, and letting a dog die of starvation is defiantly BAD art. I got a new one, let's let the man die of starvation for some wonderful art.

if he was truly bold and determined to make such a statement he would have done that himself. there is no creativity here. no provocation of thought besides "disgusting". just a cruel and vile act under the guise of sincere poignancy, with the typical pretentious self loving epitaph of the failed 'artist'. he may as well have just taken a shit on the floor. oh wait i think someone already did that.

Originally posted by Schecter
if he was truly bold and determined to make such a statement he would have done that himself. there is no creativity here. no provocation of thought besides "disgusting". just a cruel and vile act under the guise of sincere poignancy, with the typical pretentious self loving epitaph of the failed 'artist'. he may as well have just taken a shit on the floor. oh wait i think someone already did that.

"That" has sort of been done already. Putting a human on exhibition for everyone to observe as "art". They put a model in a glass room on the side of a busy street and she was paid to basically live there, etc. This gent may have wanted to push the envelope even further.


I think abstract art can be lame as f**k.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, as embarrassing as it might sound, yes, I actually believe that. If someone is emotionally moved by the work (I'd say being pissed that someone shit on your floor does not count) then why not? What distinguishes that emotional power from the emotional power of something more "academic". Andy Warhol did a piece where he and some friends continually urinated on a piece of metal to make it rust.



I'll gladly continue arguing my point if you want, but I do understand this is a matter of subjectivity. I also understand that my opinions are not that of the art world, and I'll gladly express my opinions about that too. I think its awesme you have an art degree, and so clearly you would know the matter of "high art" more than I, so ya, I'm both technically out of my league and admitting its all subjective, but ya, I hold by my claims, regardless of whether the art world does



I never argued he should be above the law, only that he is more of an exhibitor than an artist.



no argument

The problem is the definition of the word "art", and I understand what you are saying, and am really not disagreeing with you. I just wanted to give a more academic angel on the topic.

Art = beauty in the eye of the beholder. Is this really subjective, or do I have my definition wrong...paraphrased of course.

If this is beauty in his eyes then he must be a masochist. Is that beauty? Maybe it's just expression. Sick expression.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Art = beauty in the eye of the beholder. Is this really subjective, or do I have my definition wrong...paraphrased of course.

If this is beauty in his eyes then he must be a masochist. Is that beauty?

Beauty in the eye of the beholder? I love this typo.

You eat cats....so there.

Originally posted by Deja~vu

If this is beauty in his eyes then he must be a masochist.

sadist

a masochist would string themselves up for people to see

He might be a a very compassionate masochist.

Well he took pictures of it for people to see...sort of the same, isn't it? Maybe he played with it after it was dead...necrophilia joys.



LOL

Originally posted by Schecter
if he was truly bold and determined to make such a statement he would have done that himself. there is no creativity here. no provocation of thought besides "disgusting". just a cruel and vile act under the guise of sincere poignancy, with the typical pretentious self loving epitaph of the failed 'artist'. he may as well have just taken a shit on the floor. oh wait i think someone already did that.

Hey buddy, that's basically what I said, you just used better vocabulary.