I am an Artiste: El Perrito Vive

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

A man who calls himself an artist ties a dog to a wall inside an art gallery. No, you heard me correctly – we're not talking about the night janitor who caught the starving animal littering the front steps of the gallery and decided to vent a lifetime of frustration by pulling off a ridiculously cruel stunt. We're talking about a man who calls himself an artist. His name is Guillermo Vargas Habacuc and the year is 2007. Guillermo is one of the artists taking part in an art exhibition that takes place at a Costa Rican gallery – pompously called "Centro Nacional de la Cultura" (National Center for Culture). He pays a bunch of kids to catch the street dog, which he cruelly baptizes "Natividad" (Spanish for "birth"😉. His aim is to make an artistic statement about the fragility and the misery in which all dogs – indeed, all human beings live, and he achieved just that by letting the dog starve to death tied to a wall, in plain view of the exhibition visitors, some of whom demanded futilely that the dog be released.

On his blog, cruelly entitled "El Perrito Vive" (the little doggy lives), Vargas shamelessly admits that the dog died the day after it was so cruelly "exhibited", but claims that the poor animal was "persecuted" (sic) by other locals and would have been killed anyway. All he did, he says, was to make a show of its death in order to bring home the truth about how all dogs live miserable lives. "I let him die of hunger in the sight of everyone, as if the death of a poor dog was a shameless media show in which nobody does anything but to applaud or to watch disturbed. In the place that the dog was exposed remain a metal cable and a cord. The dog was extremely ill and did not want to eat, so in natural surroundings it would have died anyway; thus they are all poor dogs: sooner or later they die or are killed," the so-called artist brags on his blog.

So I ask you, how is the death of an innocent animal a form of high art? How was this man even allowed to pull off such a cruel stunt in an art gallery – which is aimed to instruct, to promote value, vision, talent, and which pretends to represent a "center for culture"? Vargas didn't just kill the defenseless animal – he made a terrifying spectacle of its death, a show which others watched and some even condoned. But how in the name of Rembrandt and Michelangelo is this art? When did killing become an artistic endeavor? And it's not just the killing – not delivering a blow to the head aimed to put the dog out of its misery (which in itself is an arguable point) - but the whole demeaning and sadistic experience of allowing others to watch. Can't he simply have written a book about the misery of the human condition, like so many others did before him? 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?

The fact is, this "artist" makes some hardened criminals come across as kind and considerate people. Some of you may shrug and say "it's only a dog". It may be so, but the whole act glorifies pointless death, cruelty and ultimately ignorance for the sake of art. It's like shooting someone and then claim it was done for their own good and so that the bloodstained clothes be displayed in an exhibition. The truly shocking part however is that Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been selected to represent Costa Rica in the prestigious "Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008" and repeat his "experiment". Which is, torture, humiliate and kill another dog for the sake of "art". HERE is Guillermo Vargas' blog – and HERE is a link to an online petition to prevent him from attending the event in Honduras. Now let your conscience decide whether it's a worthwhile cause or not.

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.

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

"make an artistic statement about the fragility and the misery in which all dogs – indeed, all human beings live"

What a talentless moron, he should have his ass kicked just for that.

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.