lazarus corporation wrote:stufarq wrote:
The picture is only disturbing if the original claim is tue. If not, it's just a picture of a dog and some people. None of the other pictures I've seen show anything different.
Not so. Even if it's all a sensationalist lie made up by the marketer/artist, the picture - which is presented as documentation of the truth -
normalises cruelty to animals.
Surely that depends on who's presenting the picture and what they are presenting it as.
If cruelty actually took place then yes, the pictures depict that cruelty. But if no cruelty took place then they do not. They only
clearly show cruelty if you
say they do ie you need to be told that this is what they depict in order to see it. Otherwise they just show a dog. Whose truth are they documenting? Context is important.
The artist has claimed that he was highlighting humans' hypocritical attitudes towards suffering and also the plight of stray dogs and that no suffering actually took place, which isn't necessarily the same as sensationalism. He has said that he was inspired by the death of Natividad Canda Mairena (hence the name), a Nicaraguan immigrant to Costa Rica (hence the location) whose death in a rottweiler attack was filmed by the media in the presence of police, firefighters and security guards, none of whom did anything to help him. (The firefighters appear to have intervened to separate the dogs after the man was dead.) There are news stories confirming the events.
Does anyone know if the pictures come from the artist himself, the gallery or from people viewing the exhibition (who apparently made no protest)?
If they come from the artist or gallery and we accept the claim that the dog was not mistreated, then the pictures simply reinforce Vargas's point in much the same way as a newspaper might show photos of people starving in order to make the world aware of their plight. Or, indeed, in the way an artist might make a painting of the same.
If the pictures were taken by visitors (and we're still accepting that the dog was well treated) then they only show a dog and any suggestion of suffering is only there because the viewer thinks it is.
In either case, the pictures don't normalise cruelty because the only people presenting them as cruelty are doing so in error. Context is important.
Vargas has also said that he has signed the petition!