But by people who may be mistaken. My point here is that there's a lack of hard evidence and a lot of contradictory statements. It's not enough to make a sound judgement on and the judgements being made may be very unfair. I'm not particularly defending or supporting him - it's not my idea of art anyway - but I refuse to condemn a man on no evidence.lazarus corporation wrote:Absolutely. The picture is being presented as documentary evidence of an animal being starved to death.
If someone showed you a picture of my well cared for family dog surrounded by people but told you that the dog was being starved to death while those people watched, that wouldn't make it a picture of a starving dog and there would be nothing disturbing about it.
If you're saying that, regardless of who took the pictures, they show something that the artist claimed was a depiction of a dog starving to death, well I already said that they just reinforce his point about hypocrisy and are the equivalent of an artist's impression of that scenario, which did not (if we're still accepting that the dog was well treated) actually happen.
So, I'd still argue that the pictures are only disturbing if the dog really was starved to death, which we don't know. Or if you actually think about the point Vargas says he was making, which is meant to be disturbing.