Arts? Yir arse!

[stufarq]

I'd already seen these pictures. Yes, the dog's thin and may have bald patches, although it's not fully clear from the photos, but they don't show the dog being abused. Vargas claims to have got the dog from the streets in the first place (which is the whole point of what he says the exhibition was about), which would account for any ill health. But if he fed it and the animal was looked after, that's hardly abuse. Yes, a vet and a soft bed would have been even better but if Vargas took a dog in off the street and looked after it then that would be better than nothing.

Absolutely. The picture is being presented as documentary evidence of an animal being starved to death.

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.

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.

[eotunun]

If Vargas considers this as making a point about hypocrisy I'd say he totally failed. What this mainly showed was a wave of concern flooding up. Maybe people didn't go to Honduras to free the dog, but going by the premise that the story told about the pictures is true, he's glad I am not a visitor of that "arts" gallery.

It's true that violence against animals is a part of human culture. It's as true that pointless violence against animals is rightfully considerred a crime.
By the way, if your family dog looked like that, I'd do everything to get it into better hands.

[stufarq]

Never said I liked it or agreed with him. Just said that we should stop and find out the facts before making judgements.

[lazarus corporation]

Absolutely. The picture is being presented as documentary evidence of an animal being starved to death.

But by people who may be mistaken.

That doesn't matter. If you're holding up context as the key (which you did) then perception is all.

[stufarq]

Not unless the meaning of "context" has changed:

1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3. Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.
(Dictionary.com)

The picture may be taken out of context or its correct context may have been misrepresented. Context isn't a matter of interpretation, it's the facts that help make something less open to misinterpretation.

The picture that led to this particular strand of the debate doesn't in itself show anything suggestive of abuse and you can't see enough of the dog to judge its physical condition. So the picture itself should only be disturbing if it genuinely is a picture of abuse - which we still don't know. Someone claiming that it's a picture of abuse doesn't change that unless it genuinely is.

[lazarus corporation]

1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

That's exactly my point. The written statement preceding the picture describe it as a dog being starved to death. That's the context that lets us interpret the picture and that makes the picture disturbing.

Context isn't a matter of interpretation, it's the facts that help make something less open to misinterpretation.

No, context isn't "facts". It's signifiers and other additional information surrounding an item of data that are used by the viewer to interpret it. Context is, by very definition, a means to interpretation. The fact that context can be manipulated proves that it cannot in any way be defined as factual.

[stufarq]

2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

However, that point aside, I think we may be considering different contexts here, leading to us consistently misunderstanding each other's point of view.

If I'm reading you correctly now, you're referring to the context in which the picture was originally presented to us (ie the original post), whereas I was talking about the context in which the picture was taken. Nevertheless, that's the whole crux of my argument: if the two are not the same (which we still don't know) then the context the picture was presented in would be mistaken and therefore shouldn't be the one we are concerning ourselves with.

In the end this isn't about what people have said of the picture. It's about what's really going on in the picture, and we don't yet have the facts to determine that.

[lazarus corporation]

the context in which an image is created is unknown except to the creator. The context in which it is presented is paramount.

(this all comes from the semiotics modules in my fine art degree, by the way - we were taught all about these finer points of art and context - indeed, the full name for my BA degree is "BA (Hons) Art and Social Context" - art and context is my speciality).

[stufarq]

Ooh, mention of semiotics always makes me edgy. I'd disagree entirely with that first statement, particularly when the photo in question may not have been created by the artist. But I definitely don't want to get into the complexities of that argument. Especially not with someone who has entire books on the subject and probably knows words that I don't.

My point has nothing to do with art but with the actual facts of the situation and the, er, fact that we don't know them.

If we'd all just seen the picture without being given any information then I doubt anyone would even have passed comment. But, given some information that may or may not be entirely inaccurate, most people seem to be reacting as if that information is correct. Yes, you're right, that particular context has certainly informed people's opinions and an art course would have lots to say about it but, considering what we're actually talking about here, wouldn't that just be a case of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story?

What if I told you that I now had evidence that the picture wasn't even of the exhibition but of another dog entirely? Would the picture still be disturbing?