Heartland

There's some brainf*cked bastard out there in Honduras who thinks that letting a dog die under the eyes of museum audience is arts.

In 2007 Guillermo Vargas Habacuc tied a dog he caught in the street to a wall in a museum where it starved to death under the eyes of visitors of that exhibition.
Now that piece of cruelty is to be repeated.
But: There's a petition going on to stop that.
I know, it's only one dog. There's so much cruelty everywhere and so on. There are children weeping and ricebags falling over everywhere. The thing is: Showing that the people generally do care. And don't approve to it.
I wondered if one should start a petiton for an instalation called "Cheap Justice", displaying that artsist knocked out. I'd suggest to sell it for sale for 5 cents. It's about what arts like that is worth. Or that rat's arse of an artist.

Didn't someone once say something about the internet, truth, reason and allergies? I'm assuming the well meaning and intelligent folk of Heartland, not at all known for bleeding heart knee-jerk reactions, will do their own research before putting their name to any petition.

I'd humbly suggest this one might do greater good:

http://www.animalsmatter.org/

there's a lot of it about, sadly.

thankfully, these people are probably some of the best at dealing with it: www.peta.org

The people over there can't that be that arsed about the welfare of the dog.

For one, they'd should e going in as visitors and feeding it.

Two, some one should of broken in by now and 'liberated' it.

or three, caused such a fuss outside to the authorities and harassed the 'artist' into submission that he'd have to stop this heinous crime! Or just simply boycott the exhibition and the venue - then liberate the dog.

I have every sympathy for the dog in question, I'm angry at the artist but I'm more annoyed at the people who are letting this happen and literally standing idly by while this dog suffers before their eyes.


Where the f**k are PETA ?

Petitions smitions... They are about as much use as a 'book of condolence' when some one dies - No f**ker reads them. They are just stored away and when asked the relevant party just admits that they saw it. Then they are 'filed appropriately away' for ever more ( the local land fill normally does the job well)

Action, protest,disruption, outrage.. You will find that the majority of the time that the sword is indeed mightier than the pen.

Yes, I am a card carrying member of PETA, but I'm not bleeding heart at the same time. Some times action do speak louder than words and this is one of those times.

(Did I throw enough cliches there? I do try avoid them like the plague)

Ramone wrote:Petitions smitions... They are about as much use as a 'book of condolence' when some one dies - No f**ker reads them. They are just stored away and when asked the relevant party just admits that they saw it. Then they are 'filed appropriately away' for ever more ( the local land fill normally does the job well)

Action, protest,disruption, outrage.. You will find that the majority of the time that the sword is indeed mightier than the pen.

Yes, I am a card carrying member of PETA, but I'm not bleeding heart at the same time. Some times action do speak louder than words and this is one of those times.

(Did I throw enough cliches there? I do try avoid them like the plague)

(you read dan mathews' book? superb )

More proof that "modern art" is a con-game perpetrated on the gullible?

sultan2075 wrote:More proof that "modern art" is a con-game perpetrated on the gullible?

I would say 'contemporary art' rather than 'modern art' -- modernism was, after all, a distinct art movement with some integrity and thought behind it.

markfiend wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:More proof that "modern art" is a con-game perpetrated on the gullible?

I would say 'contemporary art' rather than 'modern art' -- modernism was, after all, a distinct art movement with some integrity and thought behind it.

And 'contemporary art' is just art made around about now - which includes all art being made by all living artists at the moment everywhere in the world - from tribes people in the Amazon to Japanese caligraphers.

The phrase I think you're all looking for is "the current style of concept art currently prevalent in major Western galleries". But that makes for poor headlines in the Daily Mail et al.

Oh, and, just to get back to the subject, Guillermo Vargas Habacuc is a c**t - inflicting cruelty on animals should never be considered art or entertainment .

Pedant

smiscandlon wrote:I'd humbly suggest this one might do greater good:

http://www.animalsmatter.org/

Yes, my...

..redishly skully thing formerly known as Father

Well, that's what I get for posting before my coffee.

smiscandlon wrote:Didn't someone once say something about the internet, truth, reason and allergies? I'm assuming the well meaning and intelligent folk of Heartland, not at all known for bleeding heart knee-jerk reactions, will do their own research before putting their name to any petition.

Especially as the facts are far from clear.
clicky

In particular, the event is NOT being repeated - his new display is apparently different and doesn't involve dogs.

Some people have asked where PETA etc were - which may be a more pertinent question than they realise. Even (or perhaps especially) in a country with no animal cruelty laws, it beggars belief that no animal activists made any public protest. Considering the story wasn't publicised until a month after it took place, you have to ask precisely what (if anything at all) did take place and why it didn't draw any protests.

I find it particularly interesting that this stray dog, whose only use was supposedly to die for our entertainment, had a name. Either it came with one, in which case it wasn't stray, or it was given one, which seems unlikely if those involved were really so uncaring. Why name a dog that you're only going to kill anyway? I'm not even sure that it looks particularly neglected. It just looks like...a dog.

stufarq wrote:Some people have asked where PETA etc were - which may be a more pertinent question than they realise. Even (or perhaos especially) in a country with no animal cruelty laws, it beggars belief that no animal activists made any public protest.

Perhaps there are no animal activists in Nicaragua? The ethical treatment of animals is a cultural trait and is not universal. There don't seem to be any PETA websites for South American countries (according to the list at http://www.peta.org/other.asp ) so PETA probably don't have a presence there.

Maybe not PETA specifically but I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a handful of actvists. Even ones from abroad, who wouldn't necessarily need the press coverage to get wind of it. Other SA countries - including Costa Rica (the artist's homeland) do have animal cruelty laws.

eotunun wrote:There's some brainf*cked bastard out there in Honduras who thinks that letting a dog die under the eyes of museum audience is arts.

In 2007 Guillermo Vargas Habacuc tied a dog he caught in the street to a wall in a museum where it starved to death under the eyes of visitors of that exhibition.
Now that piece of cruelty is to be repeated.
But: There's a petition going on to stop that.
I know, it's only one dog. There's so much cruelty everywhere and so on. There are children weeping and ricebags falling over everywhere. The thing is: Showing that the people generally do care. And don't approve to it.
I wondered if one should start a petiton for an instalation called "Cheap Justice", displaying that artsist knocked out. I'd suggest to sell it for sale for 5 cents. It's about what arts like that is worth. Or that rat's arse of an artist.

This Tard is an... AssHat!

Is it just me or can anyone else plain-old-fashioned just not even look at this thread? I find that photo and the entire premise of the exhibition intensely disturbing.................................................

mh wrote:Is it just me or can anyone else plain-old-fashioned just not even look at this thread? I find that photo and the entire premise of the exhibition intensely disturbing.................................................

Sadly there are too many people with this attitude..Just look away and hope it all goes away.

And to think I fought a war for people like you..I didn't spend three years fighting the Viet- Con for this..admittedly it was in 1989 and the war had been over for twenty years , but I did my bit!! The locals weren't too happy when I referred to them all as Charlie though and told them none of them knew how to surf ! Bastards

mh wrote:Is it just me or can anyone else plain-old-fashioned just not even look at this thread? I find that photo and the entire premise of the exhibition intensely disturbing.................................................

It depends on what the premise of the exhibition really was.

If, as has been claimed, it was indeed to watch a dog die than of course that's disturbing and unforgivable

If, however, the real premise was, as the artist claimed, to highlight the hypocrisy of people caring about the dog while it was in the exhibition when they would ignore it out on the streets; or, has also been claimed, to show that people would actually come and watch a dog dying in the name of art; and, as the gallery have claimed, the dog was actually well treated and did not die; then it's disturbing for very different reasons and possible laudable.

smiscandlon encouraged us all to research the facts before reacting and, having done so, I'd say they are far from conclusive in either direction but, crucially, no hard evidence has been supplied that the dog was mistreated in any way or that it died.

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.

If you've ever been asked to smuggle millions out of Nigeria, attempted to protect your PC from the Olympic Torch virus or marvelled at the spooky coincidences between the lives and deaths of Lincoln and JFK then you should know to exercise caution with this sort of thing. It may turn out to be true, in which case sign all the petitions you like; but it may turn out to be a lie, in which case you'll end up looking silly, be needlessly clogging up the mail system and will have maligned someone unfairly.

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.

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.

Absolutely. It's most likely just a variation on the Bonsai Kitten theme, but nonetheless the concept itself is quite depraved.

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!

stufarq wrote:

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.

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

There were more pictures giving better evidence of what went on there where I got the infos from. Linky here. I just thought these pics were a bit too harsh for posting them openly on the forum. You are informed now that they are "graphic". Not much left to doubt about, I fear.
The text under the link is in german, by the way.
Looking at the blank spots in the fur tells me that this dog is in a very bad health condition and needs a vet and a soft bed rather than audience around.
I apparently did not give enough info to really make that one a bit clearer.