Controversial Dead Dog is Art

J*sus F'ing Christ. That's just inhumane. Imagine the outcry if a starving infant had been tied up. Deliberately causing pain or failing to intervene when you can alleviate pain is not art.

On the other hand (since I like to look at things from all sides), I did appreciate this quote from the artist: "The importance to me is the hypocracy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death.”

I think, though, that he could have, should have, and would have been better off making his point another way.

Viva la vida!
http://current.com/items/85088451_better_the_devil_you_know

Did he give the dog any food? That would've been nice, and still could've been part of the art exhibit?

That's really sad :(

How totally callous - and certainly not art.

A better artistic statement would have been to feed the creature and let it remain free.

What a poor attitude on the part of the artist to think he could do that in the name of art.

He should now tie himself up on the street where the street dogs hang out and see what happens.

This is just wrong wrong wrong.

this makes me literally sick to my stomach. you can tell from the pics how sweet this poor dog was. how barbaric. i hope we all sign the petition; the link is embedded in the article-- here it is again:

http://www.petitiononline.com/13031953/petition.html

i am so overwhelmed by his absolute disregard for this creature's life and his belief that its torture and murder was somehow justifiable because it made a statement about a burglar who was killed by guard dogs.... <cue twilight zone music>

I believe the proper term for this is murder. There is nothing "artistic" about this. If the artist's aim was to make a "statement" one would think that he would possess the creative skills to illustrate his point without torturing an innocent creature. To involve children in this disgusting event is beyond depraved.

um, paying children to chase down a starving dog and then justifying its death as you "exhibit" it as "art" in some twisted belief that it represents our neglect of the impoverished and suffering in the world are enough facts for me to believe that this is completely sadistic lunacy.

This is beyond revolting. How can you justify murdering a creature and calling it art? Should this site even report this? Are we reporting on man's inhumanity or are we providing noteriety to this piece of human filth? I refuse to even glance at these photos. I get that he was trying to make a point, but this is not the way to do it.

Interesting story... the one of a man whose artistic egoism balloons over the very principle on which his art is founded.

This is cutting off the nose to spite the face.

This is just another example of how stupid and mean the human animal is.

Thats pretty sick
The dude needs to be locked up
And tied up

Its a dog!! not a person, it doesnt have rights, you cant get it social security, it doesnt even have thumbs. Its sad a dog had to die, but in all its still just a dog.

First I have to say, thedochst, I wouldn't ask you to mind my house plants, much less my dog, or my kid.

I've been to Costa Rica. It's common there to see street dogs kicked. I stayed with a family which had two pet dogs. They were kept locked up in a hovel next to the house most of the time. They were very sweet, as were the kids who played with their dogs. The father and mother treated the dogs as nuisances. If the dogs died, I doubt tears would have been shed, except maybe by the young daughter. It's a great country - no standing military, higher literacy than the US, last time I checked - but the way they treat animals, even pets, is terrible.

According to the post by FridaKahloLives, the artist justifies his actions with the following statement, "The importance to me is the hypocracy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death.”

This is confusing at best. I would venture to guess that the people who are upset by the dog being starved in the gallery are the same people who are bothered by dogs dying of starvation in the streets. The outrage just intensifies when we witness a person plan to exploit another creature's suffering. It is the reason why murder is punished more severely than negligent homicide.

I am almost more disturbed by the compliance of the visitors to the gallery. When told not to feed (or touch??) the dog, they comply with cocktails in hand. I know the Milgram experiment was contaminated by bad science, but it does bring to mind the horror of people's willingness to follow rules at whatever cost.
Were they that afraid of being accused of censuring an artist's work?

So, what is next? An artist showcases a prostitute being raped with the justification that he is underscoring the hypocracy of people caring more when she is raped in the gallery than when she is raped on the street? Oh, but she has thumbs and a social security number. My bad.

hey jgabel - I'm not sure catching up on pop culture will help you understand whether or not this is art. At its best, art can only exist where 'pop culture' is weak.

Reading over everyone's reactions, it's clear that this piece - however cruel - has had a strong effect on its audience. I wonder how many people who responded here, after calling the artist a "murderer" for his "absolute disregard for this creature's life," actually did something to alleviate the suffering of an animal. Am I to believe that everyone who posted before me is a vegetarian? SPCA members? Donated to PETA?

Before you write off the artist, read his statement. There's nothing cryptic about it, 0friends. Maybe some of the people who came to see the dog WERE animal lovers, but -as you pointed out- they still didn't feed the dog. And that's the sad truth about this piece, about this artist, and about our society: still, no one is feeding the dog.

Gandhi said you could judge a society by the way it treats its animals. This artist may have treated this dog cruelly, but ultimately he won't be the one remembered for letting scores of animals starve or thirst or go extinct. It will be the rest of us.

This was a classic work of art.

Mulcahey,

I'm not sure what your point is about having a strong effect on an audience. Are you saying that his is a worthwhile venture as long as it sparks a debate? I hope that is not your assertion, because it is too close to the way advertisers think about their commercials to be of much value as an argument.

Yes, I'm a vegan, give to PETA and the HSUS, regularly rescue dogs and find homes for them, etc., etc. But, who are you to question the level of commitment of the people who are outraged by this cruel stunt? According to your book of morality, people should not speak out against something unless their actions are 100% in alignment with their opinion. The world would be a silent and passive place if we followed your rules. When were you born? The 1980s?

Question: if I'm tired of living in a world populated with people who have no regard for life, and I tie up one of them and starve him, deny him water then beat his head in with a hammer and shoot him full of holes, can I call it art?

Grakus,

According to Mulcahey, not only can you call it art but you can also live without fear of being labeled a murderer (unless, of course, your accusers can claim that they are working to alleviate human suffering, donating to organizations that fight for human rights, and are never cruel to other humans).

Sorry guys, but I think you're still missing the point here. This isn't a movie meant to entertain you. It's a work of art that targets you and asks you to put what you're seeing in the appropriate social context. Yes, you are watching a dog die, and yes, that is disturbing. But art isn't always polite, and when we put this piece in context - it's exhibited in a country where stray dogs starve in plain sight and domesticated ones are beaten- we realize that there's more to this than simply "That guy killed a dog," however tempting that conclusion is.
I ask about PETA and co. not because it's a prerequisite for an opinion, but because I want to see who, if anyone, has taken the time to put the piece in context, and to think about what the artist is trying to say. As audience members, we owe it to the artist to at least do the work he's asked of us. I know that concept might sound strange, but again, this is not a movie, where we can just sit there and be entertained.
Grakus raises a really good point about the ethics of this work, and unlike most people on this board, he proves that he at least has some concept of the piece. But grakus, we can hyperbolize and decontextualize this until we're blue in the face, and it won't answer the ethical questions posed here. No one beat this dog or shot him. The artist let the dog live a life that's all too similar to those led by many dogs in Nicaragua. The major difference is that most dogs in Nicaragua don't have an audience that feels bad for them. Should we hate the artist for pointing out this hypocrisy? Should we shoot the messenger? I should think not.

Mulcahey,

Do you really think that you are the first person in this discussion to think about the social context of this stunt, to note that art isn't always polite? Didn't your film school teach you it is better to show than tell?

Here is what you seem to be missing: The man (I won't sully the term "artist") who paid children to capture this dog and then tied her/him up to die on the man's terms is one more example of a person who believes he is superior to animals because he has more rights. The man knows he will not be placed in prison for casting this dog in his pseudo snuff film and he is exploiting that legal fact. He is the one who thinks he is involved in a movie. Perhaps he is arrogant enough to think it is a thought-provoking political film. But, he is not simply directing a film. He is taking this REAL dog's last moments and exploiting them (for the sake of all dogs?). As far as cruelty goes, starving on the street with the ability to move around, take cover, and die alone is a far more dignified and gentle death. At the very least, this dog deserved that ending.

What you don't seem to understand is that grakus and others are not employing hyperbole when they make their analogies. They are trying to contextualize the cruelty of this real man's treatment of this real dog; they are acknowledging Guillermo's context and arguing that this event belongs in another context. They are trying to say that this ends doesn't justify this means, whether or not the magical word "art" has been invoked.

I can't say I agree that an animal's lonely death in the back of an alley is any more dignified than a lonely death for an artistic and socially-conscious purpose. It is, however, a death that's easier for the rest of us to ignore. I'm not accusing you, 0friends, of being ignorant of animal suffering. You seem to be very much in touch (and active) with that issue. But I don't think you were the intended audience, and that fact brings us back to the issue of context. Grakus can try to shift it all he wants ('What if he killed 30 Hutus at the height of the Rwandan genocide???'), and to some people that comparison might hold water, but I think those people are seeking a context not for the piece, but for art as a whole. The artist is not a government committing genocide or a quarterback killing dogs for sport. He is not free to act immorally, but his deeds cannot be treated with the same kind of blanket morals which govern politics, sports, entertainment, etc. A lot of people take issue with that. And - to be frank - those people should stick to pop culture.

I don't know if there's anyone still reading this but the two of us, but I found this sponsored link to feed starving animals. One of those "Click this and our sponsor will pay for the rest." I think it's something we can all agree on.
<http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/
home.faces?siteId=3&link=ctg_ars_home_from_
thankyou_back>