Horrible animal cruelty for the namesake of "art"

WingedRivers · Divine Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 151

I normally ignore my forwarded messages, but this is just too sick to believe it could be true.

This is the e-mail I received on this sick, disgusting monster:

In 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas 'Habacuc', took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope in an art gallery, and starved him to death for several days, the 'artist' and the visitors of the exhibition watched emotionless the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, until eventually he died. This is not all... the prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of the Central American decided that the 'installation' was actually art, so that Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the biennial of 2008

PLEASE HELP STOP HIM

You can watch a short video about it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cBBudN0_-E&feature=related

It takes a second to help put a stop to animal abuse!

Sign the petition, today;
http://www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition.html

'The word that puts free in freedom and takes the obligation out of love. The word upon which all adventure, all exhilaration, all meaning, all honor depends. The word that molecules recite before bonding. In the beginning was the word and that word was CHOICE.' -Tom Robbins

Opt Out · Divine Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 110

That is really twisted, but I've read some people are arguing the dog didn't die nor did he starve it for days.

According to some people he caught the dog off the streets (or had some kids do it) and the dog was on display for three hours, then he released the dog and gave it water and food.

I think his point was to draw attention to the fact that there is an issue with the dogs dying and starving on the streets and his way of bringing attention to this was to put one in a gallery.

If he had really starved the animal for days to its death, I would certainly say that was cruelty (and be angry), however the circumstances are a little foggy to me. If he really got it off the streets like that, it was starving to begin with.

We don't put animals in galleries, we put them in zoos, pictures (metaphorically speaking) and kennels or cages. I'm not sure what I think of this. If he really did just take the dog off the streets I guess he isn't doing anything worse than a person putting their dog in a kennel while they're gone.

WingedRivers · Divine Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 151

No. The dog had been placed on display and wasn't fed or taken care of at all and then starved to death for "art".

During the exhibition some people called for the release of the puppy, so that the "artist" was refused. The name of the dog was Natividad, and he was left to die of starvation in the face of all, as if the death of a poor dog was a shameless media show in which nobody does nothing but applaud or look puzzled

It wasn't taken care of, wasn't fed or had water, and not even stopped. This isn't a simple case of misinterpretation, otherwise close to [s]920,000[/s] 980,000 people are completely wrong. This animal was taken off of the streets and starved to death.

If he wanted to display death, take fucking pictures of a dog then, not take it off the streets, tie it up, and have people watch the poor thing suffer.

Honestly, if he wanted to be a real artist, then why not feed the dog and show how the poor thing looks from the brink of death then back to health?

People who put dogs into fucking kennels and into cages FEED THEM AND TAKE CARE OF THEM PROPERLY. They don't offer them up to the public to watch them STARVE TO DEATH.

Opt Out · Divine Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 110

Just because a majority of people believe something doesn't always mean it's true. I'm not saying it isn't wrong to starve an animal to death. I'm just not sure about the facts here.

It seems heartless and strange that after supposedly killing this dog the "artist" would be invited back to do the same thing in 2008. My question is, is there any controversy about that "fact". That is to say, was the artists really invited back to do this again in 2008?

To me that seems rather fishy. First of all, the public outrage, second a dead dog in a gallery would surely stink it up. The smell of death can be quite potent. I can't imagine a gallery would not only support an "artist" killing an animal in a horribly cruel way, but also allow one exhibit to potentially ruin the rest of the gallery. Surely other artists would be outraged at such an act as well.

I can't imagine there is a whole board of people that cruel and insensitive.

Personally, no matter what this artist actually did, I would say what he did couldn't be considered art anyway. I am not a person who can make a move when I'm unsure, even remotely. There are enough people who will protest against the artist himself, but then I wonder about the point and aren't there going to be 100 dead dogs starving on the streets anyways? I'm saying what he did was justified, if he indeed killed the dog. His delivery was stupidity in a box.

But sometimes it's the case of people missing the message, because of the curse words. It's the idea of "People are fucking starving to death in Africa" and focusing on the fact that someone said "Fuck" to the general public out loud.

Yes, we should stop this man from cruelly starving animals in galleries, but should we stop animals from starving on the streets? Can we stop animal abuse?

I don't mean to make a deal of it, but as far as this man is concerned, I don't know where I stand on it.

**Nyang** · Asura Joined: 01 Mar 2008 Posts: 15

Opt Out appears to be correct, as far as the Wiki article is concerned. The article also lists multiple sources, which would be a good place to start looking into it if you don't trust Wiki. Personally, given a choice between email forwards and Wikipedia, I'd go with the latter. It also appears that nothing of the sort will be taking place at the Biennial exhibition, and Opt Out is probably right about the sheer improbability of people allowing him to starve a dog to death in a gallery.

I enjoy righteous indignation as much as the next person, but there are obviously people who are misconstruing what actually happened so his actions could be used as a stepladder for their animal rights agendas. That is much more offensive to me than the idea that he may have tied up a dog for three hours to make a point.

The fact that animal rights activists like PETA do things like this are what make me so hesitant to believe stories on clubbing baby seals and whale hunting; everything they do is designed to either shock you into paying attention to them or guilt you into thinking about animal welfare.

WingedRivers · Divine Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 151

Yeah, I can see that now. XD Heh, so over nine hundred thousand people CAN be wrong.

Oooh, nonononono. PETA is a terrorist group in my eyes. That's NOT the right way to go about animal rights.

The thing that really bugs me though is that he still took a random stray dog into an exhibit and called it "art". By that definition, tying up a starving dog, essentially then any bad pet owner can be considered an "artist" for their merit (though a long stretch it can be).

What also I find disturbing is that it's perfectly okay to let this poor dog be viewed by all, then simply released back out onto the streets. We don't do that with people, y'know? And even if we did, we would ASK the homeless, starving guy if he can sit in a corner for three hours, be stared at, then probably would drop off the guy at a food station or whatever. Plus the man could CHOOSE to go into the exhibit.

Personally, as an artist, I'm offended by this guy no matter what. Even if the doggie died or didn't die or was fed or wasn't fed, what he did isn't art. It shouldn't even be remotely called artistic or anything at all. It was a form of animal cruelty, and in retrospect, could've been dangerous to the people there if the dog randomly snapped or bit someone...