Art? I call bull@$@#!

[ArenaBoy]

http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/27...gainst-artist/

I know it's alleged but can someone please tell me how the flying fuck is this art? This is fucking animal abuse FFS! I am usually for art but this just crosses the line.

[CancelMyService]

It does say alleged. It's quite possible that it was designed to elict the exact response you gave it. If the dog really was mistreated then yes, it's abuse and not art.

[FashionLad]

If the dog was tied up all day without food and water, it's abuse. If the dog was, as the artist said, fed and watered by the artist several times a day, then it's not abuse.

And at the same time, I have to agree with what was written at the end... if people suspected abuse, why didn't they do anything to help the dog? I'm a huge animal lover myself, if I felt the dog was being abused I would've done something on the spot. That's me. That's not everyone. I have gone and will continue to go out of my way to help animals.

[FashionLad]

Sorry, double post.

I looked into the matter more.

I'm pissed that the "artist" took a dog that was obviously not in the best health to be set on dispaly for everyone to gawk at.

The part that pisses me off more than anything, people had access to that dog and did nothing to get it out of that sitaution. I would've gone for the save. Throw me in jail, I don't care. I would've done something.

The only element necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

[Sylvia727]

If the guy thought that the suffering of an innocent animal was "art", then I call bullshit and animal cruelty as well. But if the guy wanted to make a statement about human apathy, then I have to agree with him.

He took a stray dog that was obviously in horrible health and tied "her" (I'm calling the dog a female in order to simplify my pronouns) up in an art gallery for three hours. I've seen a picture of the dog - her leash was attached to a line that was about six to eight feet long. In other words, she had room to move around and lie down. Assuming he fed her and didn't deprive her of water - the animal becomes a symbol of all the suffering animals on the streets.

By placing her in a swanky place where sophisticated and influential people go, he was trying to change something. Maybe one of those people will go home from that exibit and donate money, time, or energy to a local animal shelter. Maybe they will support new legislation that helps stray animals. Hell, maybe they'll just stop looking at stray animals as nuisences and start looking at them as creatures in need.

Regardless of what the artist was trying to accomplish, I'm pissed at each and every person who saw that animal's suffering and didn't call the police. Which would be all of them.

[rahmota]

This is the link to the snopes article on it.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp

From the reports I've read it is a bunch of hype and bull that people need to get over. It was a political statement and got the effect that it was meant to.

Besides given the amount of humans that are starving and mistreated in the world getting so hyper bent about 1 dog that was not mistreated only appeared to be is rather patheticand sad in and of itself. Learn the difference between appearance and reality and the world would be a lot better place.

[miffed]

I think many people are missing the point of displaying a dying dog. It was a stray, sick dog that was going to inevitably die and I do think it is quite wrong that the "artist" was just letting the dog die, that is pretty upsetting. But now there are many petitions to save THIS one dog (or the next one, i think, he's been asked to do a similar display elsewhere) and that is where I think the hypocrisy is. The "artist" is exposing the death of a stray dog. No one cared about that dog when it was just a stray on the street, why such a big deal now? Is it because he can do something about it? Come to think of it, anyone in that town could have saved the dog before it was put on display. Little kids were able to capture the dog. People should be protesting the town to save the strays.

I'm upset that there were stray animals around for him to capture. I think that is the "artist's" point, to expose the tragedy of dying strays and the hypocrisy that now people care so much about a dying mangy mutt.

And I think the "artist" is only calling it art to gain attention. But that is also distracting from the point of the display and opening it up for misinterpretation.

[Seshat]

I think it's a tragic depiction of a tragic problem. The problem is called the Bystander Effect, or Kitty Genovese Syndrome.

It happens not just with dogs, of course. But putting a starving and dying human on display wouldn't be permitted.

I think that if I were to do such an 'art' piece (probably not, but let's talk hypotheticals), I'd add a phone line and staff it with student volunteers from the psychology department of the nearest university. And I'd tack a couple of 'flyers' from a 'rescue organisation' onto the piece, as if a concerned bystander had put them there. See how many people called. The psychology lecturers might welcome it as a case study for their students.

I'd also warn the real rescue organisations, and let them have oversight over the welfare of the animal. And give them a donation to more than compensate for the false alarms from the few people who really overcame bystander effect, and for the cost of their oversight.