4art.com

Creative Global Network for the Visual Arts

whatever are your tastes on art to kill an animal for a performance is not art
Reading darlings, from the
>Magazine Uakix, we are touched enough in our
>sensibility by this received mail this morning
>...... my first impulse to been to send it to mass
>media so that they denounce it on his part. The
>philosophy of Uakix is to show the positive of the
>life, the persons who do good actions, which I
>believe that they are those who more can help to
>this world as it is ..... in a constant
>transformation ....... ....... but there are
>things that if I believe important in putting our
>energy and saying THAT WE LIKE THE BEAUTIFUL AND
>CONSTRUCTIVE THINGS!!, that we do not support the
>atrocities and less with animals or more innocent
>beings, in this case I believe that the role of
>making something positive is ours!.
>
>I ask you for excuses if this mail bothers you but
>I think that sometimes it is necessary to say
>something, and in this case I believe that it is
>possible that with only one signature we could
>say, THAT THIS IS NOT AN ART, WHICH IS AN
>ATROCITY, that in our world this must no have
>capacity .... I tell you:
>
>In the year 2007, Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, a
>supposed artist, took to
>a godforsaken dog of the street, tied it to a very
>short rope in
>wall of a gallery of art and it left it there so
>that he was dying
>slowly of hunger and thirst:
>
>For several days, so much the author of similar
>cruelty as
>visitors of the gallery of art attended impassive
>the agony of the
>poor animal:
>until finally he died of hunger, surely after
>having happened
>for a painful, absurd and incomprehensible
>Calvary.
>
>Does it seem to you strong?
>
>Since that is not quite: the prestigious Central
>American Biennial of Art
>decided, incomprehensibly, that the savagery that
>it had just committed
>this subject was an art, and this way so
>incomprehensible Guillermo
>Vargas Habacuc has been a guest to repeat his
>cruel action in happiness
>Biennial in 2008.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6vP8CgTonQ
>
>
>IT LET'S PREVENT!!!
>
>Sign here: http: // www.petitiononline.com /
>13031953 / (it is no that
>to pay, to register, not nothing dangerous, and it
>is worth it) for
>to send a request and that this man is not
>congratulated not called
>' artist ' for so cruel act, for similar
>insensitivity and enjoyment
>with the foreign pain.
>
>
>It is very easy, 10 seconds are taken and it is
>sure, if we lose the time
>forwarding bullshit that nobody believes, well we
>can dedicate a little
>of this time to try to prevent another innocent
>animal from suffering l suffer
>cruelty of this one, and others, sadistic and
>disgusting ' to be a human being ':
>
>IT FORWARDS THIS MESSAGE TO ALL YOUR CONTACTS,
>PLEASE.
>
>
>Pd: if you put the name of the 'artist' in Google
>salt the photos of this poor animal, and surely
>also web pages will go out for you where
>you will be able to confirm it and to see that it
>is true.

Views: 99

Replies to This Discussion

Please, let us not give any attention to that man. Any question about him is already answered and can be googled in millions of articles.
I thought we were discussing artists here, presenting there work as art. And whether or not it is acceptable to use dying or dead animals to make an artwork. Giulio's example is much more to the point.
Artists have been making themselves and others suffer for thousands of years. Everything from Tattoos to ritual circumcision has been discussed as art. If you're getting into the act of using words, of working with ideas, you have to accept that people will have ideas that you do not agree with.

The word "art" is very close to the word "creation" or the word "idea." It encompasses such a huge amount of substance, both physical and ethereal, and does not conform well to absolute statements.

If you want to make moral judgments about it, about things it describes or encompasses, feel free, but I think it's problematic to make definitive statements about the nature of it.

On the subject of whether Hitler's actions could be classified as something commonly understood of as art, I'm inclined to say no: He did not intend them as such. However, there are philosophers who would state that every human action since the dawn of sentience has been an artistic action, and I might find it hard to argue with them.

Also, is it true that we really live in such a time when "being smart" seems to be an argument against something? I thought the enlightenment was a few hundred years ago. Sapere aude?

In any case, since Godwin's Law has come into effect here, I'm sort of tired of talking on this subject.
Suggesting that the people you're talking to are smart asses isn't really a great way of promoting your points.
I don't know how much dog's they need for lassie but i thought about 50 or 60 dog's maybe it's with some art you see even so ?
To get one star .
Yeh i agree dog or underdog it's still a dog .
If one presents something as art, I will consider it as such. All other things I will only consider as such while in certain states of extreme musing. The separations I make are only for my own convenience, I find it hard enough to find the time to examine the acts and works that people consider art, let alone all acts and all works of human kind.

I certainly do digress from time to time, however, almost every thing in this existence is something I could find some interest in, and I see no reason to be ashamed of my curiosity.

In this discussion I have had absolutely no intention of "dressing it up," rather, I try to clarify my views in an attempt to get to the bottom of things. This may fail, of course, since it is quite possible that art has no "bottom." That may be my final take on it all, for now. The pursuit of some finite "right" or definition is a very modern, very western take on things... perhaps I should pull a page from eastern philosophies and allow all things to be all things, and every opinion to be truth.
yes, Mike, I did try to clarify myself as to the Stalin quote, but inserted the reply out of order, but have since (I think) mastered the art of responding in the proper order.
Basically I said that the quote was used, basically as sarcasm, and he was a monster, as
history shows us, indifferent to suffering, as long as it promoted his ends
Maybe conceptual art is going in absurdity , and are searching for a new more border concept of extreems .
But loosing the impact of the view of the picture .It's not for the seeing world any-more but just for the mind reaction that it bring's .
But a lot of things are real happening .
I don't see why it shouldn't be stopped. You could even call your act of stopping it art. Or simply stop it without bothering to clarify. I would stop someone from mistreating an animal if I came across it.
hi maybe we can start a dog scene with a line to get out .
Ian
if you are referring to me I agree with you. I don't see why it shouldn't be stopped.
The reason for stopping is simple - the animal is being hurt.
I don't think anyone here disagrees with you - it is a crime.

RSS

Members

My links

Groups

© 2019   Created by 4art Media.   Powered by

Links | Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service