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
>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
>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
>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.
>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 ':
>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: 108

Replies to This Discussion

Ah... that's me being sloppy... long day...
No - now that is you NOW being lazy - before you had a point. I just disagreed with it. But you were wrong to confuse the "romantic" with "romanticization" - of that I am sure. A long day for me too.
More anon.
It's not the representation but the magic that I object to, Michael. Master magician Houdini said that magic was a science and and not an art because it had to be both logical and repeateable or else he would be dead - and art was not so - and although he is now dead, I think he was right.

I think cave art is a bit like Latin. Yes, we have a literature and a language but no one can actually say how Latin was spoken, if indeed there was a common parlance. Similarly, we can only speculate as to why our ancestors painted in caves. Speculation is enjoyable - but there is no Hansard - it is just speculation.

I have no problem with non representational art - as long as I can find a narrative. To be honest a bold splash of abstracted colour is as meaningless as a robin in a sunset over a snowscape or the ninth vodka slammer to me. Mea culpa and I know it - I always want the story. But I'd argue - it is in the story or narrative - that you might hope to find just where the image "bounces off the world in some way". I have been arguing for some time with a friend who did his Phd in Critical Theory that art does not need to "disclose" something about life - and that it is actually enough that it reflects it - but "bounces off" will do for me and may resolve the debate. I am meandering. To cut to the chase - as you say, "Re-presentaion" may be a constant. Why such Representation is constantly made by artists may well vary in motive as dictacted by chronology and pyscho- social - political circumstance. Put simply - different strokes for different folks at different times. As you know, I am presently in a geographical vortex of mumbo jumbo and need any confusion between religion and art like a fish needs a bicycle. Finally please note that I was critical of the process of "romanticization ". You defended the "romantic". They are chalk and cheese in my book. Do you take my point? Hope so
I also work in healthcare.

I find that the balance between this and my artwork works for me somehow on an emotional level, even if time is often stretched.

I agree that it is important to keep a balance in the debate, also that the points you raise help to do this.

My point is that even in dire adversity the human spirit will try to soar above the desolation and that if art (or philosophy for that matter) does this, it ceases to be marginal for the person who sees, feels or understands it.

My difference with you could perhaps be mainly one of attitude. But then I do also have less helpful attitudes!
yes, i am sure that art now is so much different from the past... although our thoughts and cultures have been constantly evolving, i still wonder art now is really disconnected from the past... looking at all the collections in galleries and museums, i see a magic, bring all the 'death.' it is the place of a sanctuary. the past isn't far from the present. moreover, we have been asking the same question of what art is for 2000 years... still there are full of replicas of ancient arts.
Yes I agree. The present always contains the past - that's the problem with Time only moving in one direction. We may have been asking the same question as we were 2000 years ago but the answers are different as Time has changed the world. "Shamen" is no longer an accredited occupation. Neither, interestingly is "Poet" - which long ago I tried to put down as my occupation on my passport application - Her Majesty's Government would have none of it! Shame.
I know just what you mean Marina. "Making" to me is very like dreaming - a way of resolving internal issues indirectly. It's the references to "magic" and esoteric religiosities that concern me. I don't even the deny the "magic"- just it's casual acceptance and elevation to some "Higher" level of meaning. It's bad sociology and has nothing to do with art.

Yes. It would be hard to argue with the point you make about the soaring human spirit in the face of dire adversity, without thus disproving my own argument for the apathetic mediocrity of the human soul. So to make my point, I'll agree with you - even though I'm not sure if in so doing, I have bushwacked you or myself or the both of us!!!! There!!!!
I have made no references to magic, and have serious reservations whether sociolology is an intellectual discipline.
No you made no references to magic but this is a thread and I was responding to an earlier post which did make references to magic when you responded to my post. Hence magic. You are not alone in your reservations on sociology. Ethnomethodolgy was its very undoing.
I like magic , That's why we got questions . Magic , spiruality what ever they call . For me it means that we life , being alive . Wondering that there is a galaxcy .That our mind can think . That we not can say what happen tomorrow .
That there are animals , trees , air , water and fire .
So for me is making art even not always to explain .
It is not only a methode .Or a technical thing . Life is beautiful . Art has bring us , to see that beauty .
Art wanna just get magical ,with some energie in it . Wanna show power .Maybe to show our weekness or fear .All to be in communication , because those questions .Even when people are serious or thechnical , they want some wondering , what ; we all can do as Humans ?But don't think now i'm a magier . NO i'm a outsider , looking from the outside .And by seeing , feeling and mind i let it come out as art-work .And this work is for me magical , sometimes don't know how i'm doing it .
Oh Werner
what glorious prose but oh how purple! And magic - you say - "For me it means that we life , being alive . Wondering that there is a galaxcy .That our mind can think . That we not can say what happen tomorrow . " Well that is not what the word "magic" actually means - is it? - and as sanity is as statistical as society, and society does not agree with you - you should rethink.

Your motif of the outsider concerns me. I think it a common self-image amongst artists but don't you think that in contemporary society we are all "alienated" - we are all "outsiders" looking in on each other? So what makes you or me especial? I think the real horror is that we live in a world of outsiders and somehow the artists get to think that they are special and privelaged and somehow different from the "insiders" who don't actually exist. I think that would be kant, hogwash, a distorted mirror and a betrayal of the fundamental and historical function of the artist. Do you agree? Do tell.
yes, i knew you were going to say that... :)
i am sure that we will have thousands different answers to it. actually i am very looking forward to revolving it into an unexpected one. that's why i would like to talk about it. however, i don't even believe all the shaman's tricks, and now no one really believes shamanism. somehow, shamanism is still alive in Joseph Beuys' work and many others'. it has been a great source. on some levels an artist and shaman shares some qualities, showing all the illusions, fantasies, hallucination, and different parts of 'reality.'



My links


© 2020   Created by 4art Media.   Powered by

Links | Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service