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: 88

Replies to This Discussion

"If this performings Art are Art, Art dead with the dog"
I say: I do not like people or animals being tortured.

Devil's advocate says:
"Quote:
"Hello everyone. My name is Guillermo Habacuc Vargas. I am 50 years old [Remark: The "artist" is indeed about 30 years old, more real data about him over here] and an artist. Recently, I have been critisized for my work titled "Eres lo que lees", which features a dog named Nativity. The purpose of the work was not to cause any type of infliction on the poor, innocent creature, but rather to illustrate a point. In my home city of San Jose, Costa Rica, tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the streets and no one pays them a second thought. Now, if you publicly display one of these starving creatures, such as the case with Nativity, it creates a backlash that brings out a big of hypocrisy in all of us. Nativity was a very sick creature and would have died in the streets anyway.""

Devil's advocate says:
Every visitor is free to try and feed or heal a starving dog.
under the art practice, people justify whatever they do isn't excusable.
i feel really sorry for that there is no real definition of 'art.'
Awful ... not even worth commenting on!
what is lacking in this person's instincts is the fact that he did not see an opportunity
to do Good
Imagine being such a creature, and realize what he is missing, and the fact that he does not
view life as being worth prolonging... it just says a lot about him, yes to walk by a person or
animal in need, all have done that, but to expend any effort upon the dog, such as displaying it,
and that is some type of vicarious voyeuristic, removed detached...horseshit, when he could have
fed it more easily..... and chose to use it to further his own agenda, why NOT do a kindness instead?
That boy has worms in his head
Art is a process of refinement. Such acts show immunity to sensitivity which also means inching towards de-civilisation of mankind.
Prem
Art is a process of refinement. Such acts performed in the name of art show immunity to sensitivity which in other words also mean inching toward the de-civilisation of mankind. Needs to be condemned by one and all
Prem
Someone should tie him to a rail and let his starve to death Justice i would say
I am appalled to hear of this as performance art. This turns my stomache to know that our culture is so depraved! Does this make charles Manson an artist for murder? Perhaps Saddam Hussein could become an artist as well according to this action. We need not be offensive to make a statement against it. I have a house in Honduras and know the corruption of the government while I would hope art could stand for a moral improvement of the culture not show its sad sorry side
None of this matters. The question should not be "Is it art?"- there should be no question at all. Obviously, the concept behind the piece is what was meant to be appreciated- and only opinions toward this controversial concept are relative. The work cannot be denounced as "not art" because it was not created to be art- it was created to reflect the artist's ideas and concepts.
I agree.

It can be horrid, sickening, disgusting, inhumane, etc, but that does not make it "not art."

Whether it should be allowed by law is a separate issue. I believe such acts should be condemned, but they are STILL considered art. Art isn't always right, art isn't always beautiful. This man has created an act that makes him the focus of the feeling, the monster, and our strong responses are the result of his act. Certainly people have gone about doing horrible things with an artistic flair, and many depraved people have thought about their acts as art.

There is room for condemning them as human acts, but we should not brush off the acts themselves, instead we should examine why they have come about, what could cause someone to act, to "create" in such a manner, and wonder what it is about our society that brings such acts into existence... in the same way, with the same amount of caring consideration that we bring to acts and works of great beauty.
Why do people become enraged at one animal in a gallery, under these contexts, yet seem to have no rage over the countless animals dying or waiting to die in horrible ways every day?

We see one act as monstrous, and yet can't comprehend mass acts. It's the same with our reaction to a single horrible murder versus mass homicide, we simply can't comprehend it.

RSS

Members

My links

Groups

© 2019   Created by 4art Media.   Powered by

Links | Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service