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

merci de m'avoir prévenue, bien sûr j'ai signé cette pétition, je suis bouleversée
Ah, my brother from another mother!!! ......This is clearly a detestable action which should not be allowed but actually the Nazis did have art and vile and loathesome as it was - it was nothing like this. I think this horror should be both prevented and denounced but I think we should be clear as to why we are doing it - and as it as an action, is both presented as and purports to "Artness" - something dear to us all, it seems - we we must be both clear in our thought and accurate in our terminolgy in denunciation.
Think shit? That'll help us all, I think not. Think.
Was Bueys's exposition of the coyote - " I love America - America loves me?" (was it called?) Art or "not-Art"? Was this not exploitation ? Did that not happen IN America? Where were Animal Rights then? More importantly, what happened to the coyote? Does anybody know?
art? no. stupid, cruel, selfish ego-maniacal, yes.
This is really troubling me. The action is clearly barbaric and wrong and should not be allowed. How normative can I get? But you are right. The reaction is almost as worriesome. My own included. Oh dear me .... but whatever, it has be thought about and HAS TO BE WORTH COMMENTING ON !
I don't really understand the deep meaning of that kind of art but i think that if someone say that it is art i find it nteresting even if i prefer something better for art (morality, thought, mood, social adventure...).
Giulio, I first read of this last evening after receiving your e-mail, and since then have posted several comments, and read all the other postings by members, agreeing with many, and puzzled by a few.
Those that chose to remain intellectualy detached and objective maybe have the ability to separate
their emotions from their rational thought processes, which maybe is the ability of a clear objective
mind. But, it is also indicative of a removal, or disconnection, or indifference to anything which does not
affect the life of that person.
As Stalin said "the death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions, a statistic"
Maybe there can be another reaction and positive consequence from this.
If even a few, who were shocked, horrified and outraged by this event resolve to channel those
emotions into something as far removed and the complete opposite of his cold uninvolvement and
detached non-intervention into the plight of this animal, then the good can outweigh the bad a
thousand times over.
Ok people, DO SOMETHING!!! TODAY !!!
Make a difference, smile at someone whose existence you previously even refused to acknowledge,
wipe a tear, bestow a kind word, take a moment in your fast-paced multi-tasking, warp speed life
to help someone else who is fighting their own battle.
If you dont approve or like the actions if this creature, resolve to be a counter balance
I have a quote somewhere, I will attempt to insert it here:

I sometimes feel appalled at the thought of the sum total of human misery all over the world at the present moment: The millions parted, fretting, wasting in unprofitable days - quite apart from torture, pain, death, bereavement, injustice. If anguish were visible, almost the whole of this benighted planet would be enveloped in a dense dark vapor, shrouded from the amazed vision of the heavens! And the products of it all will be mainly evil - historically considered. But the historic version is, of course, not the only one. All things and all deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their 'causes' and 'effects'. . . All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labors with vast power and perpetual success - in vain: preparing always the soil for unexpected good to sprout in. - J.R.R. Tolkien to his son Christopher, 10 April 1944:

ok, be well, and give it a try!
I am interesting by this discussion but my english is just enough nice to understand and to speak very well about it. But is there an relation between this performance and the animal or sometimes human sacrifices wich are made in the cult of ancient civilisation? And what it means for the people who make that kinds of cult?
It's a good question Vincent but does Pluralism justify cruelty to dumb animals? I suspect we both think not. Can this person use his ethnicity and heritage as an excuse for barbarous cruelty? I do hope not. In which case, Pluralism is problematic. Where does this position leave the images and artifacts of - amongst others - some of the great American cultures - items portraying or associated with sacrifice. Is the product of these cultures now - "Art" or "Non-Art".????
You tell me. I'm befuddled.
Art is art because it is labeled art. Unfortunately in the Hellenistic times we live in, artists feel pressure to come up with new and innovative ways to create attention and reaction. It is sad that people have to stoop so low to try to be understood as an artist. I feel sorry for those who dredge the world trying to find new expression. What does this say about us? What does this say about society?

I read the complete article once I googled it and I found out that the dog who was kept in the back alley-way at night actually escaped through a hole in the fencing. I suspect that someone who felt sorry for the dog allowed it its freedom, most likely someone who worked at the gallery and experienced its suffering firsthand.

I would have gave the dog its freedom but in doing so would I have become part of this gruesome artwork. I don't know. I wonder if the guy who offered Chris Burden the glass of water became part of Burden's piece because he was the conclusion to this formal conceptualist work. Who knows.

Also, a few years back, an artist put goldfish in a row of blenders that were plugged in and people saw this and participated. A couple of goldfish were killed as the consequence. It never ceases to amaze me to what extent egotistical artists will go to to gain attention. It is troubling to think that these same artists who garner attention of this sort are selected to represent artists in general. A few really do spoil the whole process. Ego-maniacal artists are the low man on the totem poles in my opinion and deserve to stay there.
We are a Hellenistic society and I am repeatedly reminded of it.
Yes.... Art but Bad Art and murder - that about sums it up for me. Thanks.

RSS

Members

My links

Groups

© 2019   Created by 4art Media.   Powered by

Links | Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service