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: 88

Replies to This Discussion

condemn the curators as well!!
Yes, this is cruel, but what about the "curators" of fur-mills, of animal processing plants, of darfur, of war?

Why do we single this act out? What right do we have to condemn a single dog's death when we routinely ignore mass atrocities in front of our faces?

I'm not a vegetarian, is it hypocritical of me?

Don't just react, don't just knee-jerk, Think!
Perhaps the most important part of this issue is that no one freed or fed the dog.

Chris Burden once did a performance where he lay on the floor the gallery, no food, no water, and it only ended when someone placed a glass of water next to him.

Perhaps it's a commentary on the art world that with all the visitors, no one did anything. Perhaps that was the point of this entire thing.

I like to think that I would have freed or fed the dog, and considered it just as valid an artistic act, possibly more so. Perhaps that's what the artist hoped for.... I feel that we are all complacent, silent partners in this offense.
Ian , i like your answer.."lnnocent bystander you' re the biggest R.." Crass the passive spectator.. I bet you the dog didn't die at all...It was all a trick
perhaps you are right
I can not look at the utube - perhaps someone who speaks spanish should ask he or his gallery.
If that is the case-- he tells us about us!!
It's quite possible, I've only heard second and third hand accounts. It's almost not important, it's the idea of someone putting a dog in a gallery to die that we find so horrible. In many ways, this art was "successful" as it has resulted in much discussion.

I wouldn't want to encourage such acts, I don't believe that art should hurt anyone physically, directly profit off the misery of others, but I do believe that one of the important functions of art is to point out the darker side of life so that it may be understood and avoided if need be. I worry when over a million people sign a petition stating that art should only be about the good things, the beauty in life. It's a very one sided view of human expression.

further discussion on aim:

Rin: Right, because art imitates life, art is expression of the psyche. These things are multifaceted. There is no life, no psyche that does not have a dark underbelly.
Rin: And IN LIFE, I don't believe you should hurt anyone physically or profit off the misery of others. So my art would imitate my moral code.
Ian: right. I agree
Rin: Good talk.
Ian: but just as I can't say a murderer doesn't have life, I can't say he doesn't make art either
Ian: I can simply say that I disagree with his art
Rin: Sure.
Ian: and my art might have to be forcefully restraining him from creating further art.
If that is the criteria of 'successful' art then the killing of human beings to meet the socalled "one of the functions of art to point out the darker side of life" is also not at a distance now. Art is an expression of concerns and most certainly such an act will never qualify by any stretch of imagination.
i feel sick of all these kind of stupid actions and so far from humanity and art.
Note that I put "successful" in quotation marks.

I do not condone or support any such violent acts, but I am hard pressed to come up with an absolute concerning human expression. It's still worth examining the motivations behind such acts, even if we disagree with them on every level and want to work to make sure they cannot and will not happen. People still read Mein Kampf in school, do they not?
Let us not encourage the criminalisation art.
I guess I don't think the anger and sentiment that so many people have brought up here has anything to do with whether it is art or not. I don't care about whether it is art or not, and don't think the action nor the fact that a gallery showed it, nor the fact that people viewing the show didn't intervene or interact with the dog means that the act is art. However, it is controversial. But its controversy and the many questions that arise do not have much to do with the isolated issue of the dog's life. I would say that making it a debate and a peition about torture and facism is good because it focuses the attention away from the action as one of making a statement and more about the action. Every person I have read here has said in one way or another that this is fucked up. By deduction the statement the artist is making, or more likely (hopefully), the action he is taking to make staements and raise questions is then is fucked up. If a message is sent to this artist (and anyone else supporting him), that focuses anywhere else but on his action, it is backtracking because it makes him think his cruelity caused doubt and debate versus anger and pain. I repeat, i don't care if it is art to someone else. I think whether it is art or whether it is not art is a seperate discussion from whether it should be re-shown or petitioned. I agree that it does bring up many points about Burden, former pieces, and maybe how, if you put something in a gallery people seem to trust that an authority is taking care of it-but who cares? I could also show that through a lot of other ways that don't kill anything and many people already have.



My links


© 2019   Created by 4art Media.   Powered by

Links | Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service