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: 90

Replies to This Discussion

Scott - I think Ian was being smart about something you said that was darkly funny and good luck to both of you.
Ian
Godwin's Law is just great. A fundamental truth that I always knew but was never bright enough to verbalize. Thanks for the eductaion. What is great about this site is that, thousands of miles apart we can all learn from each things we'd never have time to discover otherwise. It gives me an ideational context from which to practice. Thanks again for your input, ideas and information.
I see this has generated lots of comment much of which I have not read so forgive me if I repeat what others have said.
leaving aside the obvious cruelty that this exhibition entailed, I wont even comment on the morals or ethics of this I shall leave that to "outraged from Tunbridge Wells" ( for those not familiar with this term its Brit speak for the moral majority).
To get to my point:
I saw this as an allegory for the (British) art scene.
The artist exploited by a lack of funding
Okay its not very illuminating just a random thought really
Is it the height of materialistic life ?
It is clear to me that 'What is Art?' is not the same question as

'What is Justice?'
'What is Truth? or
'What is good?'

The questions might be 'What do you value?'

What would you sacrifice for success?

What is success?'

'What is it you really care about?

It seems to me that financial success is likely to involve ruthlessness somewhere along the line. Is this to be admired?

If not, what are we seeking and where do we expect to arrive?
Unfortionatly I must say it is art.
But therefore I cant say it is OK.

It is art because it is a happening made by an artist person in the purpose to be art.
And he does it to and art crowd. And if the is some kind of controversy it will be considered as an important artwork.
And it is pretty much the todays view of what art is (see the Institutional art theory).
To refer to art as something that should be beautiful or aesthetic miss the fact what been going on at the biennale circuit for the last 10 years.

What´s worrying me is that I think cruelty of this kind, except of being unacceptable in general, is giving the art world a bad name. And not a bad name as good bad, it is bad, as in evil.
Isn’t this kind of art counter productive, isnt it backfirering at the art world?
If you look at the art circuits around the world today, you have to accept that it is also an arena for sociopaths, sadists and people that seem to have a low empathy level in general.

And what is going on in the art community/communities, that let this happen? Why can´t some artist make it an artperformance to free the dog, or call the police? Isn´t this kind of art testing us, whether we will be passive bystanders or will we be active heroes driven by our morality and common sense?
Social psychology studies deal with phenomenas as bystander apathy, bystander intervention, Milgram experiment etc.

I agree fully when Artreview.com member ArtMarketBlog.com point out, about the Nan Goldings child controversy, “I am all for artistic freedom but there has to be a point where common sense and morality come into play”

I understand your frustration over this disgusting act of cruelty you point out. And I totally agree in your anger. But unfortunately it is art with today´s art parameters and art world acceptance..

What we can do, is to show that morality issues also should be a part of the art quality. Not just smartness and the ability to be seen.
I think that it just all brings back to the ancient history of a festival. In ancient times, the festival was the only time for people to get free from a 'taboo.' It was a holy moment to need a pure sacrifice. During the festival, all the acts were ritual, yet it is considered as an art. Back then art wasn't far from religious acts. The ancient people had an experience of art in temple, church, or a sacred place. We all know that a meaning of art came from a word, 'skill.' The western and eastern culture share the same meaning of 'art' as a skill.
In ancient asia, artists had a hard train to obtain the certain level of skills. Sometimes, in order to get a high level of skills, artists usually put a lot of energy and spirit. Even a self-sacrifice was needed. It was a sublimate. But nowadays, we don't need a sacrifice. Back then people actually believed in those acts because it was their religion. However, now people don't go to church and temple as much as before. The irony is that galleries pretend to be a sacred place and resurrect an ancient custom. I want to ask a question of what we believe in art, not just what is art? Why are we doing all this? Once greeks believed in art as a rationality. But Nam June Paik said, "now art is a fraud and entertainment."
Thank you, I feel stupid. You taught me a lesson


"....I want to ask a question of what we believe in art, not just what is art?"

Thanx for helping me on the right track again....sort of had everything figured out. Then you pointed out the obvious which made me realize I kind of left out a couple of thousen years of human history with the art/religion connection....

I will come back when I have considered your words.
I beg to differ. "Art is a fraud and entertainment." and I'd claim it ever was so. The shamen was faking it - which is why we now have modern medicine and you can't get mojo bags on the national health. Alchemy was a fiction. The philosopher's stone a mythtake.

More importantly what art WAS has no connection with what art IS now. The world has changed and art had changed with it. It's function and raison d'etre has changed with the world. It is interesting to speculate as to why primitive man painted bison on cave walls but to my mind, it has bog all to do with Jeff Koons or even Plato. Sorry, but I think the naive romanticization of art does all contemporary artists a dis-service.
Some would say alchemy was an allegory containing pointers to a more profound understanding. The bison on cave walls are likely to have had parallel meanings. Naive romanticization may not be the only alternative to a life which is nasty, brutish and short.

People of many different cultures have aspired to dignity and wisdom against the odds, and have sometimes even inspired the respect of their enemies.

Be suspicious, by all means, of charlatans! But keep an open mind, Mike about the philosophers' stone!
Show me a philosopher' stone that is fit for purpose and I'll agree with you !!!
But I think I am in for a long wait, Marina, and I've already read War and Peace. Art may be magic but magic is not art.

You say : "Naive romanticization may not be the only alternative to a life which is nasty, brutish and short." You make my case and I thank you. I'd go further: naive romanticization is NO alternative to a life which is nasty, brutish and short.

Modern medicine, social reform, decent food and shelter will help. And art? I think it's pretty marginal really and possibly ever was so. I'd just like to keep a sense of balance in the debate and hope you agree?
Mike, I agree with you a large extent here, but I do think that the thing that we do still have in common with the cave painters is the act of 're-presentation'. Like it or not, that is still a fundamental part of most artistic production, even with work which is non-representational. It all reacts to or bounces off the world in some way. I don't think that's necessarily romantic...

RSS

Members

My links

Groups

© 2019   Created by 4art Media.   Powered by

Links | Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service