well i dont know what exactly was going through his head, but he sure got a lot of attention for it. i understand the sacrifice of the dog to make a point, but i guess the big waste is that it's the dog and not starving central american people who are getting the attention.

on a related note--

lots of jodorowsky fans in this board, and yet nobody has complained about the abundance of dead animals in them. these are not "animal safe" movies. even jodorowsky talks about it in the commentaries.









^^dead & dying rabbits

...or herman nitsch



...or just the fact that black oil paint is made from animal bone...

But the piece posits starving dogs just around the corner. We rich folk are forbidden that awareness. We are only aware of it in the back of our minds. Am I the only one who feels the everpresent guilt come from the shadows when I see third world starvation on the news? You should really listen to my brother (who just returned from the Peace Corp) and I when we get a few drinks in if you really thing we're "always about rich-people concerns."

I'm criticizing the claim that the dog in the gallery is no different from the dogs outside. The fact that the artist gains notoriety from the dying dog is what I'm most disgusted by. He's pointing his finger as he's counting his cash. To put forth something as "art" is to suggest that it is something worthy paying for to see. But once it is patronized, the artist is accusing the audience of hypocrisy for doing so. The hypocrisy is entirely the artist's and by his own words it is not art.

yes.

and violin strings made of animal gut (not really cat)

or what about this board's beloved electric guitars? don't they generate pollution, after all, in their manufacturing and use, hurting millions of innocent creatures in their wake? carbon emissions, toxic materials, rivers & streams, felled trees...

but it's easy to ellicit knee-jerk reactions and round up a lynch mob with pictures of puppies.

what makes you think he's counting his cash? he's an emerging artist, so he's selling his stuff at lowball prices to start with; he does installations so there isn't a lot to sell in the first place - what does he sell? the dog food he glued to the wall? the dead dog? MAYBE some photos of the event IF he's lucky... then the gallery takes its cut, sometimes up to 50% i wouldn't be surprised if he scraped by breaking even... the notoriety is about ALL he got out of this.

...now if you want to take issue with that, be my guest, but the idea that he's got wads of cash is just silly....

The same goes for Michael Haneke and Jörg Buttgereit.

I was always advised by my grandmother that if I buy a rabbit at the butcher,
I should always check to see that either it's head, tail or paws are still attached.
It's difficult to compare it's anatomy to a cats if you're not an expert.

Good call on Nitsch m1rr0r dash.

"Counting his cash" wasn't meant to imply "wads of cash." Sorry if it looked that way but I was shooting for a summary sentence. Profitting in any way regardless of degree from the dying dog is worse than any amount of attention given to it.

ok the first thing is that this was a gallery in nicaragua and there arent only animals but also people starving around the corner. it's not like he kidnapped ome boy' dog-- and the kid who got paid for catching the dog were probably happy to be able to buy a meal (or glue to sniff) with the reward.

another thing you're missing is the point that the sandinista hymn was playing backwards on the installation. a comment on ortega' 2nd term in the nicaraguan presidency?

and the dog was named after a burglar who was torn to pieces by rottweilers-- in the name of property rights.

i mean im not a communist, but when you have rich people surrounded by starving mases, shit is going to happen.

about you and your brother, i didnt understand what you said. who did what to whom?

we all profit from death on a daily basis. watchu talkin about there?

Those are all regional statments that have little to do with the dog and the accusation of hypocrisy. If the dog was named something else and no song playing, would that change the central message of the starving dog?

I'm entirely not arguing in the defense of the regional upper class. I'm not looking at this from a sociological perspective. Art is also to be held philosophically.

I was saying that I don't believe your claim that everyone in this relatively rich society is entirely careless about the starvation and war elsewhere in the world.

You should defend hitmen in the courtroom.

Abusive art isn't new.
Another good example is Jill Greenberg's "End Times", which caused a stir when it was first exhibited.



She deliberately provoked tearful outbursts from children by taking away lollipops she had just given them.

Greenberg titles each piece of "art work" to depict what she says reminded her of the "helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation."

Read how Jill Greenberg answers to the critics who claim she abused toddlers in the name of art.
June/July 2006


Art or Abuse?

1) mang, if you separate an exhibition from it context nothing is left to discuss.

2) politics/philosohpy, how far are they really? and this exhibit was made in central america for central americans. try at least to tactfully understand before judging? avoid knee-jerk reactions.

3) oh yeah your bro-- but he was there, you see. it makes a difference. not this board. disclaimer- i recently bitched here about not being able to attend a show. oh poor me!!

ps-- the "but nobody c" you quoted was a leftover from the paragraph about the guy killed by the dogs. i decided to take it out & it slipped.

If the artist had deliberately let a dog die to do it no

And as you mention painting, the reason sad fucks like this come up with stupid sensationalist ideas like this is usually because they cant paint, have little talent and thrive off of causing controversy

In art, as in the media, we seem increasingly to be living in the age of the pointless celebrity where the only criteria to join this exclusive "club" seems to be to achieve some form of notoriety or outrage in the eyes of the public by some monumental act of socially unacceptable behaviour

The only piece of "art" I wish to see now is this photographer tied up and made to starve to death with the denial of any form of humane intervention

What I am amazed at is what sort of society are we living in where anyone could possibly come up any form of justification for unnecessary cruelty to an animal?

Sickening, truly sickening

I don't believe that that is necessarily true. Most of the best art is inherently moving, at least to me.

If it's to be taken a philosophically, then the circumstance of time and place are irrelevant to the ideas. Of course I most always view art first as philosophical so I see how my argument doesn't apply with regional contexts. But it still holds if the exhibit is meant to be something greater.

What I'm saying though, is that people aren't totally oblivious. We may carry on with our lives but that's because we have to, freezing up does nothing and we don't all have the strength/chances/etc. to change things. I like to think that this causes a great deal of subconscious pain in the most people. Probably not, you're most likely right. I need sleep.

honestly... fuck toddlers lollipops and fuck dead dogs. there are way more important things going on in the world... like, i dunno... actual people dieing, and i think people are a little more important than a domesticated animal. i can't believe this thread is still going & people are still arguing about it.

That's easy coming from someone who detests both.

It's not justification - I've already mentioned that I think its wrong though if people can't take that in, but I'm sorry, the world would just turn out like Animal Farm-esque if you take stances like that.
Its crazy to critisize it as justification just for coming up with a point or argument... But this is a dog also - I'd have no problem killing and eating it myself if I wanted to. That is not saying I condone starving it and I shouldnt have to say that.

what does this even mean?
why has the fact that humans die every day have to do with murdering a helpless animal
i eat meat, almost every day, but i still thinks that its horrid to kill in the name of art.
its a shame that there are so many suffering people in this world, but why cant we have remorse for a dog that was starved to death in a gallery.
so what if it was going to die on the streets, does that give the artists the right to play god and decide that it shalll recieve no more food.
he could have just as well brough it to a vet, or fed it.
i once was walking with this girl and a car ran over a dog, the dog got up and ran away, probably to die in the bushes, and everyone who saw it was really sad, till this shithead came and said
"for humans you wouldnt cry like this, but for a dog you will?"
what can i say, a dog will never cheat you, rape you, start a war, start a genocide, you could beat a dog every day and it will still be loyal to you.
so yeah, i do feel remorse for a dog dying...

painting a wall white or nailing some tinfoil to it (yeah there really is a piece of tinfoil in the modern art museum in paris nailed to a white wall) is not art. it's self-indulgence.
anything to make a quick buck i suppose.

...yeah and john cage didn't make music
and allen ginsberg didn't write poetry
and warehouses aren't architecture, they're building construction
and hollywood doesn't make films, only movies
and mystery novels aren't literature
and america has no culture
and comic books are only for kids
and suvs aren't trucks
and burritos aren't a breakfast food

everything you're saying is null and void

john cage did make music, ginsberg DID write poetry, et al
SUVs are just trucks with a roof
america may be full of assholes but so is every other country in the world and we do have culture you just gotta dig beneath the media's portrayal to find it.
all definitions are debatable and defensible (or is it defendable)
i just don't personally believe that nailing a ball of aluminum to a wall counts as art
thanks for attacking my opinion

ps: no such thing as breakfast food, i'll eat whatever i damn well please for breakfast

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Right now, you could actually go to court and defend reprehensible behaviour by claiming it as art; if you know enough about it...

Then again, that defeats the very purpose of art, which is to challenge the limits and boundaries of human understanding...

i had ice cream for breakfast today
but that shouldn't surprise anyone

I love Ice Cream.
Good bye/.

America has plenty of culture, its just the kind you have to swab and grow in a petri dish

Of course we do!

Dont forget the crumpets

Someone seems a little sensitive today

that is very very wrong. has he been prosecuted for that?

He should have been

And if all you have to do to be an artist is tie a half dead dog to a wall and watch it die, that makes every asshole who has been cruel to an animal an artist too

I wonder if this guy will throw a sack full of kittens in the river for his next exhibit

all this was just fake information.


ACLARACION DE GALERIA CODICE


ACLARACION DE GALERIA CODICEManagua, 19 de octubre Galería Códice desde su creación en 1991, ha promovido las artes visuales centroamericanas, pero especialmente las nicaragüenses, tanto en el nivel nacional, como en el regional e internacional. En Códice han expuesto grandes maestros centroamericanos, así como artistas consolidados y emergentes. Los lenguajes contemporáneos del arte universal también han tenido espacio en Códice, por lo que periódicamente acoge muestras de arte conceptual. Con ese espíritu, el jueves 16 de agosto recién pasado se presentó Exposición No.1, del artista costarricense, Guillermo Vargas, conocido artísticamente como HABACUC. Uno de los trabajos expuestos consistió en presentar a un perro famélico que Habacuc recogió de la calle, y durante la exposición aparecía amarrado con una cuerda de nylon, que a su vez estaba sujeta a otra cuerda que pendía de dos clavos en una esquina de la Galería. Habucuc nombró al perro “Natividad” en homenaje al nicaragüense Natividad Canda (24 años) quien murió devorado por dos perros Rottweiler en un taller de San José, Costa Rica, la madrugada del jueves 10 de noviembre de 2005. El perro permaneció en el local tres días, a partir de las 5 de la tarde del miércoles 15 de agosto. Estuvo suelto todo el tiempo en el patio interior, excepto las 3 horas que duró la muestra, fue alimentado regularmente con comida de perro que el mismo Habucuc trajo. Sorpresivamente, al amanecer del viernes 17, el perro se escapó pasando por las verjas de hierro de la entrada principal del inmueble, mientras el vigilante nocturno quien acababa de alimentarlo limpiaba la acera exterior del mismo. La Galería Códice se reserva el derecho de velar por la calidad de los trabajos expuestos, respetando en todo momento la creatividad del artista y jamás ha pretendido ejercer ningún tipo de censura, siempre y cuando no atenten contra los principios elementales de la ética y mucho menos que impliquen la vida de un ser viviente, sea humano o animal. Yo pensaba quedarme con “Natividad”, pero él prefirió retornar a su propio habitat. Celebro el que tantas personas en el nivel internacional se hayan mostrado molestas por las declaraciones brindadas por Habacuc, en las que sostenía que su intención era dejar morir al perro de inanición, lo que es de su absoluta responsabilidad. Al cumplir con informar la verdad de los hechos, espero que todas esas mismas personas hayan elevado también su voz de repudio cuando Natividad Canda fue devorado por los Rottweiler. Atentamente, Juanita BermúdezDirectoraGalería CódiceManagua, Nicaragua http://www-usa.laprensa.com.ni/archi...ticias/cartas/

http://www.galeriacodice.com/index.php?id=30

awesome. now read, o titheads, read...

I've read about this so-called artist. he was responsible for the cat juggling craze a few years back. sick.

well fuck off

I do not speak spanish.. translate the text please.

i didn't read through the whole htread so i dunno if anyone has mentioned this but, there's some trend where women in high heels step on kitties and small animals and shove their heels down throats etc...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/crushvideo.asp
there's the link to some photos if anyone's daring enough. i couldn't bear to look at more than two of them, i actually started tearing up a bit.

wow, I rarely choose to "turn back" when it comes to disturbing images but that kitten on that page was too cute

*forced myself to look... poor thing, that kitten

"art is anything you can get away with"

maybe so, andy warhol.

except for this! holy shit i didn't even read this before. that is so utterly fucking wrong and evil! because animals can't voice their own opinions shit like this should be 100% illegal, no tolerance.

no no no

it was a fake

a way to get bleeding hearts to say WTF???

while considering the dogs & not the humans

A PLOY

people devoured by rottweilers

PEOPLE EATEN ALIVE BY ROTTWEILERS

PEOPLE EATEN ALIVE BY ROTTWEILERS

PEOPLE EATEN ALIVE BY ROTTWEILERS

that was the point

i'll second that. i can't stand people who care about the welfare of an animal over that of a fellow human being... i'm just incapable of understanding that.