That motherfucking artist is back
 

"In 2007, Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, a so called ‘artist', took a dog from the streets, tied it up to a short rope attached to a wall in an art gallery, and let it slowly dir of hunger and thirst. For various days, the author of this horrible cruelty and the visitors of the gallery were impassible spectators of the poor animal's torture, until it slowly died after an absurd and incomprehensible agony.

Do you think this is cruel?
But the story doesn't end here: the prestigious Biennale Centroamericana of Art has decided, incomprehensibly, that the bestiality committed by the aforementioned individual is art, and in such a way Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat the cruelty at the 2008 Biennale Centroamericanan which will be held in Honduras. LET'S STOP HIM!

Sign here: http://www.petitiononline.com/13031953/petition.html ; you don't have to pay nor register, and its worth doing it so that this man will never be appreciated nor be called an artist for performing such a heinous act, for such an insensitivity and for provoking another beings pain"

I don't know if this is art or not (I remember there was a thread on there about it), but you must stop this motherfucker

the question is this, why did NO ONE, not a worker at the gallery, nor any of the people going in to the gallery, grab a knife and cut down the poor dog?

think about it.

I'd kill the fucker, and give him his notoriety, after cutting down that defenseless dog.

Or just free the dog.
But we should kill him, yeah

or you could shut up and start a petition to end hunger and homelessness among both people and domesticated animals in the poorer war torn regions of latin america.



...but it seems that preventing an artist from provoking thought is a higher priority, so fuck that other stuff, GET THE BAD ARTIST MAN!!!

Even if it is art, it shouldn't be allowed. It's the same thing as saying killing a man and making something cool looking out of his body parts is art.
Personally, I think the guy should have the same thing happen to him as what he did to the dog.

Or both?

Come on, I know that there's some more important stuff, that's obvious. But that does not make weaker causes to ignore totally. As Anngella said, you can do both. As far as I know, by posting this thread I didn't blocked this board so that no one could start a petition to end hunger and homelessness among both people and domesticated animals in the poorer war torn regions of latin america anymore, right?

The whole message of the piece is how comfortable first worlders like yourselves get upset over a dog starving in a gallery than by those dogs and people dying right outside the gallery.

Is one man dying on television more offensive than thousands dying right behind the cameras?

Odd that googling "Biennale Centroamericana" only brings up articles about this 'artist'...

pbradley has a point, definitely
but still
what this cunt did was an unjustifiable act of cruelty

sorry but you were duped.

the dog didn't actually die-- it was a scam to rile up people. at which he succeeded.

well then more power to him. it's still not art.
sorry for my modernist view on this, but some things ARE objective and not subjective.

either way I'd gut the guy. it woudl be fun.

blame the REAL culprits for the stravation and poverty in the third world, their own corrupt poliiticians. the very same people who live in mansions while their countrymen sit in shacks eating garbage and killing children rather than watching them starve

exactly the point the "artist" was trying to make

Cantankerous now suddenly cares about world famine and poverty!

... and then get offended by one dog dying in a gallery.

Since when, to make a "point", are people allowed to kill other animals? At least be decent and kill a human

shut up.

now excuse me, i have to be leaving now because i have a big fucking 22 year old baby to handle.

I thought this thread was about a new release by Prince :(

Regardless of if the dog died or not, what was done to it was still cruel. Making a point doesn't justify cruelty to a completely innocent being. There are other ways he could've gotten the message out to people about animal cruelty (which includes humans).

Spay and neuter your pets, kids, or fluffy gets a razor blade to the throat!

I love this quote so much I am making it my signature.

I keep reading this as "That motherfucking artist is black", and it makes me want to punch you in yr face, you fucking racist.

I keep reading this as "I'm political correct, that can't take a joke", and it makes me want to punch you in yr face, you fucking hippie.

I thought you were going to say that grafitti 'artist' 'Banksy'. I find him a little annoying.

As far as I know, the bodies in said exhibit weren't murdered/tortured. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Murder and torture is something you actively do.

Allowing a dog to starve is something you passively do.

Wow, this is making me want to bust out the Aristotle.

Neglect is still a form of cruelty. Either way, the lives of the humans in the Body Worlds exhibit weren't purposely ended or "hurt" (I can't think of the right word I want to use..) for the exhibit. Again, this is as far as I know.

Prince no longer claims to be an artist. These days he prefers to be called, "The dead dog formerly known as Prince."

i wish people bitched so much about the million iraqi dead since the war started

Again.
Of course it's more important that millions of iraqi died for nothing but the fucking Bush's killing desire, but that doesn't make less important things to forget. Otherwise we could just close every thread in that section of the forum in order to talk about more important things (and then we would close those threads because we would find something even more important, and then...)

all balls. balls i tell you.

this was too ridiculous and i couldn't pass it up

this was too ridiculous and i couldn't pass it up

and deserved a double post.

anngella: do they have a guaranty that all the bodies on the bodies exhibition died of natural causes? and above all, does it make a difference? they are corpses.

i'm not for or against bodies (or even the puppykiller artist, he's just a sick asshole like many others, starting by the current president of the u.s.), but it makes me wonder, just because it's socially acceptable to go see a bunch of human carcasses as art/entertainment is not viewed as bad as, say, work by damien hirst involving dead animals. makes me wonder how long 'til televised executions become the next craze in reality television.

the Body World's exhibit is "entertainment" in the vein that a lecture on art history is entertainment or a visit to a science museum to see dinosaur bones is "entertainment"

that was a wonderful exhibit. anything that allows us humans to understand that in nearly every single respect we are all, each of us, 99.999999% EXACTLY THE SAME is a GREAT thing.

If you get a chance to go go. you will be better off for it.

If you actually took the time to look into this 'story' you would find out that the dog didn't die.
The Humane Society investigated this case and concluded that the dog was actually treated pretty well. Yes it was skinny, but that's because it was a street dog. According to the Humane Society's report the dog wasn't tied up for more than 3 hours at a time, was fed and watered regularly and was released, in good health, at the end of the installation.
Mr Habacuc has produced a very though provoking artwork that shows the hypocrisy in us all. When there are thousands, if not millions of animals and human beings starving to death all over the planet that we conveniently ignore, it is only when faced with the perceived death of an innocent creature as a public exhibition that we are finally wrenched from our apathy to do what? - Sign an online petition for gods sake!? If this story has affected you, why don't you drag yourself away from your PC screen, go out into the big wide world and do something about it.

Although you state that "anyone that actually takes the time to look into this 'story' will discover that the dog did not die." I looked into the story. I still don't know anything definitive.


I found this at the Humane Society website.
http://www.hsus.org/contact_us/human...l#Q_dog_artist

Do you have an alternate link?

Wiki and other pages on the web say something to this effect:
A probe by the Humane Society revealed that the dog was in a state of starvation when it was captured and escaped after one day of captivity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Habacuc_Vargas

And, as far as I can determine, the exhibit lasted for more than one day. So, if the dog ran away in one day, then did he just make arrangements to find and obtain yet another stray dog to take its place, right?
As of yet, I cannot ascertain with any definitive certainty if any dog(s) died or not in connection to the exhibit(s).

At any rate, an animal, an intelligent animal that people normally keep as a pet, is being abused, at least on some level, in the installation. Florya opines that, after all, it's just a dog, and if it the "piece" provokes thought, then it is valid. Maybe so.

I'm still not sure about the validity since far too many "conceptual" works are piles of hodgepodge assembled by "artists" with little to no talent merely for shock value and often to support some half-baked sociopolitical idea.
But I will write that all along I figured that this was probably actually the case, that the dog was simply emaciated beforehand and that the artist did nothing to squash rumors that he was killing the dog when all he was doing is holding it up and suggesting we take a look; and that all the while he was affording the dog some meager sustenance on the sly as it were. Then again, I still don't know what to believe. And owing to the exhibits taking place in other countries, I also did consider that perhaps the guy really is starving stray dogs to death.