[m1rr0r dash]

Originally Posted by GeneticKiss

From Dictionary.com:

1.the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. 2.the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. 3.a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art. 4.the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture. 5.any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art. 6.(in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story? 7.the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling. 8.the craft or trade using these principles or methods. 9.skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation. 10.a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature. 11.arts, a.(used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences. b.(used with a plural verb) liberal arts. 12.skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature. 13.trickery; cunning: glib and devious art. 14.studied action; artificiality in behavior. 15.an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics. 16.Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

Horribly starving an animal to death is none of those things. It saddens me to think this guy could be praised for this.

you're confusing ethics and aesthetics. there is nothing in any of those definitions that indicates art must be ethical.

to use a less emotionally loaded example: all black oil paint is made from animal bone. this may or may not be ethically wrong, but is irrelevant to the aesthetics of painting. whether a painting that uses black paint is art in the first place is just an absurd question.

as for whether starving a dog in a gallery installation is art, it's frankly just as absurd a question, regardless of how ethically wrong it is. saying that killing a dog in an art exhibit is not art is like saying that testing cosmetics on animals is not testing cosmetics. it's a product of sloppy thinking, and as i said before, fails to address what is wrong with killing a dog in favor of stripping it of some symbolic label. this has the result of making you feel better, but that's about it.