[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by nicfit

I understand what you mean (the human-animal rights part), but still, I can't see the point in letting the dog starve.
On the streets, yeah, it would have died pretty soon for sure, but say, he could have eaten something from the rubbish piles or wathever.
Bah, most likely I'm tired of guys doing "thought provoking" unnecessarily cruel things claiming they're artist. He could have fed the animal at night (when the exhibition was closed) and more people would have been able to see his "piece" rather than the one-day audience.
If his goal was to let it die and have media talk about that, I find it even stupider actually.
And I'm not really talking about animals right, but about this guy's actions.

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

[m1rr0r dash]

...or herman nitsch

 

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

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i havent heard the squeals on this board. it's always rich-people concerns: how indie are my sneakers, is sonic youth selling out, etc. the tears of the spoiled.

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."

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

ok... what kind of response are you looking for?

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.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by m1rr0r dash

...or herman nitsch

 

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

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.

[m1rr0r dash]

Originally Posted by pbradley

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.

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....

[Tokolosh]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

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.

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.

[pbradley]

"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.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

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."

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?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

"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.

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

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

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.

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?

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

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

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.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

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

but nobody c

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.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

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

You should defend hitmen in the courtroom.

[Tokolosh]

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?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

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.

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.

[ThePits]

Originally Posted by auto-aim

I think they're the same in the scheme of it. The motivations and ultimatly what it's out to achieve... all of that kind of stuff are the same. And i find it strange you saying that because SY are known for blurring the lines between the visual and audeo art - im digressing though. I guess im that kind of person that follows the same rules or ideas for things. I'd explain that more but afraid i'd confuse it. I don't know though do you think if it were a painting of a dying dog during say the renaissance it'd be acceptable?

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

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

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

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

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

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.

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.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

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!!

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.

[avantgarde1]

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.

[Tokolosh]

That's easy coming from someone who detests both.

[auto-aim]

Originally Posted by ThePits

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

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.

[fugazifan]

Originally Posted by avantgarde1

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.

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...