So called "art"

This sort of thing makes me sick. I cant believe how these pompous fucks can stand around pretending to be interested in art -which is supossed to be about exploring emotions- while showing one of the most henious displays of non feeling Ive ever seen.
I havent posted all of the photsos but Im sure you get the idea.

quote:

---

In the 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, he tied him to a rope in an art gallery, starving him to death.

For several days, the 'artist' and the visitors of the exhibition have watched emotionless the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, until eventually he died.

But this is not all ... the prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of the Central American decided that the 'installation' was actually art, so that Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the biennial of 2008.

Let's STOP HIM!!!!!

Click on the following link :

http://www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition-sign.html

or

http://www.petitiononline.com/13031953/petition.html

or just copy it in your browser to sign a petion to stop him to do it again, then digit the name Guillermo Vargas Habacuc to find the petition to sign.

Please do it.

It's free of charge and it will only take 1 minute to save the life of an innocent creature.

Please also send this e-mail to as many contact as you can... Let's stop him!!!

If you want to double check all the above informations you can google the name of the 'artist' to see all I have just said corresponds to truth.

Thank you

---

yeah i heard about this too. supposedly it was a new dog everyday. and the one that died had a disease. and they got food and water when the gallery closed. thats just what they "said" though. i still signed the petition against it because its fucked up to keep a dog leashed up all day any way. plus i dont believe any of the shit they "say"

Juanita Bermúdez, the director of the Códice Gallery, stated that the animal was fed regularly and was only tied up for three hours on one day before it escaped.[6][7] Vargas himself refused to comment on the fate of the dog,[7][5] but noted that no one tried to free the dog, give it food, call the police, or do anything for the dog.[5] Vargas stated that the exhibit and the surrounding controversy highlight people's hypocrisy because no one cares about a dog that starves to death in the street.[5] In an interview with El Tiempo, Vargas explained that he was inspired by the death of Natividad Canda, an indigent Nicaraguan addict, who was killed by two Rottweilers in Cartago Province, Costa Rica, while being filmed by the news media in the presence of police, firefighters, and security guards.[10]

- Taken from Wikipedia.

Hello everyone. My name is Guillermo Habacuc Vargas. I am 50 years old and an artist. Recently, I have been critisized for my work titled "Eres lo que lees", which features a dog named Nativity. The purpose of the work was not to cause any type of infliction on the poor, innocent creature, but rather to illustrate a point. In my home city of San Jose, Costa Rica, tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the streets and no one pays them a second thought.

Now, if you publicly display one of these starving creatures, such as the case with Nativity, it creates a backlash that brings out a big of hypocrisy in all of us. Nativity was a very sick creature and would have died in the streets anyway.

-Taken from his blog site

Look into something before you criticize something so harshly. He makes a lot of good points.

He took one dog he found on the street. ONE. Tied it up. Didn't feed it, let it starve. He also burned 175 pieces of crack cocaine and an ounce of marijuana while playing the Sandinista anthem backward.

He was making a statement. Did anyone try to feed the dog? No. Did anyone try to untie it? No. Did anyone call animal control? No.

Hypocritical to whine about it, but do nothing about it. And do you understand how many dogs, cats and other animals are on the streets dying of starvation RIGHT NOW? Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, possibly.

He was no only bringing this starving dog and the problem of animals starving DIRECTLY to the public's eye, so they could see it at full force...

He was pointing out the hypocrisy of some people.

If you're going to complain about something like this...and say it's wrong...

Why don't you go save a few hundred dogs from the street? I don't see you doing your part in helping this tragedy.

Because a man tying up a starving, homeless dog and letting it die...

And a dog on the streets by himself starving and dying...

Is pretty much the same thing.

I'm not saying this is a totally good thing. Tying up a dog and letting it starve is wrong. But he was making a statement. He was trying to get good out of it. Everyone who's freaking out about this REALLY needs to back up and take a look at the world. Because if you're going to whine about this one thing...I feel sorry for you when you're really hit with everything that's happening.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

After further reading your post, I find it extraordinarily scandalous.

"For several days, the 'artist' and the visitors of the exhibition have watched emotionless the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, until eventually he died." - part of your post

"Upon conducting a probe, the Humane Society of the United States was informed that the dog was in a state of starvation when it was captured and escaped after one day of captivity; however, the organization also categorically condemned "the use of live animals in exhibits such as this"." -Wikipedia

And before you go scandalizing Wikipedia and saying it's fake, blah blah blah...

http://www.hsus.org/about_us/humane_society_international_hsi/cruelty_is
sues_around_the_world/starving_dog_as_art_42308.html

That's the site claiming the quote. And I suggest your read what you can do TO HELP OTHER DOGS STARVING ON THE STREET, it talks about it at the bottom. I really hope you do everything on that list, since these "pompous fucks pretending to be interested in art make you sick".

And, also, this site has told me that there are not hundreds of thousands of starving animals on the street, like I originally thought, just to give YOU the benefit of the doubt...

THERE ARE MILLIONS. 400 million dogs alone.

The dog wasn't in the exhibit for several days. He was in there for one, and probably only for several hours before he got free somehow.

And the onlookers watched this 'emotionless'? Who are you to claim such things? I'm sure it inflicted tons of emotions in people. It did with me and I wasn't even there.

"But this is not all ... the prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of the Central American decided that the 'installation' was actually art, so that Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the biennial of 2008." - Your post.

I hope he does. Because your views on this are extremely hypocritical and you need to look at yourself and really think about this.

And I'M sick that people like you feel the way you do over this. Your hypocrisy actually sickens me. And so does all the other 2 million people that feel this way.

Last but not least...

"yeah i heard about this too. supposedly it was a new dog everyday. and the one that died had a disease. and they got food and water when the gallery closed. thats just what they "said" though. i still signed the petition against it because its fucked up to keep a dog leashed up all day any way. plus i dont believe any of the shit they "say"" - doom123's post

Read my earlier posts. It wasn't a new dog everyday, that was just the scandalous, hypocritical bleeding hearts influencing your opinion to be more on their side.

And I don't want to further elaborate on your and everyone else's hypocrisy, but if you're going to complain about one dog being tied up for a few hours (read earlier posts) and not do anything for the hundreds of millions animals on the streets, you just need to stop trying to pursue this topic. Because you're extremely hypocritical.

Open your eyes.

Okay, now I'm done.

When I only heard what chained wings posted I was for that side but after hearing the guy's explanation, I think it's kind of genius.

Genius is a very cruel and unusual way... o.o;; but genius none the less... I hate when things like that are right...

That dog was probably damned to begin with, I suppose he really did bring the problem with today directly to the public eye..


It really throws me in a loop.

do not tell me to open my eyes. and dont judge me or "generalize" me. you are the hypocrite. just like on the other thread about hating muslims. you accuse people of being something wrong. just like religion which you hate so dearly, you try and force your opinions on people by calling them hypocritical if they dont share your belief. it makes you seem deeply ignorant. how do you know what i do in my spare time? how do you know that i dont fight for animal rights every day? how can you make these judgments without knowing a single thing about me? and since you are ignorant, i will educate you- i have taken in over 50 stray dogs in the past 15 years. ive either kept them myself or gave them to responsible friends. so i have the right to think that this is wrong. i do my share.

Who are we to think that we deserve the message coming from the death of a dog? That man had no right to force the dog into Martyrdom i think this is just another self centered act by some attention seeking fag artist, who then tries to justify the death of a dog by fabricating some kind of meaning in its death. the dog didn't decide for himself to die did he? once again, that man had no right to decide for that dog that it would die. in no way should any one ever take anybody's life just because they decided to. no matter what "meaning" they draw from it.

This issue has been a very controversial one purely because no one knows for sure the truth surrounding the events. Some call it an urban legend. Some say its a waste of time. Alot argue that any picture can be taken out of context and no one knows for sure what really took place.

But I can only go on what evidence I have before me. And you can only do the same also.

Ask yourslef,

did the event take place?
Yes. There are eyewitness reports, photos, the gallery admits it, and the artist admits it.

Was the dog starving?
Yes.There are eyewitness reports, and the artist admits it.

But heres where it get murky. When questioned about the dogs fate, Vargas and the art gallery stories conflict, and Vargas seems to have changed his story as time has gone on.

On one hand you have the art gallery owner saying the dog was fed regularly. On the other you have Vargas himself claiming the dog was starving and no one fed it. On one hand you have Vargas saying no one tried to free the dog. But on the other you have the gallery saying it "somehow" escaped. On one hand you have Vagus initially refusing to talk to authorities on the fate of the dog at the time. Then you have him telling people he starved the dog to make a point.

More damming is when he says that the dog would have died anyway. This implies that it did die while in his care.

Then you have to ask what was Vargas' real reason for this act of cruelty.

Why was an animals fate somehow part of an exhibition about the politics of the people of Nicaragua? And what would the fate of dogs have to do with his politically motivated art which features drug addiction and Sandinista themes.

quote:

---

In an interview with El Tiempo, Vargas explained that he was inspired by the death of Natividad Canda, an indigent Nicaraguan addict, who was killed by two Rottweilers in Cartago Province, Costa Rica, while being filmed by the news media in the presence of police, firefighters, and security guards.

---

Then there is this statement. You have to decide what makes more sense. Vargas making a statement by tying up a dog and starving it as payback for dogs killing a human; which fits in with the theme of politics. Or somehow the plight of starving dogs being part of Nicaragua's political problems. I know which I choose.

I also think that if Vargas had of been totally up front about what he was starving the dog for, and what it was meant to achieve, he wouldn't have had to issue a statement AFTER people protested at his inhumane treatment. He would have already had his intent well documented and people would be able to reference it.

Why reissue what youve already said? Why not just point people to your original text? Or the exhibitions description of what you were trying to achieve?

Moreso, he is changing his story every five minutes. One minute he's saying he cannot say if the dog died or not. Then, the dog would have died anyway, then, he wanted to do it to remember Mr.Natividad Canda. And then finally... he did the exhibition to show the terrible situation of street dogs.

Given there is so much conflicting evidence and the people involved keep changing their story now the world is up in arms- it seems more likely that this artist was making politically motivated art, and because dogs seem be totally unimportant in Nicaragua (as hes pointed out himslef), he tied up and starved a dog as protest to a man being killed by dogs in his country. (a man gets killed by dogs while people watch. A dog gets killed by a man as people watch.) I think he is more concerned about the people in his country than its homless dogs, and only when the rest of the world criticised him does he change his previous statements and try to put a nice spin on it.

If he really cared about saving dogs he should have made them the centre piece of the display. What does crack, marijuana or Sandinistas have to do with starving dogs. And since he uses the medium of photography so much, he could have gone around photographing the starving dogs instead of chaining one up to die. And he would not have smeared dog food on the wall while a dog sat within meters of it and starved.

These are NOT the actions of a person who cares for the suffering of animals.

As for your personal opinions on this Tazzlyn,

quote:

---

He was making a statement. Did anyone try to feed the dog? No. Did anyone try to untie it? No. Did anyone call animal control? No.

---

So we agree on that. And I have seen a picture that shows a dog suffering on the floor in an art gallery while people stand around talking and drinking and not even bothering to do anything about it. So, YES, they are pompous fucks.
Anyone who can stand around while an animal is clearly suffering in front of them and not do something about it are hardcore pompous fucks.

quote:

---

Why don't you go save a few hundred dogs from the street? I don't see you doing your part in helping this tragedy.

---

And how exactly do you know this? Are you omnipotent? You are making assumptions that really dont colour you in a good light right now.

The thing is, there are not thousands of starving dogs on the streets where I live. What am I meant to do about things that happen in other countries? Well, let me see, I could post what has happened here and let people be aware of it. I could give them the details of a petition to sign to get this thing stopped...

quote:

---

Everyone who's freaking out about this REALLY needs to back up and take a look at the world. Because if you're going to whine about this one thing...I feel sorry for you when you're really hit with everything that's happening.

---

Well actually, last week I was watching a documentary on illegal dog fighting in Europe, and two nights ago I was researching the skinning of animals in China while the animals are still alive.

While other people are watching Survivor, I watch things like that and educate myself on what is really happening. And it takes something away from my spirit eveytime I see stuff like this. And Ive been seeing this sort of stuff for alot longer than you have. And I lay awake at night, the whole night, and I wonder how such suffering can exist, and how to go on living knowing these things happen.


[warning:extremely graphic scenes.]

http://animalsaviors.org/chinesefurfarms1.html

This occurs more than 5000 time a day. All for children's toys and insecure people's fur coats. Did you know this was happening? Maybe by my posting here I am doing something.

You can watch the clip and you can be shocked. Or you can display the same sentiment that comes across as "it isn't that bad because it happens all the time and its only a dumb animal."

But please don't be condescending and tell me I dont know what's happening around the world, just because I show compassion and anger when I see someone making a suffering animal part of their art exhibition.

quote:

---

And I'M sick that people like you feel the way you do over this. Your hypocrisy actually sickens me. And so does all the other 2 million people that feel this way.

---

Really? A more cynical person than myself would look at the fact I posted this a week ago and as sick as it made you, you didn't bother to comment on it at all. But when doom123 attacks you on the subject of religion today and also comments here, you decide to have an issue with it. Im sure you will say its all coincidence, but it doesn't take me much to see who posted what and when and see that this topic was totally unimportant until today when doom123 insulted you in another post.

But I wont make judgments or assumptions about you.

There are few things that are pet hates of mine. One of them is animal cruelty. It REALLY REALLY gets to me. And I have to say I get very passionate about it. But that's because I really do care, and to be called hypocritical over my views is actually insulting. But Im sure you didn't mean to be.

Lets look at it another way. You, Tazzlyn, have complained about the state of gay rights in America. You have recently discovered how screwed things are by witnessing what you consider unfair treatment of homosexuals in your country and are feeling quite helpless over the way the world is. Now, did I jump up and down and call you hypocritical for posting your anger over the subject?

Did I assume you were doing nothing about it? Did I tell you that your frustration at something close to your heart but out of your control sickened me?

I mean are you actually changing your life career path and becoming a politician and oneday hoping to be the first openly gay President? Are you dedicating the rest of your life to Gay Rights now? Will you travel to third world countries and stop their mistreatment of Gays?

You can do what you like and think what you like. You can care about certain issues and not about others. But I really think that anyone who tries to discredit something being done by people with genuine motives for a group of living creatures who feel things too but cant speak up for their own rights is poor. Why is it a "bleeding heart" movement of hypocrites when people campaign for animal rights?

Just because animals cant complain when they feel pain doesn't mean that their causes are any less than humans. The ultimate hypocrisy is to claim compassion and empathy and a depth of emotion, while at the same time not seeing another creatures suffering as having as much validity as your own.

And as for people saying this guy is a genius. Think about it this way. It takes a genius to try and make people feel something without hurting the subject of your cause. There are millions of starving people in the world too. But what would happen if someone tied a starving child up in a room and made people pay to watch it starve to death? Would they be called genius?

I have been debating on how to reply to such a controversial topic. Last I checked, people around the world are dieing from starvation, unable to access fresh water, or food, communities that are poverty stricken, a number of problems and here we have a single individual. Demonstrating what those in power, those who can do something about it, really don't seem to care but for there own petty entertainment or self righteous way of life.

Americans have bigger issues to worry about then starving dogs and people. Like amassing individual wealth, stock, entertainment, oil, military might, big companies and maybe a natural disaster. That is, if you have personal ties with people in power.

Though I see that this forum was made with the best intentions, the reality of it the unfortunate truth. The people who care, have no power. Those that are in power, don't care.

quote:

---

Though I see that this forum was made with the best intentions, the reality of it the unfortunate truth. The people who care, have no power. Those that are in power, don't care.

---

Ah , , , the light of sensible intelligence shines forth.

If he hadn't done this exhibit, probably no one here on this forum would even know about the stray dog problem in Costa Rica. His exhibit has incited this debate here on this forum and blown up the issue for much more of the world to see because of the controversy of it.

There are animals in the world that are suffering. There are people in the world that are suffering. I think the reason these problem aren't addressed immediately is because all of the people with wealth and power are so removed from it all. The genius of tying up a starving dog at an exhibit in an art gallery is that it presents the issue to those same 'pompous fucks' who are the ones who need to see it the most but probably never will under normal circumstances.

If someone did the same with a starving child in Africa, the tragedy of the situation is that the life in the exhibit would probably be a better one than the one in their homeland. (I'm not sure about whether doing that would be a good thing or a bad thing.)

Art should always arise from a need. The need is definitely there. The controversy is the sacrifice. If this piece of art was kept alive and well fed, would it still be art? Is it art to begin with?