In 2007 Guillermo Vargas (aka Habacuc) illegedly starved a dog to death in the name of art. He found a sickly dog on the streets of Managua, Nicaragua and tied it to a short leash in the corner of a gallery. Across the room was a kettle of food, left inaccessible. The dog slowly died of hunger and thirst. Vargas is going to represent Costa Rica in the Bienal Cenroamericana Honduras 2008. There is currently a petition.
You can watch the starving dog, anti-Vargas, video in Spanish (notice the title of the work is “eres lo que lees” which means “you are what you read” is spelled out in dog food). One picture in the video also shows a full gallery of people who pay no attention to the starving dog (I don’t know if that was a staged photo).
Good art stirs emotion. It doesn’t have to be “beautiful”. It doesn’t have to be tasteful. Good art will stir emotion. I actually think this was a powerful form of art. Yes it was distasteful, yes it was animal cruelty, yes it was just plain disgusting. But it was powerful. Think about what it represents. Everyday there are starving sickly people, children. The numbers of those in poverty are in the millions. The number of those in poverty in our own back yard are in the thousands. And those injustices go ignored everyday. And believe me, they aren’t starving because there isn’t enough food, or there aren’t enough resources, etc- there is in no way “overpopulation”. People are dying because of first world selfishness (discussion that is best saved for another post). In short, we have the ability to save these people, we just aren’t. So when Vargas leashes a starving dog, places a kettle of food across the room, and fills the room with apathetic people, I have to admit that this is quie a poignant image. And yes, I would call that art.
36 Manifestos:
Its sick, but that foto w. the people standing around..... that is the message i guess.
WTF, Habacuc is NOT AN ARTIST.
It really is a win win situation- the petition. By viewing his art you are supporting him. By boycotting his art and choosing to not look at it, you are passing a blind eye- which you can interpret is the point of his starving dog exhibit.
The end didn't justify the means.
And not looking at his art, or considering it art, does not = turning a blind eye. It equals not participating in a horror show. But I'll be doing the STAND for housing tomorrow.
Hi Samantha
Thanks for posting this. I am not sure that torturing an animal to make clear a couple of obvious points, i.e. that humans are rotten and allow children to starve is valid ethically --- which is to say, do the ends really justify the means? (I appreciate, however, your use of the words "alleged" and "staged".}
Ethical concerns aside, I wonder what makes truly "good" art and what criteria can be used to make an assessment in this case. I agree with some of the things you mentioned, that emotional content is vital, but beauty and taste (or the lack of it) aren't. Is being "powerful" enough though? I'm not sure. Apart from the shock value of starving a dog, the whole thing leaves me cold and unmoved, partly I think because it addresses matters I care vitally about, but mostly because it evokes the sensation of being bludgeoned by a stick.
To put it another way, when I saw Picasso's Guernica in the flesh for the first time I wept a little, then had to go sit quietly by myself for a while. I doubt Vargas's work would affect me in the same way, even if I saw it in personal. Vargas is certainly clever. He insiduously draws his audience into his work while mocking them. But does he teach me anything I don't know or make me see the world in a different way? Probably not.
You gave me a lot to chew on. I may have to steal your post for my own blog! Thanks again.
Michael
UGH.
Art? Or an act of individual evil.
Vargas is just a small scale version of the Bushies, and the other evil in the world.
They hold the power to save even ONE, in their hands....
Art? nah. Cruel objectivness. Yes.
Sorry, I love art. This is not art.
The power to save even one. Blown for attention.
Karmanic rating -50.
So when Vargas leashes a starving dog, places a kettle of food across the room, and fills the room with apathetic people, I have to admit that this is quie a poignant image. And yes, I would call that art.
this whole thing is bull shit, what kind of sick bastard starvs an animal to death? how about we take him and tie him up with food across the way where he cant get to it and watch him die, would it be considered art as well?...people disgust me sometimes.
reply
What ever happened to drawing and painting and sculpture, i.e., actually creating something
rather than killing something that's beautiful... actually making something that creates impact and stirs emotions... this asshole should be locked up
Yes it does make a point, but had he used his head, he could have made this point in any number of equally arresting ways,
had he had any fucking talent or emotion or sympathy or anything
an artist should have ...
He's a heartless, pitiless, thoughtless bastard .... maybe that's what tomorrow's "artist" is gonna look like, who knows anymore
according to the gallery, the artist hand fed the dog while it was tied up... the dog also supposedly escaped from the gallery that night... im not certain i believe their story, but it is every bit as credible as the idea that the artist did in fact allow the dog to starve to death...
As a student majoring in philosophy, I've attended several ethics classes and written an unholy amount of papers regarding issues of morality and ethics in our society. When I read about this exhibit, I must admit I couldn't help but recognize the alarming message artist Guillermo Habacuc Vargas was attempting to communicate to the public. While the exhibit was immoral in that it was essentially the spectacle of the death of a defenseless creature, it successfully revealed the hypocrisies that remain widely ignored in today's society. People become enraged with the presentation of the death of a stray animal when it is disguised as art, yet it otherwise seems to go discredited.
Notice how the outrage has become an issue of banning the artist rather than creating more organizations dedicated to supplying these suffering animals with the necessary food and water they need to survive?
We all may proudly shake our fist at this man for making such a cruel exhibit of a starving creature's death, yet those same fists are often covered in clothing made by citizens of third-world countries who work for wages below the poverty level.
I remain neutral regarding this issue. However, I find it's necessary to add: we must choose our battles wisely. Otherwise, we become the exact people this artist has attempted to expose us as.
art makes you feel emotions but those emotions do not physically harm you. when you are harming a living being is when you cross the line. an animal doesn't give a crap about the point you are trying to make, it wants love, affection and food! this makes me sick and if i was there i would go to the gallery and take that dog home with me and give it a loving home!
Couldn't he have just set it up, taken a picture, then taken the dog to the vet? It was in no way necessary to let this poor thing stay there for hours until it died. The 'art' could have been captured and the dog could have been saved. The guy's an idiot and should be locked up for animal cruelty and idiocy.
For "As a student majoring in",
I am also a student, and I just wanted to let you know that your post was the most condescending,
pretentious and obnoxious thing I am likely to ever read. Art can often be offensive or disturbing. Art is supposed to make you think, but when has art ever been about the suffering of an unwilling participant? Your post suggests that the ends justify the means, that the artist has gotten exactly what he had hoped for. I don't doubt that he has. I think he wanted recognition, and yes, he certainly got that. As for the "hypocrisies of today's society", I wonder what your own fist is covered in? The fact that you have access to education and a computer speaks volumes. We all are born into this world without asking to be. Some of us are rich, some of us are poor. I believe that most people have a general sense of good, and try to help others when they can. I personally couldn't care less what this "artist's" point was. The bottom line is, he tortured and killed an animal for shock value. Period.
Right on! There's a difference between shock value and art.
The two seem to have become confused in today's society.
Look at all the violence and senseless mayhem in movies these days, for example. Do we really need to ask ourselves where the ideas come from to support behavior that lets one half of the world condone the killing off of the other half in the name of 'entertainment' or political expediency?
We can't put an end to wars and similar acts of anti-social behavior on a global scale until we do it in our own homes and our own lives, naturally. I'm not going to preach at you, but let's face it - something's definitely wrong with the picture as it is at the moment. We need to fix it. I'm not going to say 'make love, not war' either - because 'making love' also has its problems, like the population explosion, for example. We can't continue our vast plans in a half-vast system that can't support the extravagance. It's just that simple. So why haven't we noticed this already?
"art is what you can get away with"
hopefully he won't get away with this
poor dog! i was sick to my stomach looking at the pictures, somebody should tie him to a leash and do the same to him! This is sick..
after being invited to a group to boycott this artist. i did what i know most people didn't. read up on the situation from numerous sources. not just a blog or what a petition said. i have read the artist teased the animal with food, kids were paid to catch him, he caught him, he had an inscence burner filled with marijuana, kids were paid to give him dirty water, he did it because rotweilers killed a guard (or criminals) etc. some conflicting, some i have only read by one source. what am i getting at? this seems more likely a show for the public than animal abuse.
first of all, what happened after hours? does anyone know? no. no one except the artist and the employees of institute.
second, there is so much hersay who can seperate fact from fiction?
third, i have read articles suggesting that it was a one day show, so he could have easily told people the dog died and released it.
fourth, if it wasn't, when it did it's business, was it cleaned up? cause in pictures i have seen i don't see any bodily functions on the floor.
fifth, what institute would let someone kill a dog in their place of business? would that not be bad for business? (the operations person has come out said no dog was killed)
sixth, and for the sake of brievity, remember the bonsia cats everyone raised a fuss about? people signed petitions and it was a hoax. who is to say he didn't deceive people by words to add to the reasoning that the dog died?
i personally found his art phenomenal because it shows the hypocrisy of people. people are so into jumping on a bandwagon when they see something atrocious in the limelight, but when they see it on the streets they think poor dog and do nothing. now these same people want this guy killed. hypocrites. and some of you speak of him being chained up and starved, i am sure if there was a message behind it, he would. i have even seen a man get beat everytime sign a petition against torture to let people understand his message. a majority of people will sign a petition, but will they give money to humane societies? no. they did their good deed today, it took a few mouse clicks. congratulations! welcome to reality: act shocked, write a message, sign a petition, and you are absolved from the rest of this issue.
habacuc did NOT kill the dog. I know artist personally. He took care of dog and let it go. Dog did not suffer. Those lies are spread.
If this is true, I suggest the "artist" subjects himself to the same "artistic" process. This would lead to a larger audience and give greater publicity to his "artistic" theories.
I am well aware that there are greater atrocities than this being carried out against humans and animals throughout the world but any cruelty is morally wrong. Putting the dog out of its misery and leaving the body in the corner would have made a similar point.
think about how much art, not to mention mundane daily objects are made from the product of much much crueler behaviours to animals, and humans!:
-Fur anything
-Leather anything
-Oils used in most painting mediums, are animal derived and lin some cases live extracted
-your food
-your gasoline
how can you differentiate?
I agree with your post. It is cruel to starve a dog, but who inflicted the starvation? Habacuc got it off the streets, and this is credible. Whether the dog died shortly after, was released, or is still in Habacuc's custody is yet unproven (short of a post on his MySpace page, something which seems dubious).
I think there's a reason why the exhibition hall colluded with the artist, in allowing him to show his exhibit (something that would have had potentially troubling effects on the place) and in keep secret the fate of the dog. I think there's a reason why he did not tell anybody what happened to Natividad. I think there is a reason why he gave his artistic explanation (that it was a tribute to a Natividad, a fallen immigrant who died to wounds inflicted by guard dogs and was unaided by Nicaraguan police http://www.ticotimes.net/dailyarchive/2005_11/daily_11_11_05.htm).
I do not think it is rational, however, to call this act, whether deemed art or spectacle, as "senseless". It is a dismissive charge to Hubacac as a decision making human being to ignore his motives. I do not think the ends justify the ends in this observer critique, where people do not investigate the true affairs of this exhibit and perpetuate violent acts. Such acts are consistent to the spirit that inspired this art.
Perhaps the mystery of Navidad's fate is part of the exhibit's art. Just as the fate of urchins and strays, as well as motives behind the apathetic police force that allowed the original Navidad to die of his wounds, are mysteries. It is only through funding that these problems can be conquered. To this extent, perhaps animal rights' NGOs and Habacuc are on the same side.
To recap, the interesting question that will further any action against Habacuc or allow us to disseminate his deed in a meaningful way is, what did Habacac intend? The answer can be found viewing his previous work and seeing if his artistic ethos allows harm to be realized, or merely appear as an illusory effect. To discard this as part of a beneficial part of attacking the violence in Habucac's deed, is a great mistake.
This "possible urban legend of the dog's death" is UNDETERMINED at this time as of now from Snopes. You can read about it here:
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp
LOGIC people...logic.
If the dog was chained up without food or water in the condition it was in for several days it would have died long before then. You can only go without water for a very short period of time. That dog was already malnourished and dehydrated by the looks, so it wouldn't have lasted if they hadn't taken exquisite care of it in the exhibit (like supporters of the art have claimed the artist did). Again: supporters of this art have claimed the dog was watered and fed, and unchained for periods of time. Then it was released afterwards.
The artists did this so people would be aware of the problem of underfed, unowned dogs in that country. Not so that people would go all PETA on his ass specifically and sign worthless petitions to stop "animal cruelty" when there (most likely) wasn't any animal cruelty going on. The artists wanted to put a stop to animal cruelty himself...and show people that they should help, not just "observe". He is currently scoffing at the hypocrisy (as am I) of the people who are so "outraged" at this treatment of the dog...but who look past dogs on the streets without a second glance.
I have two little dogs and I treat them as I would my children (better, because I like animals more than kids). So this is not a matter of me 'not caring'. I simply don't think we should all bandwagon on this WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PROPER INFORMATION.
The sheer scope of this issue is incredible. Unfortunately 99% of the information about this topic comes from blogs on the almighty interweb, and I have been reading about this for prety much the whole day, and I am sorry to say, but based on the opinions of most people, I would say that at least 80% of the posts that I have read are simply in reaction to what people have been told by others, not based out of research. That said, I have formulated a few opposing thoughts on this.
I'll start by saying that I got teary-eyed when the tiger in doctor doolittle was operated on. I have a VERY sensitive spot for animals, having grown up with cats and dogs and chickens and mice and gerbals and horses and many others.
My 1st issue is about the art itself. I don't believe that any animal should be used in a cruel way, especialy for the purposes of artistic publicity.
The problem with this is that I know nothing about the situation. I have seen no proof that the dog was mistreated, I have seen no proof the he wasn't. I have seen no proof that he was even a stray dog. For all of "information" out there on this particular piece of art, there is nearly nothing of value. For all I know, the dog could have been the artist's pet, and did not actually die, or was not set free, or did not escape, but perhaps the artist felt bad for tormenting his dog that he simply took him home, or to a kennel because he was in a different country. Maybe he had a 2nd home in Nicaragua. Nobody KNOWS anything about this, they merely speculate. So to some this point up, If the animal was tortured for the sake of art, then Vardas should be put behind bars. I do not believe he did, however.
My 2nd issue is much more practical. Art encompases the realm of theatre. The reason that there is virtualy no information about this on the internet is because it was not meant for the world. This exhibit was meant for the people of Nicaragua. Just imagine, for a minute, that you are a floating pair of eyes, watching One human being from a bird's eye view. The only thing that you see is this human, and a 20 foot radius around him. You have not seen the exhibit of the dog yet. You watch this Human walking down the street, past dozens of stray, mangy, starving, dying dogs. He does not pay them any notice. He walks into the art gallery, sees the dog tied up, apparently starving to death, and you can see that his face is twisted with shock, appalled at the sight before him. What is the first thing that goes through your mind ( if you had one )? The idea of the exhibition being cruel? or do you think "this jerk just walked past 30 dying dogs and didn't even bat an eyelash, and now he's freaking out because he came to see art, and instead he sees a dying dog"?
So in conclusion, my mixed feelings are this: is it right to torment an animal (for I believe that this dog was tormented, if only a little, and not actually tortured) to prove a point? I do not believe that it is right to do so, however at the same time, I cannot deny the fact that it could raise awareness for stray dogs on a large scale. The suffering of one, to save many is a noble thing, but not if the one does not have a say in the matter.
No two ways about it!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 23, 2008 - 1:42pm.
Look the bottom point is, he basicly tortured the animal, and yes we don't know more than we have read... Although!
He did show pictures of people visiting and the animal itself, dying!
Dosn't this tell us that if he were a responsible man, he would have helped the dog at LEAST. But no he left it there as a way of art, and sooner or later this will be promoted into something much bigger, where stray dogs will be used as 'models', where in fact they could have been saved...
It isn't fair on the animal as it has no say in all this, but as a matter of fact we are their voices and I don't think starving, 'teasing' an animal is anyway of art no matter the case. Even if he experienced 1 dog do something bad does it make them all bad? If a man murdered his friend, would he try torture all men. NO!
I may not know much about this topic but all I know is the dog was helpless and defenceless, and if taken care of sooner he may have been helped and who knows even rehomed to a family who respects animals...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 23, 2008 - 4:05pm.
The artist was trying to bring attention to the problem with starving and neglected animals.so you think this man is so wrong for not helping the dog..have you ever driven past an obviously mal-nourished dog on the side of the rd but didn't stop to help cause you were too busy..everyone has,so what makes you any better then him?The only difference in the 2 is he actually tried to send a message to show ppl the true shock and horror of an animal starving to death.we see animals like this all the time but we ignore it and now that someone has forced us to see ,we don't like it...he did it so that maybe anyone who sees his art will think twice the next time they see an animal in need.
Hoax?
Submitted by Colm Linehan (not verified) on April 24, 2008 - 3:07am.
I have read on other sites that this is purely a hoax - that the dog was not starved beyond how it was before the artist found it and was released again after the art exhibition.
They say the artist did it to highlight the problem of starving dogs - it showed up how when you take the dog from the street and bring it into a different place people notice it and don't like what they see. Unfortunately back on the streets no one takes any notice of the dog dying at the side of the pavement - we block our eyes and say "it's not my problem" and get on with our busy lifes. The photos are shocking and angered many 1000s of people, but in the end we will all have to wait and see if it really changes our attitudes and do something about the problem of starving dogs around our city streets.
This is an act of nihilism in the name of art. If finding the line for art was the goal, he found it.
This is the worst thing I have ever seen or heard about, but I forced a quick look and encouraged my boyfriend to as well (he probably won't) In hopes that our awareness of evil may help another dog, I for sure will go home and love mine even more... This is not art it shouldn't even be human, but we live in a different world...
Dog Lover/Huggar/Caregiver
Michigan USA
the same thing should be done to him......sick ba$tard.
In my opinion, the exhibit does have a very valid message.
However, it would not be acceptable if the dog was in pain/suffered during the exhibit.
In addition, Vargas said to the US Humae Society that the dog ran away/was let escape after the exhibit. That is most irresponsible for an "artis" trying to highlight the issue of animal starvation. Vargas should have rewarded the dog with a better life for working in his exhibit or at the very least provided medical help. Vargas doesn't deserves to be ridiculed and punished for the simple fact he did not properly look after the dog that was in his care. He should have just killed the dog before placing it in the exhibit, as that would have been more humane.
Retraction-
I said that "Vargas DOESN'T deserves to be ridiculed ...."
When I meant to say that "He deserves..."
Me Aculpa.
blah blah blah. You people should really consider what you are saying....a dog is a very valid example to use. WE ARE NOT DOGS, we are better and more important than them.... there is not a comparison between the death and destruction of millions of innocent, currently third world people with that of a dumb animal. How many of you eat meat and wear clothes, farming is many times over more inhumane than this singular example. Sweat shops where children as young as 4 are sold by there families to work 15 hour days in appalling conditions. The systematic extinction of the worlds rarest and most evolved creatures and plant species in our rainforests.....and let us not touch on a political/millitary subject....forget the dog think of the human. SOCIETY WAKE UP, CLEAR THE SLEEP FROM YOUR EYES.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購
免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛
A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX
情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網
情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,臺灣情色網,色情,情色電影,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,麗的色遊戲,情色論壇,色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片
av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室,美女交友,成人光碟
情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,日本a片,a片下載,線上a片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室
You Are What You Read
“I think this guy is sick! Someone should tie him up, no, put him in a glass box, so that he can’t stand up. Then heat up the room that he’s in and have a waterfall going in the corner. And if the bastard doesn’t die in a day, then gut him from head to toe. That shit isn’t art it’s the work of a disgusting piece of shit, devil, who deserves to burn in hell for that.”
This is just one of the thousands of outraged comments found across the internet directed at the artist Guillermo 'Habacuc' Vargas. Vargas gained global attention in 2007 when he captured an emaciated dog from the streets of San Jose, exhibited it in The Codice Gallery, Nicaragua. Tied up with no food or water he let the dog starve to death, with the title ‘Eres Lo Que Lees’ (‘You Are What You Read’) written in dog food on the wall behind the animal. The story swept across the internet as a chain email directing you to an online petition to stop the artist repeating the piece while representing Costa Rica at Bienal Centroamericana in Honduras in November of this year. The petition now holds over a two and a half million signatures. Angry blogs and Youtube videos call for Vargas to be given the same treatment as the dog and be tied to a post with no food or water. These blogs and videos feature thousands of comments, like the one above, condemning the artist as an “animal murderer” and denouncing his work as inhumane cruelty. Facebook groups have been created for incensed users to rant and rave about Vargas' actions. These groups have hundreds of thousands of members. Vargas and the gallery have even received death threats.
The gallery later insisted that the dog, named Natividad, did not in fact starve to death but 'was untied all the time except for the three hours the exhibition lasted and it was fed regularly with dog food Habacuc himself brought in' and then escaped after one day. Vargas has declined to comment on the condition of the animal but says he wanted to test the public's reaction and highlight the plight facing thousands of stray dogs in San Jose.
“Habacuc has put the guests in a position to question their own moral responsibility. Failure to act to save the dog indicates a process of rationalization on behalf of the guest, which probably considered the perceived facts of the situation: the dog was a stray set to face death anyway, it's so far malnourished that it will be miserable regardless, it's for the sake of art and who am I to ruin it, etc.”
Vargas' refusal to comment on the dog's survival has only furthered speculation about the dog's demise and it is precisely what the artist wanted. The furore over the whole situation has become part of the artwork itself with each incensed comment and angry email adding to it's message. Even though no one at the exhibition stepped in to help the poor dog, hundreds of thousands have felt aggrieved enough to sign the petition after reading the email or to leave a comment at the end of a blog. The artwork's title You Are What You Read – it makes sense. To make no action when you feel things are in control but as soon as you're told they aren't and it's easy to do “your bit”, everyone jumps on board.
Vargas' work highlights people's ability to ignore suffering and cruelty until it is presented to them out of the context of everyday life. There are tens of thousands of stray, starving dogs on the streets of San Jose and only a tiny proportion of the global population are actually trying to help them. Then as soon as one is publicly displayed, the whole world throws up their arms in outrage and jostles to get on the bandwagon. By putting the animal in an art gallery, Vargas made an example of the dog. While some people will find that cruel, the statement that he was making about cruelty was immensely resonant, sparking off this global debate. Vargas was, in fact, making an example out of us, the apathetic public. He understood, and intended, the outcry that took place, it was all part of his artwork, and while it doesn't lessen the impact of the impassioned outbursts of those against the spectacle, it shows them in a different perspective. The comments are turned back on the commenters to expose their contradictions. The striking thing is that some people are still not backing down, in spite of the evidence presented that the dog survived and was well-looked after, and stubbornly continue to protest.
“With the unlimited access to information comes the heavy responsibility of critical thinking.”
The furious reactions to the exhibit have come from all over the world, probably further than even Vargas could have imagined. The exaggerated interest has amplified the artist's local concerns about stray dogs on the streets of San Jose and turned them into a global discussion about animal cruelty. This would have been incapable of happening without the World Wide Web. This far-reaching technology has shrunk the world to an unimaginably small scale. Through instant messaging, Facebook statuses and online forums; news, information and gossip can be sent around the planet in a flash and can be discussed between people of cultures than would not usually have contact. The internet has become an interactive, electronic debating table where anyone can voice their opinion, intellectual or ignorant, and be heard, but with the abundance and easy availability of information, you have to be careful what you believe.
Anybody can access Wikipedia and write something, anybody can write a blog and anybody can read them. Chain emails arrive in inboxes everyday claiming that Bill Gates wants to give you money or that forwarding the email to ten more people will bring you good luck and most people delete them instantly but something about Vargas' case was different. Even though it only takes a couple of minutes 'googling' the name Guillermo Vargas to find websites and weblogs that provided evidence to the contrary of the petitions and protests against Vargas' work, millions of people didn't take the time, when faced with the chain email, to think for themselves, do a tiny amount of research and come to an informed decision. Instead they condemn a man off the back of uninformed evidence.
The increase in audience awareness across the world has shifted the possible outcomes of work for artists such as Vargas. His exploration into the reaction that this work could cause highlights how much our communicative powers have changed over the last decade. But equally it exposes our almost unquestionable belief in the information that we know is being written behind screens. Our faith in the words written by others has come out of historical approaches to recording and writing our histories and events. But in this new age of mass un-vetted and uncontrolled communication our creative and expressive avenues must become increasingly self aware, for if you are what you read then we must be able to stand behind what we write.
References
http://www.theginblog.com/2007/10/artist-chains-up-dog-until-it-dies-is-this-art-or-animal-abuse/
http://www.pluginamp.com/network/node/3575
http://www.dabbler.ca/news/parliament-of-one-starving-dog-as-art-%E2%80%93-don%E2%80%99t-believe-everything-you-read-20080411/
why don't he kill himself too?
Post a Comment