'Artist' Chains Up Dog Until It Dies… Is This Art? Or Animal Abuse?

remove any doubt from your mind that I would have fed the dog if given the chance.

That may be so, but having a point doesn't absolve anyone from being a monster.

remove any doubt from your mind that I would have fed the dog if given the chance.

Me to, no matter what it took.

I think the artist's point was that nobody cares about the dog until after it dies. Everyone who signs that petition proves the artist's point.

The "artist"'s point was pointless nonsense because he doesn't have to make a point at all. He has to feed the dog and give it water.

The dog probably would have died on the street and no one would have cared. I doubt most of you would have fed some stray dog on the street, even if it looked like it was starving. Stray animals die everyday and no one notices or cares. This artist was able to make everyone care about at least one of those stray dogs even if it was too late. Pet overpopulation is a big problem, so much so that Bob Barker reminded us daily to spay and neuter our pets.

Unfortunately the artist didn't seem to frame it like that so an opportunity to raise that issue was lost. And yes a poor innocent animal was needlessly and cruelly starved.

If it was dead on the street corner there would be no outrage.

I am outraged! And I would have seen the dog saved. Moving the dog to the studio and having it die there only proves he is as callus as those that left it on the street corner.

That's the point. If the dog died of starvation on any street corner, you wouldn't hear about it... because no one cares. Dog abuse happens so often that it doesn't get a lick of attention, unless something like this happens.

And, in case you missed it, I'm not defending the artist.

As a long time supporter of the Humane Society, the point is not whether the dog lives or dies but that it doesn't suffer while living.

Not to give anyone a "There is no Santa Claus..." moment but the Humane Society euthanizes some animals. Why? Because there are more unwanted animals than homes to place them in. Is it better to let them live free subject to starvation and disease? That is a different debate. This "artist" merely perpetrated an act of animal cruelty.

If he was insistant upon putting a dog to death, there are humane ways to do it.

If he was insistant upon putting a dog to death, there are humane ways to do it.

I agree.

q> I believe that there's a show on Animal Planet that covers police officers tracking down and arresting dog abusers. That there's an actual government function, and laws against animal abuse, suggests that you are perhaps overstating your case.

Eh, damn html. 6.5 was in response to 6.2

The people who watch those shows are usually animal lovers, not the general populace.

The people who watch those shows are usually animal lovers, not the general populace.

The point wasn't that there's a TV show about it, the point was That there's an actual government function, and laws against animal abuse, suggests that you are perhaps overstating your case. But then...isn't this artist in Costa Rica?

People have much more compassion for humans than they do dogs. We treat dogs like sh**.

By the same token if I was dead on a street corner no one would pay attention.

Well come on, who has time to pay attention to all the dead people you step over on your way to work?

People have much more compassion for humans than they do dogs.

I don't.

Well come on, who has time to pay attention to all the dead people you step over on your way to work?

You think it's funny but it's happened before.

There was one link on Newsvine maybe a couple of months where the man died in the middle of the road and people were just making a detour around him.

There have been several cases in America where a homeless person died on the sidewalk and people just passed by without a glance.

It's an epidemic: Nation's Joggers Sick Of Finding Dead Bodies

You still think it's funny. Let's see how funny you think it is and what you have to say when one day you're lying dead in the street and people walk by you.

By the same token if I was dead on a street corner no one would pay attention.

So maybe he should have chained himself up and starved himself to death. At least he would have had a choice in the matter. And he'd sure make his point.

I'll be dead. What would I care, and how would I say anything anyway?

I've never ignored a dead person lying in the street...Just sayin'.

I'll be dead. What would I care

So I guess there aint no difference in your being dead or alive.

Um, yes there is. If I'm alive lying in the street I might care what people thought about me, although past experience says most likely I wouldn't. If I'm dead lying in the street I just wouldn't care - because I'd be dead.

@Brian White
Welcome back to Newsvine.

I have noticed that most homeless people I walk by on the street are lying down all bundled up and covered in stuff (and I see a lot every day). I have actually often wondered, when I pass one of these people, how could I tell if they are dead? On many occasions I have taken the time to carefully check them over, and still, short of stopping and rudely jabbing them out of their rest, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell.

Thanks Glinda. I've started slacking again at work lately ;)

There was one link on Newsvine maybe a couple of months where the man died in the middle of the road and people were just making a detour around him.

There have been several cases in America where a homeless person died on the sidewalk and people just passed by without a glance.

And every time you passed by a "sleeping" homeless man, did you check if he was alive?

You still think it's funny. Let's see how funny you think it is and what you have to say when one day you're lying dead in the street and people walk by you.

Get a grip. Satire is one of the most powerful ways to criticize something. I doubt Swift's "A Modest Proposal" was aimed at chortles and guffaws. Take a break from that pedestal of yours every once in a while.

I have noticed that most homeless people I walk by on the street are lying down all bundled up and covered in stuff (and I see a lot every day). I have actually often wondered, when I pass one of these people, how could I tell if they are dead?

Exactly.

Chasing, my girlfriend's of the same mind.

Wheel, I'm with you. I would of taken the dog from the street corner or at least given him some food.

The artist's action was abhorrent, he just let the dog die. However, his point is still valid. Taking a dying dog in and using him as an example of how bad we treat them speaks a lot louder than just giving the dog food.

He's just letting us know that we treat dogs like they are scum.

Taking a dying dog in and using him as an example of how bad we treat them speaks a lot louder than just giving the dog food.

This is true, though I don't think it speaks loudly enough to justify the act (though it appears you agree with that). By next week this will have been forgotten about but the dog will still be dead and still have lived its last days in pure physical torment for the sake of making a point. It's like if I were to adopt a poor, starving African child and then lock him in a room until he starves to death. Then throw his corpse into an art gallery as a "statement" that America doesn't care about poor, starving Africans. There are less destructive and less cruel ways to make the relevant point.

He's just letting us know that we treat dogs like they are scum. He's just letting us know that he and the viewers of his art treat dogs like scum.

What he's doing is trying to push the edge originally explored by Chris Burden in the 70s, except without risking any injury to himself. Burden, at least, had the balls to put his own life in danger to make his point. Burden variously had someone shoot him as a "performance," lay on a busy road underneath a tarp, and once sat in a pool of water surrounded by high voltage line with no precautions preventing gallery visitors from kicking the wire into the water.

But these were all calculated risks that Burden chose to take. In the case under consideration, the dog was not in a position to choose anything. The artist's actions, themselves, were what led to the dog's death. sure the dog might have died, otherwise. The dog might also have lived. Vargas settled the issue by a) controlling the dog's circumstances, and b) refusing to feed the dog.

He ought to do some jail time. Let's see if he is at least THAT committed to his "art."

Don't mistake lack of knowledge with lack of willingness to intervene.

We all have knowledge of millions of people currently starving in the world. What are we doing to intervene?

We all have knowledge of millions of people currently starving in the world. What are we doing to intervene?

I can't speak for others, but I buy extra '2 for 2$' biscuits at mcd's and give them to homeless people who hang around the shopping center all the time. It's not that hard to hand a homeless person a sandwich and wish them a good day.

Ah. So your response is to kill the homeless with heart attacks from clogged arteries. Check.

Ah. So your response is to kill the homeless with heart attacks from clogged arteries. Check.

What are you doing? Waiting till they starve and then taking a picture?

I think that's very kind, Brian; as for clogged arteries, I would think a homeless person were in more imminent danger of dying of starvation. What's worse? Dying quickly of starvation, or years from now from clogged arteries?!

What are you doing? Waiting till they starve and then taking a picture?

Excuse me, good sir, I think your sense of humor is broken.

I regularly give money to homeless people when I can afford it. Sure, they might spend it on alcohol, but...@!$%#, that's probably all I was going to spend it on anyway.

I've personally had offers of food turned down by people begging for money. Someone I knew was chased for two blocks by a homeless guy for offering him a banana.

Now I just slip them a rock or two of crack and everyone's happy.

I've had that happen myself Brian, I don't hand out money though. They can take the sandwich if they're hungry or not, up to them, but I never hand out cash.

Anyone who is against this piece of art, but also is in favour of eating meat is a hypocrite.

Wrong! If he'd eaten the dog I wouldn't have any objection.

That makes absolutely no sense, sorry, as there isn't a direct comparison to be drawn between factory slaughter (admittedly awful) and using a slow death to teach some faulty "point". And Wheel is also right: the artist didn't eat the dog.

For the record, I haven't eaten meat in twelve years.

Please, get a freakin' clue. That's such a load of crap. I'm 100% against this cruelty-as-art, and I eat meat. There's not the slightest bit of hypocrisy there. None.

For the record, I haven't eaten meat in twelve years.

So you are biased and think that it is ok to kill plants? That is just another form of murder. You need to admit that to live we have to kill. The killing should be humane as possible but to try and claim some kind of moral high ground because you are a vegetarian just misses the point entirely.

space guy, that is only true if you think plants have a right to life as sentient beings. I don't see them as sentient beings, so I don't give a crap. Pigs on the other hand are very intelligent and friendly animals.

So you are biased and think that it is ok to kill plants?

Wow, nice tangent, I hope it was a fun trip for you. Send me a postcard, will ya? I said I was a 12 year vegetarian (and going), because someone else said:

Anyone who is against this piece of art, but also is in favour of eating meat is a hypocrite.

You see, I am 1) against the art, and 2) a vegetarian, so 3) not in danger of being called a hypocrite (at least by IAmEverydayPeople, who made the claim), but nevertheless 4) think that the claim is actually bogus, as I stated above, and that meat eaters can be against the "art" without being hypocrites.

That was actually fairly clearly stated; you might want to read my comment, above, again.

The killing should be humane as possible but to try and claim some kind of moral high ground because you are a vegetarian just misses the point entirely.

I didn't claim any moral high ground, and if I did it wouldn't be because I'm a vegetarian. I'm a Texan, see, and moralizing about meat is pretty well pointless, 'round these parts. Not that I'd have much interest in that anyway; I don't eat meat because I don't like meat, not because I think you shouldn't like meat.

Speaking of "missing the point entirely"...

space guy, that is only true if you think plants have a right to life as sentient beings. I don't see them as sentient beings, so I don't give a crap. Pigs on the other hand are very intelligent and friendly animals.

So you have made an arbitrary decision based upon your own needs to define plants as non sentient when there have been tons of experiments that show that they are quite aware of their environment.

The fact is that we have to kill to live. Whether it is a cow or a spinach plant, it is murder and we live by murder.

I don't think you're clear on what murder means. That's strictly for humans.

I am basing my judgement on them not being sentient on the complete lack of a brain or nervous system. That doesn't seem arbitrary to me. Show me a plant with a brain and I'll show you a plant I won't eat.

If you want to get picky, there are people - fruitarians - who don't eat any vegetable whose harvesting kills the plant. Just fruits, nuts, beans I guess, etc. It's not a particularly well balanced diet, but they do not kill to live. Anyway, Chasing seemed to address your comment pretty well.

Pigs on the other hand are very intelligent and friendly animals.

Tasty too.

The fact is that we have to kill to live. Whether it is a cow or a spinach plant, it is murder and we live by murder.

If you're saying that hey, if you have to kill plants to eat, you might as well kill cows, then I suppose the next logical step would be, what, eating Grandma?

But what's any of that got to do with artists, and dogs?

Anyone who is against this piece of art, but also is in favour of eating meat is a hypocrite.

Last I checked, our preferred method of killing livestock wasn't to make them starve to death. The killing is marginally speedier.

If you're saying that hey, if you have to kill plants to eat, you might as well kill cows, then I suppose the next logical step would be, what, eating Grandma?

Well, that'd be the only circumstance under which it'd be OK to murder Grandma.

Who gets to decide why it's okay to kill a certain animal. Is murdering a human wrong or not wrong based on how the murderer derives his benefit from the act?

Why is an artist's statement deemed less important than your taste buds?

Why is an artist's statement deemed less important than your taste buds?

Who? I already said I'm a vegetarian, so the argument pretty much falls apart when it gets to me (from my POV, obviously).

Why is an artist's statement deemed less important than peeing on your Mom's leg? Or burning down your house? Or digging up Aunt Sue and turning her remains into soup?

Where do you draw the line, eh?

Besides which, as others have already stated, there's a difference between slaughter and death-by-starvation, and it isn't as though all meat eaters necessarily support the behavior of the meat industry, as it stands. It's sort of a false comparison you're offering, there.

Who gets to decide why it's okay to kill a certain animal. Is murdering a human wrong or not wrong based on how the murderer derives his benefit from the act?

Hmmm, so if you're trying to contrast yourself to me, I can expect that you're a fruitarian?

Is murdering a human wrong or not wrong based on how the murderer derives his benefit from the act?

Killing in self-defense and in war are legal, so yes. That's actually currently true.

Yes, I was going to make a similiar comment, but you hit it on the head. This can be both awful torture and killing and be viewed as art (I don't suppose anyone can ultimately decide whether anything "is" art, or not). Though art cannot be an excuse for any ol' demented action, so this artist is still pretty barbaric, criminal, and, well, scummy, in my book.

Glad somebody else thinks so, when I first heard of the exhibits I told my family I changed my mind about wanting my body to go to 'science'. I don't think exhibition to a paying public is science. I would be curious if there is any impact on the numbers of donors or if it's a wash.

if he had chained himself up until he died, now THAT's art.

if he had chained himself up until he died, now THAT's art.

How so>

Oops, that ">" was supposed to be a "?"

See comment #8.3

I will support your high end art by also not feeding him when I pass by. With classy ar tsuch as this you will be famous in no time.

Tis a grand statement I am making. One that philosphers and intellectuals will argue about for eternity. Until someone looks on the bottom of his foot where I will write: Payback's a bitch.

That's kind of a harsh statement. He didn't find some healthy stray and starved him to death, he found a dog that was already dying and let him. Both are bad, but one is worse than the other.

We're all dying, from the moment we're born.

Taking a dog that is ostensibly dying, refusing to help it, and then calling that refusal "art" because it points out other people's hypocrisy is cruelty, regardless whether it can be called art or not. Once the dog came under Vargas' control, "let him die" changed to "killed him through starvation." Both are bad, but one is worse than the other. It's not apparent from your post whether we agree which one.

Personally, I wish to hurt him for doing this, he helped kill that dog and I could start say a lot of angry, unthoughtful things about it, but I'm not going to.

Millions of dogs and cats euthanized, horribly cruel factory farming practices, chickens with their beaks burned off, veal calves unable to move in their tiny cages, sows kept in pens too small to turn around in, etc.

There are a lot of horrible things going on in the world. That is true. I do understand your point.

What is wrong with this artist's picture, though, is that he is contributing to the depravity. He is actively part of the problem instead of the solution. I also blame the people who allowed the exhibition to be exhibited.

Another wrong added to the existing wrongs doesn't make anything right.

The universe put this dog in his path. The artist had a choice to make... He chose..........?

The universe put this dog in his path. The artist had a choice to make... He chose..........?

Wow, that's a powerful way to look at it.

He chose to put a frame around it, stand back, and see what people said about it. People are now talking not only about animal cruelty, but about when you are an innocent bystander, and when you are an active participant. It seems that applying the frame had a big effect.

By the way, if the dog died in one day, I don't believe "saving it" was really ever an option - not that the artist had any way of knowing that.

I also blame the people who allowed the exhibition to be exhibited.

With all the pot and crack smoke, I'm honestly not sure if there was anyone competent in charge here.

It seems that applying the frame had a big effect.

Was there not a piece in Denmark or thereabouts, with fish swimming around in a blender, and an invitation for people to press the "on" button and kill them? I wonder if anyone did...

I read a couple months ago about a Palestinian artist who had an aimable paint gun installed in his house with a web cam, and people from around the world could try to shoot him over the web.

The blender sounds way cooler.

Was there not a piece in Denmark or thereabouts, with fish swimming around in a blender, and an invitation for people to press the "on" button and kill them? I wonder if anyone did...

Not to go too off topic here, but that reminded me of something. A couple years ago I helped organize a Lobster Feed for a local service organization. In the bar area, we set up a table with a large cardboard display and a blender. In the blender was a Clown Fish swimming in water (the blender was not plugged in.) The cardboard display had a picture of Nemo and a big sign: "Save Nemo!" To either side of the blender were tip jars, one labeled "Save Nemo" the other labeled "Blend Nemo." Whichever tip jar got the most money at the end of the night would win. (We weren't actually going to blend Nemo...it was just for fun and to raise a little money.) The "Blend Nemo" jar got more money, and one girl was so upset she stole the blender with Nemo in it so she could "save" him.

Okay, back to the thread...Sorry for the diversion.

He chose to put a frame around it, stand back, and see what people said about it. People are now talking not only about animal cruelty, but about when you are an innocent bystander, and when you are an active participant. It seems that applying the frame had a big effect.

... and for that, I am glad.

Creativity has absolutely nothing to do with the sanctity of life, unless you're trying to illustrate it.

This man was obviously trying to make a point, and decided not to take a more "civil" route. Sometimes it works, and apparently it had its impact on the Vine. Everybody who saw that dog thought of some reason to not find help for it. Whether it be that they listened to the man and walked or away, or decided their prior engagements were more important, it doesn't matter.

The problem was completely caused by the "artist", but absolutely nobody decided to be part of the solution (except, ironically, the "artist", however inhumane it was).

Waste of crack and pot?

I don't think drugs shock people anymore.

I don't think drugs shock people anymore.

So sayeth indica ;)

the last time i shocked somebody with drugs was when i told my principal i freebased over the weekend. the extent of her shock was telling me to stop sitting in front of a fire exit, which was really a closet.

and the artist hung and quartered.

While I agree with your general sentiment, this seems rather curious after calling the guy "sadistic" and "a callous bastard."

Thats a strange comment, I take it your not british or a dog lover. As I am both I expect my opinion is geared to my very British background, of course I used to live in the land thats known for its extreme feelings for pets and animals as a whole.

This artist has shown that he has no feelings so basically that makes him less than an animal. As I believe that people should be treated the same way they treat an animal, all thought it would be impossible to carry out the punishment as we have so many do gooders and laws that prevent such things happening.

However I expect by your opinion you want to go up to this artist shake his hand and compliment him on his art. Well it takes all be to make a world and I will have to respect your opinion. How ever I have my own of which I think would certainly be back by most people on the vine.

I think my opinion is the normal one coming from a pretty sane balanced guy. So whats your true opinion about this artist should he get away with this cruelty? or punish legally and be placed in jail?

the floors your I have wrote my opinion and now you can tell me yours, I no need comment any further on this issue and I will remain silent.

The floors your please inspire us with your great wisdom.

Gee, it's such a shame we have laws against drawing and quartering human beings.

As I am both I expect my opinion is geared to my very British background, of course I used to live in the land thats known for its extreme feelings for pets and animals as a whole.

Even in Britain, I believe that for at least the last few decades, drawing and quartering ventured far into the range of cruel and unusual. Heck, I'd even call that "sadistic."

However I expect by your opinion you want to go up to this artist shake his hand and compliment him on his art

You live in an interesting world, where a person can have only one of two opinions: "chop his body up in big chunks" or "slap him on the back for a job well done."

I'm thankful that I don't live in a legal system based on such extreme thinking.

So whats your true opinion about this artist should he get away with this cruelty? or punish legally and be placed in jail?

I consider what he does animal cruelty, and while it can also be construed as art, it's a piece that killed a living being we happen to like feeling compassionate toward. As for my opinion about legal punishment, that's for the law to decide, not me.

Gee, it's such a shame we have laws against drawing and quartering human beings.

Seriously. At the very least, we should have a provision that allows the use of all manner of medieval torture devices against animal abusers. Not only should Michael Vick go to prison, but he should definitely spend a few hours a day on the Rack, something we don't even do to serial killers. That's my sane balanced opinion.

To Clarify, my purpose in sharing this dark part of art history is to emphasize that their are many things in the history of art that is violent, disturbing, morally shocking, inhumane and psychologically dangerous for both artist and viewer.

There is a tradition and context for this type of art. I do not defend it, but the definition of art, understanding of its role in social commentary, and use & abuse has a long, dark and violent history.

Whoa! Thanks for sharing that.

Yep, I definitely shouldn't have clicked the Body Art link. I figured since the other link didn't have any pictures....

Can it not also be art?

It could also be lots of things - 'art' is not one of them.

That made me think about dead cats, which inevitably led to me thinking about Schrodinger's cat. The artist should have put the dog in a box. Then the dog would have existed in a quantum state of dead and not dead simultaneously. Only when an observer opened the box would the quantuum wave form collapse and you'd find the dog either dead or alive.