Art Or Animal Cruelty?

[Cheese//]

I thought that this would be an interesting subject for discussion.
Read this article for details.
Article

But the gist is that an artist took a dog off the street, tied it up in an art gallery, then didn't allow anyone to feed it.
It eventually starved to death.
He claimed that he was trying to raise awareness about stray dogs on the streets today.

So, what do you think?
Is he a crazy animal abuser?
Or was it a valid piece of art?

Personally, I think that if its meaning was to make the problem of stray dogs more apparent then it definitely succeeded.
The publicity generated from the whole shebang has benefitted the greater majority of stray dogs much more than if he had made a speech or just taken pictures.
I believe that that dog's death had more meaning than if it were to just die in the street anyway.
I don't think killing animals is right.
But this necessary sacrifice has certainly helped the rest of the stray dogs out on the streets.

[ZenSilk]

So if i went and picked up a midget wiht a peg leg and an eye patch (i love those) and no teeth off of the street and tied him to a damn wall and took a shit on him and took a picture and put delicious food just out of his reach every single day until he died, that would be art?

I would be making it known to people that people with height disabilities cannot reach some things that are important to their survival.

[KillZedKill]

He could have gotten the same point across by just feeding it enough to keep it alive, it would look like its in pretty bad shape either way. He could have just bottled the smell of the dog and had people smell it to get the point across, kinda fucked up they let it die, just adding to the problem really.

[Johnny_D]

Wow.

Animal Cruelty for sure. I can't see how that can be construed as art in any way shape or form.

JD

[gaia.plateau]

It takes a lot to disgust me. Like, I can't even imagine something that would disgust me. Genocide, the raping and murdering of 3 year olds, torturing puppies with hot pokers... I could see it all in an afternoon and be pretty much undisturbed.

But what this guy did is fucking disgusting.

That being said, art is in the perception of the beholder... so as apalling as this may be it can still be construed as art. The answer is "both".

[Akkbar]

It takes a lot to disgust me. Like, I can't even imagine something that would disgust me. Genocide, the raping and murdering of 3 year olds, torturing puppies with hot pokers... I could see it all in an afternoon and be pretty much undisturbed.

But what this guy did is fucking disgusting.

That being said, art is in the perception of the beholder... so as apalling as this may be it can still be construed as art. The answer is "both".

you'd rather see a toddler raped and murdered or witness the holocaust than see a dog starved to death? wtf?

i'd prefer not to see either, but i dont think the lives of even all the dogs in the world is equal to the life of one toddler.

[oolatec]

Animal abuse, without a doubt.

[Elky]

I agree that this is both art and animal cruelty. This is a dispicable act, can you imagine the consequences if that happened to be some kids dog that had run off a day before? What I'm trying to say is that even if the most powerful way to make such a statement is to do somehting radical like this, doesnt make it right.

[Cybersist]

Art is in the eye of the creator and the person looking upon it. But that does not sanction the abuse of living animals. Animal Cruelty no matter how you look at it.

[Xeft]

Ignorance.

Ignorance is the reason life is not a utopia with peace and no evil.

This artist is ignorant in the perspective of suffering. He might find this dog suffering to be what he calls "art". However he's ignorant on pain and agony. What the dog feels.

Something that breathes and has the ability to choose, make desicsions. That's something I'd care for if it was mistreated in any kind of way.

Cheese my boy...thanks for making my happy day flush itself.

[oolatec]

If I had a chance to see this travesty of an "exhibit", and was stopped from feeding or caring for the dog... whoever tried to stop me would have gotten a swift punch in the face.

[tj154906]

I'm disgusted.

[gaia.plateau]

you'd rather see a toddler raped and murdered or witness the holocaust than see a dog starved to death? wtf?

Reread what I wrote.

i'd prefer not to see either, but i dont think the lives of even all the dogs in the world is equal to the life of one toddler.

Not that I necessarily agree with you, (a "toddler"'s life is only worth the emotions it gives to its family- there is no real social solidarity, history, or communal value lost in the death of a child. Conversely, if all the dogs in the world died, there would probably occur some ecological imbalance), but this is not an issue about life and death. I really don't understand the western perception that death is some horrible, awful thing that should be feared and avoided at all costs.

This is about the absolute raping of an animal's dignity, and the whoring of that loss for public attention. To help that sink in a bit, I think that going to the circus is as bad or worse than decapitating kittens. Edited November 23, 2007 by gaia.plateau

[gaia.plateau]

Ignorance is the reason life is not a utopia with peace and no evil.

Firstly, the idea of utopia is intrinsically contradictory, in that humans are incapable of being truly satisfied. There are exceptions, of course, (I think the Dalai Lama is probably pretty content), but if you took a random smattering of 100 people and inserted them into an utterly utopian dimension, they would fuck it up within a month.

The reason that there is not peace is exacerbated by widescale ignorance, especially in the Western cultural hemisphere and the Northern economic hemisphere, but is ultimately owing to simple human nature. The first homo sapiens skeleton was found with a spear-head in its ribcage, and we know that our species, Cro Magnus, completely wiped out the previous homo sapiens species. We know that the ancient Mayans, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and Tasmanians all used brutal methods of oppressive rule including torture and genocide to control populations.

Finally, the notion that peace, utopia and happiness are impeded by the existence of evil is fundamentally flawed. Who are we to say that "evil is wrong"? That's called dualism, mon frere, and it's no less ignorant than your average neo-conservative proclaiming that the "Islamofascist conspiracy" is wrong and the Iraq War is right. It's no less ignorant than Evangelical cultists claiming that homosexuality is wrong. Evil is a necessary part of human civilization on micro and macro levels, and it's just as positive a force as good. Once you begin to perceive the world mindfully, you understand that Adolf Hitler was no less negative a force in the world than Mother Theresa. Is it fair to pass the judgement that Hitler was "evil"? Yes, I think that would be an honest and objective statement. Is it fair to say that he was "wrong"? By no means whatsoever. Edited November 23, 2007 by gaia.plateau

[Stealth]

God damn that guy is a douche. What's Its unbelievable is that the museum, every single employee in the museum including the fucking janator, and all the patrons allowed that to happen.

BTW I hate peta and other enviornmentalists but the "artist" and museum's administration should all go to prison.

[gaia.plateau]

BTW I hate peta and other enviornmentalists

Why do you hate environmentalists?

[Johnny_D]

BTW I hate peta and other enviornmentalists

Why do you hate environmentalists?

I can't speak for Stealth... but maybe it's because Peta are insane
and environmentalists are selling the world's biggest white elephant?

JD

[ZenSilk]

BTW I hate peta and other enviornmentalists

Why do you hate environmentalists?

I can't speak for Stealth... but maybe it's because Peta are insane
and environmentalists are selling the world's biggest white elephant?

JD

Baadum Chhh!

Anyway, this guy's a sick bastard. Seriously. If i went there after i was told it was "Art", and i saw that, there would be a damn bloodbath. Im not gonna pussyfoot around this, i would kill him. What a pathetic excuse for being an artist. When i have an exhibit with him peeled open with sparklers stuck in him, i'm going to use the excuse "I'm showing the world that when someone doesnt have a gun, and another person does, the person without one is too weak to fight back". I hate animal cruelty, i'm not a PETA lover or an environmentalist (per say....), but they are living creatures, they don't need to suffer until death. He should have atleast had the balls to put it out of it's misery. I don't know if anyone can even imagine what starving to death would be like, but it would probably be a little like drowning.

How can we, as human beings, say "Art" is letting a defenseless starving animal slowly starve to death? When a dog mauls someone to death, why wouldn't that be art? We can't pull the "Ohh it's just a dog" card, that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard. You are all just humans. So i can chain you to a wall and let you starve right? I rather kill a human than a dog anyday.

[Stealth]

BTW I hate peta and other enviornmentalists

Why do you hate environmentalists?

I can't speak for Stealth... but maybe it's because Peta are insane
and environmentalists are selling the world's biggest white elephant?

JD

Yea, both those groups are pretty gay.

Anyway, what happened to the days when people would sacrifice themselves to make a statement? This has to be the most cowardly person in the world.

What annoys me even more is - im sure while he must have been there plenty of times standing in front of the animal, explaining to other people what the "exibit" is, and all the while saying things like "I hate to have to do this,"and "I know, its horrible."

[ZenSilk]

Just cause he says it doesn't mean that he truly means it. He's just diverting blame. Cause he's a bitch. And Bitch's aint shit.

[gaia.plateau]

I can't speak for Stealth... but maybe it's because Peta are insane
and environmentalists are selling the world's biggest white elephant?

I don't have much knowledge about PETA, but to make blanket statements about all environmental activists is, in my opinion, naive and bordering on ignorant. It's been proven unequivicably that climate change is an imminent and civilization-threatening reality... and ecologically degredation in general is the biggest threat in the world today, especially in Globally Southern developing countries where increasing scarcity of resources directly leads to violent conflict (heard of Darfur?) This isn't a danger to our children and our grandchildren, it's a danger to us. The UN milenium environmental report was done by the world's top 1500 scientists, and found that by 2015 global ecological damage will be irrevocable, and it's only become more rapid since then.

That being said, I'm personally against the holier-than-thou environmentalist approach, such as the "noble activism" of ultra-liberal celebrities like Sean Penn. The notion that we need to "save the planet" is ridiculous; Earth will be able to repair and correct itself no matter what we do to it- this involves its natural defense mechanism of climate change.

The salient global imperative now, however, is to "save the planet" for us. Without environmental activists raising awareness and protesting against ecologically-devestating foreign policies and the widescale derregulation of the Global South, we are in an acronym FUBAR.

Yea, both those groups are pretty gay.

Assuming that you mean gay in a general, derrogatory sense, how do you feel about other groups of people that are trying to save your life? Doctors? Nurses? Paramedics? Fire fighters? (Non-corrupt) Police? (Very, very loosely) What about your country's military? Edited November 23, 2007 by gaia.plateau

[Johnny_D]

My real beef with this whole global climate change thing is, quite simply, is that it's happened before and is a normal
part of the earth's warming and cooling cycle.

We may have marginally accelerated this process but You ain't gonna stop it.

That said we should have good, sound, environmental policies.

Explain to me how taxing everything to the hilt under the ban of environmentalism is helping (In the case of the england - the london congestion zone - which has had 0% impact on the traffic numbers, but makes a lot of money for ken livingston)

JD

[TheScotsman]

My real beef with this whole global climate change thing is, quite simply, is that it's happened before and is a normal
part of the earth's warming and cooling cycle.

We may have marginally accelerated this process but You ain't gonna stop it.

That said we should have good, sound, environmental policies.

Explain to me how taxing everything to the hilt under the ban of environmentalism is helping (In the case of the england - the london congestion zone - which has had 0% impact on the traffic numbers, but makes a lot of money for ken livingston)

JD

It's the same thing here, additional tax added to everything that may be a cause of pollution, yet the $ never seem to make it into any funds to clean up, or mitigate the pollution... but rather end up in the general coffers, to be used for more stupidity (likely generating more pollution in it's own right, than the item that was taxed to start with.)

Al Gore, and this whole "carbon credit" BS is insane. Where's my $ for replanting my 75 acres with trees? Or using a carbon neutral fuel? With a negative "footprint" I should be making $... but no, it's a one-way street for the carbon BS.

One of my favourites is a local lake that the gov't banned 2-smoker engines on, yet the lake is "dead" as a result of methane naturally occurring from decomposition. Makes a load of sense to me! Edited November 23, 2007 by TheScotsman

[gaia.plateau]

My real beef with this whole global climate change thing is, quite simply, is that it's happened before and is a normal
part of the earth's warming and cooling cycle.

We may have marginally accelerated this process but You ain't gonna stop it.

Climate change as a result of a natural cycle is as different from a species-induced climate change as Tangiers and Starbuzz.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7098902.stm

^^^ Not "marginal"... but rather "unequivocally" and unnaturally. ^^^

That said we should have good, sound, environmental policies.

Explain to me how taxing everything to the hilt under the ban of environmentalism is helping (In the case of the england - the london congestion zone - which has had 0% impact on the traffic numbers, but makes a lot of money for ken livingston)

But why would we construct good, sound environmental policies, when the policy makers are the ones whose profits would be hurt by them?

I'll explain to you why taxation is viable. The Global North (developed, industrial states like Canada, the UK, the US, France, Germany, Russia, etc.) started all the problems that are causing global warming when we industrialized with oil and coal. Now the Global South, including China and India and others are beginning their industrialization processes in a similar manner, but with 10-15 times as many people.

What we need is technology for clean development, and technology is expensive. In the opinion of myself and the greater part of the most distinguished minds today, it is the responsibility of the Global North to develop this technology for the Global South at our cost.

Really, there are only two alternatives.

1) We impose the kind of good, sound environmental policies you're talking about on Southern developing countries, utterly violating the notion of state sovereignty and losing all pretenses that we are no longer living in a great powers international system...

or 2) All states disband their militaries (over 45% of greenhouse gas emissions are military related).

Neither is viable in the foreseeable future. Edited November 23, 2007 by gaia.plateau

[Sonthert]

I think most people agree that global climate is changing and warming. I don't think its universally accepted that its man's activities that are causing it.

I would counter: Lets start a global warming thread and not hijack this important thread about animals vs. art.

Its just an animal people, its sad, and it would have survived if this dumb-ass hadn't tied it up. The artist objects to the states that these animals live in. They are different than he sees the way they should be living. They offend his sense of aesthetics and he is applying the idea "All or nothing" either make these dogs look they way artist expects them to look (and many of us, too) by taking care of them and feeding them appropriately or kill them. I find the concept...selfish and self-centered. The stray dogs offend your sensibilities, but they live thousands and thousands of years before cities...and they were ALL stray. Thats how they live.

To kill a dog because they are living naturally in a manner that you don't approve of, aesthetically, thats just jacked up. Thats about like somebody sort of compared to Hitler...killing people because they didn't agree with his aesthetic principles.