Posted by Molly Dolly at 3/16/08 7:00 p.m.

Thanks, Regina! Poverty sucks for animals, too.

Posted by Lazslo at 3/18/08 2:48 p.m.

I strongly object to the signing of Vanessa Renwick's petition to have Guillermo Vargas Habacuc excluded from a Latin American art biennial. Having lived in Latin America for over two years, and been to Cartago, Limon and San Jose, I have seen the large number of dogs that exist in the cities there and in other Latin American cities. I question if Ms. Renwick has ever left Oregon, let alone seen Latin countries first-hand, which would lend some credibility to her uninformed views. From what I can gleen from her on-line petition, she objects to the creulty of animals, which is understandable, yet in true American delusion, she concludes that excluding an artist from an exhibition (which is outside her own county's boundaries) is the way to emeliorate the abuse of those dogs. This petition does not stop animal creulty at all, and instead is intended as a punitive action against the artist. If Ms. Renwick were truly concerned about animal creulty, she might actually go into Latin American countries and actually do something to help the dogs living off garbage in the streets. And, oh by the way, that is the message of the exhibition, to bring to light the truth of this problem! Censoring an artist (or journalist) for showing or telling the truth is once again asserting itself as being quintessentially American as apple pie, thanks to people like Ms. Renwick. (It's of particular note that her website slogan has a person riding a bucking horse, bucking no doubt to remove the human being suqatting on its back, with the phrase "kickin' ass", ah yes, how very cowboy of you Ms. Renwick). Moreover, the hubris of an American citizen dictating what a Latin American art gallery should and shouldn't be exhibiting is colonialist in nature. It seems that what Ms. Renwick is saying in her petition is that torture and abuse of animals is OK as long as she doesn't have to see it. There really are so many problems with the logic of Ms. Renwick's petition that I cannot enumerate them all here. I strongly discourage anyone from signing her rediculous petition and respectfully propose that anyone who is sincere in their concern for animal cruelty look elsewhere to direct their energies. As for Ms. Hackett's query as to whether the piece is art, it seems to me that shining a light on ills of the artist's community is indeed the highest order of art, and despite Americans ingrained and culturally conditioned refusal to acknowledge the inevitability of death, it is a part of this experience we call life and should not be excluded from artistic discourse.

Posted by Regina Hackett at 3/18/08 7:37 p.m.

Mr. or Ms. Lazslo: Sorry, it's just wrong to tie a starving dog in a gallery within smelling distance of food and let it die. You know nothing about Vanessa Renwick, her art or her travel history. She is well award that dogs (and people) starve. There's no way she considers the process art. I'm with her all the way. Regina

Posted by justice1130 at 3/19/08 8:55 a.m.

Lazslo your argument that starving this dog and displaying this in an art gallery will perhaps help starving street dogs in central america is absurd.This will not solve that problem the only thing this accomplishes is getting this cruel mans name in newspapers and on the web which im sure were his intentions.If he wanted to do something constructive to help these dogs how about starting some sort of foundation that raises money to combat this problem. committing an evil act like starving a dog to death completely negates any good intentions this man might have had if any at all. let me ask you, would excuting a woman from darfur in an art gallery be the right way to bring attention to the mass murder thats going on there? you should have taken a step back and thought about where you stand on this matter before you publicly support this monster.

Posted by Lazslo at 3/19/08 10:25 a.m.

I disagree with Regina's and Justice 1130's opinions. Not that I am so in favor of harming or killing animals, but that censoring an artist in Latin America just so a bunch of Americans can feel better is rediculous. Homeless dogs die every day in cities and in pounds, and censoring an artist is not going to do anything to redeem that fact. I've read about this over the evening, and it appears to me that the artist's intent was not to kill the dog, and that the blame for the dogs death seems to rest with the gallery owner and not the artist. The dogs death was unfortunate circumstance that resulted from negligence on the gallery's part. I respect that people don't think the exhibition of a starving street dog tied up is art, that is your perspective. But to impose your "moral" judgments or aesthetic perspectives on an artist who doesn't even live in this country is, in my opinion, just more colonialism. I find it so telling when justice1130 writes "If he wanted to do something constructive to help these dogs how about starting some sort of foundation that raises money to combat this problem." Now, on top of the artist not being able to exhibit his work, you are consigning a whole new hobby to him? That arrogance is objectionable to me, and more wrong than the inadvertent death of a dog. Ms. Renwick's petition is pure and simple artistic censorship. I'm not in favor of that in this instance of negligence on the part of the gallery.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 12:56 p.m.

I sympathize with Lazsio's point. While I would never encourage some one to tie up a starving child to make a point or send a message, I don't see how this person is much different from a news reporter or a documentary film maker. When some one makes a documentary about people starving we don't call them immoral or demand that they stop the filming and divert all funds to hunger relief.
Have any of you seen Earthlings? This award -winning documentary captures horrific examples of animal abuse. I cried as I watched garbage men throw an injured dog into a garbage truck where it was crushed. This is something people should see - should be forced to deal with so they can understand the realities of animal abuse. No one attacked the undercover photographers for standing idly by and allowing it to happen. Yes, there is a difference between following a starving animal and actually tying it up and not allowing it to move. But after living in South America for three years I can tell you that the reality for this dog, Nativity, and dogs like her, would not be much different either way. Dogs are routinely abused, killed, abandoned, beaten, tortured, poisoned and left to starve in the street. What this incident has done is maybe caused some people to stop and pause and wonder why they find it so abhorrent when it is publicized but ignore it when it happens every day in this country and in every other.
Maybe it isn't art, but it's done more to provoke interest in animal rights than any of the petition's signers.

Posted by justice1130 at 3/19/08 3:09 p.m.

In response to lazslo, let me first quoute something i heard from another artist, i think it applys perfectly to this situation.
"While I do not believe in censorship, I do believe that a line must be drawn when it involves taking an unwilling model and using them against their wishes. Maybe it is not very humane of me, but I strongly believe that people who use and abuse animals, or people for that matter, for any reason, deserve to have the same thing happen to them. It may be an old cliché that many artists suffer in various ways for their work, but causing another being to suffer is another story." For you to call another living, breathing creature "his work" is crazy. there a more constructive ways to provoke animal rights then killing an animal by starving it to death. oh and by the way i find the gallerys story on how the dog actually died very questionable, i don't believe a dog that didn't even have enough strength to stand was able to escape from that rope and get itself killed. i think it's sad that anybody in this world would defend the torture of another living being as art. This is not about "moral judgement" this about the right of every being in this world having the right not to be torured and killed shame on you!!!

Posted by Regina Hackett at 3/19/08 4:37 p.m.

No different than a reporter? But the artist tied the dog up and tortured it with the smell of food as it died of hunger and thirst. A reporter is an observer, not an actor.

Lazlo's charge of colonalism is bunk. It's a crass attempt to guilt-trip those who object on moral grounds by saying they have no grounds to speak, if they're from the U.S. I'm just not that guilty, guy. By this reasoning, a snuff film is a plea for women's rights.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 5:30 p.m.

Lazslo: Thousands of Africans die from AIDS and famine in Africa every year. Yet, I would not consider publicly displaying one of them in a so-called "art" gallery to starve to death, and calling "he would have died anyway" as art. I agree with justice1130 as the "artist" is simply in pursuit of fame and publicity. This person should be banned from every artistic convention, the conventions that oppose should be boycotted. If the "artist" cared about these animals and was acting on his supposedly existing conscience, he could have saved even this one animal. People who try to make a change for a better world do what they _can_ do, even saving the life of one single animal.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 9:34 a.m.

I am inclined to believe that most viewpoints expressed here lack the necessary knowledge of what life in the streets of most Central American cities is, and show an inherent wish of not doing anything tangible to change that. It would be preposterous to support such a repulsive act, be it artistic or not, but you have to completely understand the words expressed in all press releases issued by the gallery manager, the artist and even ADDA (the most important Spanish animal rights NGO). For the sake of objectiveness, a good advice for a serious publisher would be to thoroughly review their sources, in English AND Spanish. --Alejandro Telleria, Barcelona, Spain

Posted by unregistered user at 3/27/08 2:19 p.m.

Lazslo and anyone else who agrees with him, you are just sick individuals. Disgusting. Words cannot describe.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/30/08 7:04 a.m.

I am Latin American and find Lazlo's comment totally unacceptable.

Any person, be it an American brought up in America or a Costa Rican, Peruvian or Ecuadorian brought up in their respective countries, will be aghast in front of the cruelty of the so-called artist.
Any human being with a bit of decency will feel revolted, sickened, disgusted by a so called "artist" that gets attention and money by torturing a defenseless dog.

I have seen very poor people adopting these dogs and lavishing them with love. My family never had much money, but we adopted a stray - and two cats - right out of the street. No matter how many stray dogs have you seen, you are never desensitized to their plight. You cannot help everyone, but many people tries at least a bit.

The so called "artist" does not want to help anyone but himself. In the vast and viciated realm of wanna be genious, he is exploiting the base instincts of a world hungry for shocks.

Lazlo and others like him rehearses old common places - since them you are disqualified to talk against cruelty by the place you grew up? - that go directly to attempt and justify the mercenary, disgusting acts of the so called "artist". Shame on these attempts.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/31/08 1:23 p.m.

cruelty is what goes on every single day in Irak, the Central American-Mexican border, the Mexico-U.S. border and I don't see 300,000 signatures being collected by anybody...this is just American culture at its best-worst...

Posted by unregistered user at 4/7/08 2:29 a.m.

I have been reading all comments above... please allow me to express my poor opinion...
I myself live in Athens, Greece, and we also have a serious problem with stray annimals. What does that mean? That, since no-one is doing anything to help them, that someone should go and kill them because they are going to die anyway?!? WTF, are you for real? I have come to terms with the fact that this horrible world is full of unfair and sick situations. I don't give up though, and therefore I have decided that whatever good I can offer I will offer it, even if it means giving a stray dog a plate of food for only a day. Stray animals, abused women and children, sick and starving children... Should we go out and kill every afrikan child because it is underweight or with Aids, because the governments don't care? Should we tie up an abused woman and kick the shit out of her because her psycho husband is going to kill her anyway at some point if she doesn't get out? Because people don't care as much as they should? I agree with comment #109759, how can you say that a reporter, who just observes and doesn't cause a situation, and this monster (who some call artist) are the same thing? If this so called artist wanted to make a difference, he should use his income from his "substantial career in Central America" and try to help by saving animals, not making sure they will die tied up from starvation. And instead of all of us getting together, I read many comments above with people from Latin America fighting with people from Central or North of South America,accussing one another that they "don't know". What to say...? Is this what you kept from this video? If the obvious wrong becomes right because you don't like the person who critisizes it, then what hope is there? I have never heard of that artist, I have never heard of the lady that created the petition, therefore I don't care for any of them... But I do know that I will stand against any person that will inflict pain or cause the death of a poor and helpless animal, who the only thing that it did wrong was being born to this shitty world in the first place... Has he given Nativity a choise? What does it mean that "she would have died anyway"? Who allocated you God Vardas? Shame on Vargas, shame on whoever thought this right in anyway, shame on those who have invited him to repeat it....

Posted by unregistered user at 4/9/08 4:11 a.m.

There is no clearer demonstration of how far the bar has fallen for modern art. I submit the question: when did art stop requiring talent? Does chaining a dog to the floor now pass as art? Of course not.

I would counter Lazslo's comments thus: if the concern in Mr. Vargas's statement were genuine, he would take concrete action to affect local change. He would not inflict a slow and painful death upon an animal in the name of abstract art.

It is ridiculous to challenge someone to travel to a foreign nation to raise public awareness or affect government action. To attack Ms. Renwick for opposing Mr. Vargas's grotesque exhibition of animal cruelty, especially with such obvious and unfortunate anti-American vitriol, is grossly misplaced.

I would encourage Mr. Vargas to study the works of Da Vinci, Rembrandt, and Monet to learn what real art is.

What's next? Hanging fetuses from miniature nooses to protest abortion? Sometimes I despair that the most talented artists of our time are drawing comic book covers.

Robert
Saskatoon, Canada

Posted by unregistered user at 4/9/08 11:34 p.m.

If the artist really wanted to so something about the suffering of street dogs, why didnt he invite visitors to feed and pet the poor dog, maybe to even adopt the dog, with literature or videos illustrating the problem and imploring people to help??? Better yet, why didnt he tie himself up and starve for days - it would have drawn just as much attention and when asked "why" he could explain that he was sympathizing with the starving street dogs.

Secondly, the petitions and condemnations of this sad event started in Costa Rica, by Costa Ricans, and grew throughout Central America, before anyone took notice in the US.

Third, at least on the streets that dog would have a chance to look for food scraps and fend for herself.

This is a deplorable, barbarian act by a lowlife and I am shocked that Costa Rica does not yet have any laws against animal cruelty. "Artistic Statement"? Who cares if it is called "art", it is not any more acceptable than the American torture of Iraqis at Abu Graib.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/10/08 5:38 a.m.

Some times I really hope God does exist after all and after death each one takes what he or she deserves. That person deserves HELL along with many others. Saving ONE life, even that of one small sick dog is precious. I am wondering how come the visitors of the gallery did not do anything about it. World of idiots

Posted by unregistered user at 4/10/08 8:02 a.m.

If this artist wants to make a statement about starving dogs in Latin America, this is not an effective way to do so. The ensuing controversy clouds the intent. What a jerk. Why not take a starving dog, feed him every day, and film/photograph the animal's transformation into a healthy creature? It would be much more effective, humane and even fun. And it would be no less "art" than starving an animal is. If he wants to add some drama, while the animal is getting healthy, he ought to starve himself until he dies, to illustrate the juxtaposition.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/10/08 10:07 a.m.

So, to illustrate how horrible it is for children around the world to starve, would be OK to tie a small child to the same wall and allow it to die of starvation?

Don't get me wrong, I do not equate humans to animals, but I think it's wrong to slowly starve any animal to death. If left to it's own means, the dog could have possibly survived on it's own.

Crappy example of art, no matter how you slice it.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/10/08 10:54 a.m.

I'd like to see Lazslo tied up and starved to death in the name of art. And let the viewers give him a good swift kick in the pants now and then.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/10/08 11:45 a.m.

This brought me to tears. This sick person has a pathetic idea of art, and I am heartbroken over this sick torture. We have to stop them! Take action at:
http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/675045?REPOST=a4a110c784b6824f8a1acfea15d44640

SIGN THE PETITION!

If you are so concerned with the starving animals in Costa Rica, dedicate your life to helping them! Every life is precious, and cannot be tortured to make a point!

Posted by unregistered user at 4/11/08 1:26 a.m.

SIMPLE SOLUTION. FEED THE ARTIST TO THE HUNGRY DOG ! PACK JUSTIC IS SERVED.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/11/08 11:30 a.m.

Does anyone know if the artist meant for the dog to die?

Apparently the gallery or artist has said that the dog "had been fed by Vargas and was only tied up during the gallery opening times."

Regardless of whether that is true, I agree with Lazslo that there has been FAR too much energy put into petitioning this artist, when there are much, much, much bigger problems in the world.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/11/08 11:34 a.m.

Read this story: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/news/story/0,,2269320,00.html

Vargas, 32, said he wanted to test the public's reaction, and insisted none of the exhibition visitors intervened to stop the animal's suffering. He refused to say whether the animal had survived the show, but said he had received dozens of death threats.

Juanita Bermúdez, director of the Códice Gallery, insisted Natividad escaped after just one day. She said: 'It 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.'
---
Sounds like Vargus Habacus actually WANTS people to think the dog died.. probably to generate more publicity.. and you fools are all falling for it..

Posted by unregistered user at 4/11/08 2:26 p.m.

people worry about alot of shite...I love dogs but, humans starve everyday on a planet blessed with abundance...this mythical place of food for all...Earth...wake up and smell the atrocities we choose to avoid on a daily basis...rwfm@goowy.com

Posted by ghostridersi at 4/12/08 4:54 a.m.

I think that the artist missed the point. Would that sick..tide a starving kid? From my point of view it is pretty much the same. Or,would he kill somebody to stop some war? this is the case I regret I don't have an atomic bomb. We have a huge problem with hunger here in Serbia, not just among dogs on streets, but also among the people and noone should die becouse of that. Not so long ago, some international court take a legal proceeding against woman from Serbia for telling that the dogs from streets should be burned. Whole Europe, BBC etc. were agreed that Serbs are aproved again as savages. That's truth maybe, but what would you do with this poor creature, you fine,democratic world? Sorry for bad spelling.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/12/08 8:42 a.m.

"cruelty is what goes on every single day in Irak, the Central American-Mexican border, the Mexico-U.S. border and I don't see 300,000 signatures being collected by anybody...this is just American culture at its best-worst..."
Ahaha, you are the biggest moron. There are hundreds if not thousands of petitions about the war, the American Borders and other issues with countless signatures.
And what's more is that you think that because there is worse human suffering out there that it makes this ok, or at least acceptable. And on TOP OF THAT you make this a 'stupid American' point of view that we don't want a dog to be TORTURED in an incredibly smug and self concerned attempt at art. This is not about where you live, this is about basic human decency.

And Laszlo, you're well spoken enough but it can't mask your ignorance or your own massive hubris. Dogs die every day?! Seriously?! In countries that aren't well off monetarily?! DO TELL. The fact that you ARE exposed to more of this than us should make you MORE in favor of signing a petition or at least not supporting this arsehole. If you have the energy to go outside, pick a starving dog and feed it just enough to survive into a lame attempt at art to showcase the suffering and supposedly help the other dogs you passed on the street, then you have enough energy to ACTUALLY HELP the dog in question. But no, he decided to make a name for himself and a chunk of cash as well. This 'statement' of his is just a bunch of smug self centered bullcrap, and you are buying into it. To say that this is an American point of view is to say we aren't entitled to feel bad for tortured animals, and to that I say in no uncertain terms you can screw yourself. We will do what we can to reduce acts of profiteering on killing animals. And we will not feel bad for it because we weren't born where you think we should have been in order to HOLD AN OPINION.

Get out of here, your ego needs stroking.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/12/08 10:33 a.m.

I don't believe in censoring artists but I do believe that the dog, Nativity, was tortured. Whatever the reasons for the artist to tie Nativity up, there was no reason not to feed it. If it "was going to die anyway" why make it worse, why make a spectacle of it?

That poor dog.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/12/08 12:29 p.m.

In response to Lazslo:

"Moreover, the hubris of an American citizen dictating what a Latin American art gallery should and shouldn't be exhibiting is colonialist in nature."

Sorry, nice try. They are just expressing an opinion of the morality of the practices of the gallery. The gallery has the choice to comply or not comply. It's not like people are going in there with guns and forcing them not to show this artist. So the "American citizen" is not "dictating" anything. Using your multiculturalist lingo to justify moral relativism and animal torture is much more a crime IMO.

You seem to think the general public is ignorant of what Guilermo Vargas Habacuc's strategy is. Guilermo Vargas Habacuc and everyone else is well aware that his piece is meant to shock and dismay. Guilermo Vargas Habacuc also realizes the moral transgression he is perpetrating to light up his art star in the art world. Unfortunately, this controversy in and of itself will probably be enough to make his name in the art world.

As far as your pseudo-intellectual ramblings, I would submit the problem here isn't one of multiculturalism but one that is Marxist in nature. You're saying that the exchange value of the dog is more important than the dog's life? For shame, you intellectual lightweight.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/13/08 10:35 a.m.

Just curious… What if the time this poor dog spent in the gallery was the most attention, food, and water she had received in months? Is it still cruelty?

Personally, I believe it was unethical to exploit the plight of this living creature to make an abstract statement. But I suspect this animal was probably not, in reality, treated cruelly by the artist. I don't know what happened since I wasn't there. However, I do find it interesting how ready people are to believe, not only whatever they read online, but whatever interpretation an author has given to a story without much independent critical thought or reliable background information.

I'm not saying people shouldn't speak out when they perceive injustice—I just think that, in this instance, we are obviously being manipulated.

In my opinion, signing petitions to ban the artist is probably not the most effective way to discourage this type of behavior. Ignore the artist; let him starve of anonymity. Donate your money or time to a local or Costa Rican pet shelter. Certainly this will not rid the world of its evils, but it will put your efforts toward a greater good while not playing into the goals of this individual.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/15/08 7:00 a.m.

PEOPLE ARE STARVING AS WELL. PERHAPS SOMEONE SHOULD TIE GUILERMO UP AS WELL AND ALLOW HIM TO STARVE IN THE NAME OF ART.

Posted by jennart at 4/15/08 7:38 a.m.

Though I feel each of us as humans has a right to express the way we view the world as well and society as a whole, I think in many ways this is an exploitation.
Death, starvation and cruelty are an unfortunate part of the world we live in...however this does not mean they should be displayed in galleries and called "art".
There are far better ways to bring attention to an issue than making an animal or human suffer.
Whether or not the dog would have in fact died is not the point, this sort of public display does nothing to rectify the problem.
It does however pose several questions in my mind about what modern art is...
In several countries, public hangings of criminals have been and are still viewed as acceptable practice.
Could this also be considered "art" if conducted and displayed in a gallery installation?
Where do we draw the line?
Life in all forms is precious and should be treated as such. No living thing should be made to suffer at our hands. Though we cannot control nature and solve the worlds problems we do have a responsibility to care for and preserve the life of all living things around us.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/15/08 12:13 p.m.

So... if he simply filmed all the myriad of starving dogs in San Jose and watched as they died and no one cared... would he be able to display that as art? Throw something in people's face they'd rather not see? I find little difference between filming starving dogs for people to see and bringing in an actual starving dog. Honestly, I think the actual dog would have a better effect and would perhaps promote more activism on the part of the museum goers.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/15/08 1:25 p.m.

The artist DID prove a point about hypocrisy. Nobody had the courage to untie the animal and care for it - why not?

Who's the bigger monster? The artist who created the situation, or the patrons (and commenters here) talking the talk but not walking the walk?

Posted by unregistered user at 4/15/08 5:08 p.m.

What a piece of vomit that guy is. Not an artist, just a piece of vomit. He gives "art" a bad name.

Posted by DonnaWanna at 4/15/08 5:46 p.m.

Would it be "art" to subject an unwilling child to sexual abuse to "raise awareness" about such evils? Would it be "art" to take a starving child from an impoverished nation and let that child starve to death in front of onlookers to raise awareness?

This is behond sickening.

Posted by theedge98074 at 4/15/08 8:36 p.m.

Simple, do the same to the artist.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/15/08 8:44 p.m.

This is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen! This is what a sick and sad species that we humans have become. I think that this guy should reenact the holocaust on himself as "art". This would speak to what is "art" in his terms when he dies for his art. Or maybe shoots himself in the head in the art gallery for everyone to see. Call that art but don't take your art out on other beings. I hope that this guys lives a miserable existence. I'm so disgusted by this that you wouldn't believe. I wish I was in Costa Rica, I would take "art" out on him.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/16/08 12:30 p.m.

There is all sorts of speculation as to whether or not the dog lived or not and whether or not the so-called "artist" was doing this to gain attention or stir the pot to get a reaction from people....what disturbs me the most is the fact that hundreds of people went by the exhibit every day and did nothing....I probably would have been arrested for trying to get the dog out of there...My family has rescued many strays over the years (both cats and dogs) and they make wonderful loving pets. Everyone should do the same....This "artist" should not be able to show this kind of exhibit again and should be given a fine for animal cruelty! (In a perfect world, it would be worse!)

Posted by unregistered user at 4/16/08 1:27 p.m.

My opinion – so because we feel murder is bad and exists all around us do we perform a public live murder to illustrate a point?? How is this Art?? How is cruel torturing of an animal that was clearly in desperate need of care art? How can he say this was not meant to cause infliction when in fact that is what he is doing? Should we now put the starving child on display and watch them die for our appreciation of art? Should we publically slaughter people to illustrate how unjust it is for our government to turn a blind eye to those who live in areas where genocide/ethnically cleansing occurs and yet we do nothing? This does not justify his actions and what he is doing is cruel and unnecessary. He is committing a crime for the sake of being "provocative" and for the sake of making a "statement". This is NOT art, it's cruel and rather disturbing.

He is being asked to do this again…..now is a chance to be the voice he claims is not being heard….he claims we take no action and allow such cruelty in our everyday lives…..well let's all show him that we do care and that we do have a voice and that we don't agree with his means of making a point. STOP HIM NOW before another innocent creature is tortured.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/17/08 12:05 p.m.

Does anyone else see how this "artist" has gotten people talking about starving dogs? I think that the dog should have been cared for, but still displayed in its pathetic state. Perhaps she could have been auctioned off with the proceeds going to a shelter.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/17/08 1:22 p.m.

This is sick. people have been arguing that this is acceptable in the country it took place in, But in my opinion anything like this, is discusting behaviour!
This is toture to the max. He says it would have starved to death! Um no it wouldnt! It would have found food, its the whole concept of tying it up that i cannot stand!
He makes me sick to the tooth! Im discusted that any human could do this. Its a living thing, which is just as equal as any other living thing, may it be a human or a rat, or a DOG!

Posted by unregistered user at 4/17/08 3:39 p.m.

Another argument that focuses on the art, and not the dog:

If you cannot communicate your thoughts/feelings well through your art, then that's not good art IMHO. (which also means that I believe art is personal, of course, and that what one considers good art will be junk for someone else, etc.)

What I wonder about is what the people who visited the exhibition thought when they saw the piece. And how much their appreciation for the art displayed was influenced by the dog actually starving to death. My guess is not that much. Once the dog is dead, the art in question becomes pointless. If the artist is really making the point he says he does, he has to show the pain and suffering, and the dead don't suffer.

Then would I have liked the piece if the dog hadn't died? Not really, since it says nothing about a stray dog to me. If he were to do something that was socially acceptable, but provoking (like slaughter sick a cow in the gallery every day with moans of the dying animal and blood everywhere, for example) then the art would be interesting. In its current iteration, he just demonstrates that he can kill a dog. well... Kudos to him...

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 1:56 a.m.

So far, in reading general reactions to this artist and the controversy surrounding his art, a few things seem to have surfaced multiple times:

-The precise definition of 'art'.
A few of the previous comments have tended toward saying that Vargas' work does not constitute art, while failing to define what art is. It seems (given a broad definition of art as matter and/or energy organized in time and/or space) that this IS art, it just may not be 'good' art, as the value assessment on art is extremely subjective. So while you may not agree that this work constitutes 'good' art, it is still a form of 'art' in the broader form of the word.

-The reciprocity of torture toward the artist.
A few comments have mentioned that Vargas should be tied up and starved to 'illustrate the plight of the starving people in the world', or somesuch comment along those lines. How, then is this reaction any different than what Vargas was aiming for in his art? He sought to illustrate the hypocrisy of the general public in matters of animal cruelty. If you push for animal rights but advocate the torture and slow death of the abuser, how are you any different from the people who mistreat the animals in the first place? In fact, does that make you even worse?

Allow me to say at this point that I do not advocate the meaningless torture or cruelty of anyone or anything in any way shape or form.

-The illusion of a fair world.
One point of view is that the dog would have had a chance of survival in the streets. True, but how slim of a chance? I suspect that if analguous circumstances were offered to humans (the choice between a struggling, violent, bleak and uncertain future, or a fuzzy death, eventually all but the most stalwart of souls would give in), case in point the treatment of the Jewish peoples before and during WW2 (the culture of hatred and alienation, the hostility toward them by their neighbors and the subsequent internment in the work and death camps). How many revolts were there in the camps? A fair few, to be sure, but I would venture to say that they were in a minority. Most of the prisoners hoped to survive and make it through, or had simply given up. Nature is red in tooth and claw, and nothing is going to change that immutable fact.

-Rationality vs. Emotion, and their respective roles in killing the messenger.
My perception (however flawed or biased it may be) is that there are a good many reactions to the artwork that are based solely in emotion. To be absolutely fair, a sense of humanity is integral to who we are. But to let emotion cloud our judgement and force ad hominem attacks on the bearer of a truth, no matter how unpleasant that viewpoint may be, is a discredit to our humanity and our reason both.

To close, (to anyone still reading, thank you for making it this far -- your continuation is as unexpected as it is appreciated) vitriol, threats, and shortsighted, subjective condemnations will do nothing for an open discussion of values and morals. Debate by reasoned statements, grounded in our values, ethics and moral codes is much more productive and pleasant for all involved, when compared to the alternative. Arguments that consist of closed mindsets and baseless accusations (as well as ignorance, whether willful or unintentional, of the facts and the different viewpoints involved), that devolve into shouting matches, won't get us anywhere.

Let us open a mindful, open talk about the pertinent subject, refraining from personal attacks, insults, and killing the messenger (because, as past history shows, it is a very poor method of denial). Let us see past the imperfections of practice into the depths of the ideas.

Only through calm can we hope to reach any kind of reasonable juncture of opinions.

-River Tam

Posted by unregistered user at 4/21/08 7:05 p.m.

a starving dog is a starving dog; fck art and fck stupid artists...

Posted by unregistered user at 4/22/08 8:58 a.m.

Well that is to show you where the Art World has reached. The fact that creativity has gone from art and now people have to undermine themselves and take the lives of poor animals to get attention. And by getting attention, she expects interviews and money related things. The best way to show what a fool she was to not publicize this. Give her the damn exhibition, I don't care, I hope the people at that museum knows that such absurdities is not allowed in developed nations, that is what you would call third world mentality. What if a dying child was to be tied up on a post and allowed starve AND YES I DO NOT MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN HUMANS AND OTHER SPECIES! We are all animals biologically and socially, no matter how much you might want to deny it.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/23/08 9:42 a.m.

Obviously no one here is going to do a thing about alleviating the suffering of stray dogs in Central America In my book that makes us worse than 'the horrible artist'. We know and we do absolutely nothing about it.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/24/08 11:28 a.m.

Mr. Vargas' karma is seriously out of whack. I suspect his next life will be as a dog turd maggot.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/24/08 2:19 p.m.

to whoever wrote this comment "I agree with Lazslo that there has been FAR too much energy put into petitioning this artist, when there are much, much, much bigger problems in the world."

You are so wrong, this is exactly the problem in the world, Women beating, child abuse, animal abuse, in fact any abuse and most negative things in the world are a direct result of our moral dillema's. Im talking about respect for others and other beings, compassion, caring, our sense of community and i think most of all our selfishness, every time we let antisocial behaviour slide we let the rest of the problem makers of the world know that they can get away with antisocial acts, whether it be this artist, corrupt politicians, murderers, just to name a few. I wish we would all come together.

By the way... even beings far away from us feel the effects of our lack of respect to what we have been given on this earth. For example , polar bears who live far from most humans are gonna be wiped out if we keep things the way they are....it is not right...they live here too, why is it so hard to turn around and see things from there point of view?

We are supposed to be the carers of this world as we are more capable of making things happen out of all the living beings here. Why do we constantly pick on the ones smaller than us, instead of helping them along?

Posted by unregistered user at 4/29/08 10:43 a.m.

Whatever you drag into an art gallery is effectively like dragging something out of darkness and under a spotlight. So, this IS art. Since DuChamp, all is permitted, all can be art--it is just a matter of context. The focusing power of an art gallery is what makes it a sacred space for humanists.

Art criticism (which is what brings us here, folks), is not a thumbs-up/thumbs-down judgment game, but a dialog through which culture develops. So does this act further the culture? I would say no. Giving the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt, it seems his intent was to highlight the passivity of his audience, who did not intervene to help the dog. Well, duh. How many more examples do we need of this tragic human tendency? Germany 1933, the murder of Kitty Genovese, an American citizenry that allowed the 2000 coup, a war based on lies, and the sinking of the economy... People are for the most part passive observers of their own lives.

To paraphrase the late great punk band Minutemen: "Maybe blogging will help..."

p.s. In March Towards Freedom, Martin Luther King wrote, "When hate fights hate, hate wins." The same could be said of cruelty. And since we're on the topic of hypocrisy, how many of the commenters here outraged by the obvious cruelty of this act eat meat? Out of sight is out of mind. Food for thought...

Posted by unregistered user at 4/29/08 11:06 a.m.

Regarding the previous comment, it's true: good manners will be the death of us. At least some of those gallery visitors were probably wanting to aid the animal, but their respect for the gallery structure prevented them from intervening. This would never have happened in Seattle! Not because Seattlites are so high-minded and pro-active, but because they have no respect for art! Art gets stolen, poked, prodded, fondled, stepped-on, you name it, I've seen it all as my dopey fellow citizens continually mistake gallery art for a hands-on display at the children's museum. If this had been at the Henry, someone would have given the dog a Luna bar.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/30/08 6:56 a.m.

Correct me if I am wrong, but You should have gave the dog food and water and show the world how can we save the animals,dogs in this case,and not kill the poor animal!!!

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!

Posted by unregistered user at 5/2/08 3:23 p.m.

Your all fighting over a situation you all dont truely understand, you were not their when he did it, you do not know why he did it, you have his statement which under all you laws classifies he is innocent until proven guilty. the humane society may have backed up the statement that the dog was starving but then again they could go out onto the streets of latin american cities and state that all strays are starving and going to die. you all have your right to an opinion but all your negative opinions are slander against the artist.
didnt your mother ever tell u if your not going to say something nice dont say it at all. their are bigger problems in the world today ten a stray dog in an art gallery that was tied up for a matter of 3 hours fed and then let go. america is such a shallow society you all want to help but you dont get off your fat BUTS from your computer desks t do something,you want to help , then go to latin america and start to rescue, spey/neuter, vaccinate and care for these dogs then adopt them out. the logical thing to do. the artist has no history of violence against animals. you are all trying to involve yourself in a state of hypocrisy are you all vegan , environmentalist, who farm organically and do not use electricity, i dont think so. and how can you americans even comment this when your country has one of the highest animal cruelty rates , not to mention your bordering with a country that likes to hunt down seals and bash them with any object they chose. maybe you should google yourselves crazy and see your appalling standards for animals or instead of watching whaever soap operas you do change the channel and watch all the shows their are about the animal cruelty cases in america you are blind to your own problems, instead of fixing your on issues. and yet i guess habacus got the result he wanted he got all of you talking about the starving dogs.
maybe you should all read this about the cases the humane society have had to deal with in america
http://circuswatchwa.org/docs/Animal%20Cruelty%20&%20Human%20Violence.pdf

you should be ashamed of the way you go and crucify some one elses actions but you are blind to your own.
im sure one of you hypocrits have once shoved your own pet because you werent in a good mood, or tied them up outside for being naughty. and maybe you even forget to feed your animals when your busy stuffing your face.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/7/08 6:23 a.m.

This is terrible. How could anyone get away with this? How would this artist feel if someone tied him up and did this to him? He should be arrested or tortured himself. :( If this doesn't happen.. I'm sure GOD will take care of him!!!!!

Posted by unregistered user at 5/7/08 6:25 a.m.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR WHAT THIS "ARTIST" HAS DONE!! THIS IS NOT ART!!!

Posted by unregistered user at 5/7/08 6:26 a.m.

Let's STOP HIM!!!!!
Sign the petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition.html

Here is another petition that is 2 million signatures strong. Please feel free to sign it as well:
http://www.petitiononline.com/13031953/petition.html

Posted by unregistered user at 5/7/08 6:33 a.m.

GOD WILL TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE LIKE HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!