I was asked to join this group on Facebook, named "Prevent the "Artistic" death of an Innocent Animal"-and was completely appalled to find what this group was actually fighting...
I consider myself to be pretty open to all forms of art, and do my best to appreciate them as well, however this...well, this is not going to ever be appreciated by me, and I can only hope that there are others out there who agree with my viewpoint. The group info says this: "In 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope in an art gallery and began starving him to death.For several days, the 'artist' and the visitors of the exhibition watched, emotionless, the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, until eventually he died.Does THIS sound like art to you?But this is not all... the prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of Central America decided that the 'installation' WAS actually art, so Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the Biennial of 2008."
I would really like for someone to argue that this kind of treacherous act could actually be called art-and if you are in as much disagreement as I am-and are a member of Facebook-PLEASE join this group and sign the petition to have this event stopped.
5 comments:
I agree that this is very cruel. But do you really think that Facebook is going to stop it? Our generation thinks that joining a group on the internet will prevent these terrible things from happening, and in reality, they won't.
My opinion.
I think it raises an interesting discussion. I think the audience and media reaction is probably an equal part of the conceptual art piece. There is also a social history to the mistreatment of animals by mankind across time and cultures that might be interesting to research when thinking about this piece.
The question for me isn't, "is this art?" The question for me is, "should art that tortures/kills living and innocent, semi-intelligent creatures be allowed and encouraged?"
My belief is a confident NO.
In some artworks, there is pain pain/mutilation at the expense of the artist.
Performance artists like Chris Burden explore the concept of pain/bodily harm in their artworks. The difference is, the victim is their own body, and not an innocent.
Here is a link to some background on Chris Burden, another conceptual artist who has used the body as a canvas for pain and sacrifice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Burden
This "work" has shown up on the discussion board in my online a282 class....students were mortified. Miles you stated your response well. here here
I do not believe that Facebook will be able to stop much of anything, however if you follow the links on the Facebook page, you will get to a petition that has been signed by many (including myself) that will hopefully prohibit this artist from participating in this years' art show. That is the hopeful outcome of this 'group'.
I also believe that there is a definitely legitimate way to use pain, maybe even 'torture' in art-but I believe that Miles is absolutely right when he says that this kind of infliction should be on ones self-inflicting harm on another being should not be accepted as art (in my opinion).
I absolutely don't think that is artwork. It is not an image, drawing, or texture. There is nothing beautiful about that; while not all artwork is beautiful it is a sight to see and something that will make you feel a certain way about life. Someone could argue that this is a sight to see and makes you feel something. But, that something I am feeling is anger and frustration. How can someone take an innocent animal who obviously needs help and tie them up and starve them to death. This is not art and I would challenge someone to explain how these actions could be condoned as legal and let alone art.
Randon
Post a Comment