THE PACK Message Boards

This disgusts me A guy starved a dog to death and called it ART please sign the petition.

http://www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition.html

It took me a few minutes to convince myself that what happened really happened. I double-checked the facts, to make sure it wasn't being presented out-of-context. Sure enough, a starving dog was yanked off the streets and trapped in the corner of an art exhibit, left to die. Patrons of the exhibit complained, asking for the dog's release, but instead, the animal died. The artist argued that the dog wasn't eating and would have died anyway. But, this is still interference without intervention. The quote below is my comments on the petition.

Would I be making art if I neglected a frail elderly nursing home resident, letting her die of pneumonia? Would drowning kittens be art? Art is about raising awareness, but appearantly we must now be aware that which is inflected by art.

this reminds me alot like this old topic
http://www.thepack.network/thepackboard ... php?t=5469

Lukas wrote:this reminds me alot like this old topic
http://www.thepack.network/thepackboard ... php?t=5469

Yeah it is pretty similar, an innocent animal murdered for "art"

He's nuts, and so was the guy who killed the kitten. There is nothing artistic about publicly killing an animal. It doesn't convey a message, it doesn't express the artist (at least not in the way it was intended), it doesn't look interesting. I can't think of anything that this nutter could have been going for. Honestly, I think these are just crazy people using the vague term of "art" to try to weasel their way out of animal cruelty laws. Rather stupid, since art does not excuse one from the law.

Bottom line is that-art or not-this clown and the gallery owner both have dates with a judge and maybe jail time, if the law is followed. Cruelty to an animal is a serious offence.

That's the Law. Art is not above the law, and would you ever patronize the gallery that let this happen on its premises? I think not.

So, likely there's going to be an artist in Jail for animal cruelty, and a gallery owner that will be facing accessory charges.
Betcha that gallery isn't around in six months...

And...I signed the petition. The rest of you did too, didn't you?

Here's my comment:

Art is such that, in a controversial subject such as this, you need to explain why it is, in fact, art. I see no explanation for this, and I can only assume there is none. Furthermore, art or not, the law is the law. It governs all. Although I can't honestly say I know the local free speech laws of this man's country, I've never heard of freedom of speech giving anyone the excuse to break the law, and it should remain as such.

I also found a webblog called "The Small Dog Lives". I don't know who wrote it, but it was on the guy's site as "The doggy went this way". Using Babelfish didn't help me figure out how this is supposed to be art.

Oh my gods. This is horrible. I hope someone breaks this mans spine and his pose of agony is used for a picture. We would all love to see it.











Anyway despite the fact that was is art and what is art is up to you this is should not be allowed. It is a form of animal cruelty and someones interpretation of art does not go over that.

Now where are those common sense injections?

Scott Gardener wrote:
Would I be making art if I neglected a frail elderly nursing home resident, letting her die of pneumonia?

No, you would just be a regular Nursing Home employee...

Now getting on the subject...

Where is PETA in all of this? These folks fight for screaming lobsters, but yet when real animal cruelty is...oh pun... displayed, not a one of them in sight.

The reality is, if a person fails to show compassion for our four legged friends, then that same person would show little compassion for humanity.

Art is the part where he's supposed to draw the whole event. That way it'll save the trouble of actually committing something this stupid and pointless.

With that, it's safe to say that he's bitten off more stupid pie than he can possibly snort through his nose.

I don't know where this exhibit was held, but judging by the language of the web site, it looks like it might be in the Honduras. I don't know what kind of animal cruelty laws they have or don't have over there. Not all countries are the same way about animal cruelty. Western Europe seems more forward-thinking, the U.S. seems to be lagging just a little lately, but it would be far better to be a dog in either place than, say, Saudi Arabia, where even being a human doesn't seem to carry much weight, at least for the female half of the population.

Scott Gardener wrote:
Would I be making art if I neglected a frail elderly nursing home resident, letting her die of pneumonia?

That is exactly what bugged me about those nature programs. They're out on the arctic ice and they film a wolf drowning slowly over hours in the freezing water and dont step in but if one of them fell in they'd save him.

MoonKit wrote:

Scott Gardener wrote:
Would I be making art if I neglected a frail elderly nursing home resident, letting her die of pneumonia?

That is exactly what bugged me about those nature programs. They're out on the arctic ice and they film a wolf drowning slowly over hours in the freezing water and dont step in but if one of them fell in they'd save him.

There is a huge difference between this artist and Nature Program film makers. You have to understand that nature is going to take its course, and if those film makers were to save every animal that found its way into danger they wouldn't be able to film anything. This is simply natural selection. Animals die all the time in nature. Nature programs show us, just that, the natural world. I'm sure it bugs the hell out of them to watch an animal suffer and die, but they can't interfere with the natural process. As for human toll... The fact is, it is only self preservation for us to save our own species, but that doesn't stop photographers from taking pictures of people who are about to die. I have a picture of a very attractive Venezuelan girl who got swept up in a flood. The picture shows her clinging to life to a fallen tree branch. The caption at the bottom though, states that the photographer watched in horror through his lense as the poor girl drown, helpless to save her.

In the US animal cruelty of any time is almost as bad, and in some cases worse, than cruelty to humans, but the fact is in third world countries it happens on a regular basis. In the Philippines, people even eat dogs. They pick and raise a puppy just like you would raise a steer for butchering. While I couldn't EVER imagine raising a puppy to eat it, it is the common mind set of the people there. Then again, I've raised cattle most of my life, and we've had them butchered. I never once felt an emotional attachment to a cow. To me... they are food. Same as Chickens... but then again, chickens are evil.

The sad fact is if man has little regard for his own species, then he or she isn't going to have any regard for another.

Either way, I've signed the petition.

Hi again to everyone by the way. Long time no post!!

I just want to say thanks to those who have signed and will sign

Silent Hunter wrote:Oh my gods. This is horrible. I hope someone breaks this mans spine and his pose of agony is used for a picture. We would all love to see it.











Anyway despite the fact that was is art and what is art is up to you this is should not be allowed. It is a form of animal cruelty and someones interpretation of art does not go over that.

Now where are those common sense injections?

hehehe i would love to be the one to do that that way i know he isn't alive to tell the story

the guys deserves to have them string him up and starve him! i signed..and i hope others will too!

Status: undetermined.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp

In the case of nature documentaries:
I've felt in the past the same "you there, with the camera, why don't you save the drowning cub," etc. But, it's still not the same. In documentaries, they're out there trying not to interfere. Paying kids to catch the dog and then putting the poor, struggling animal on display, purposefully starving him to death, is active interference. If you interfere, you create additional ethical obligations. "He would have died anyway" is not acceptable. I can't just blithely barge over into Beiruit, Lebanon, with an army and tanks, blowing up the place, saying, "well, they would have had violence here sooner or later, anyway."

WereWolfBoy wrote:

Silent Hunter wrote:Oh my gods. This is horrible. I hope someone breaks this mans spine and his pose of agony is used for a picture. We would all love to see it.











Anyway despite the fact that was is art and what is art is up to you this is should not be allowed. It is a form of animal cruelty and someones interpretation of art does not go over that.

Now where are those common sense injections?

hehehe i would love to be the one to do that that way i know he isn't alive to tell the story

Oh yay. Go animal crusader! Get you cape and a sarcasim meter!

I had to sign, my sister saw it and she signed it also. She was really when i told her the situation.