A while ago I posted
this. Below is an op-ed to the WSJ that basically blasts it as crap art.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1209...ml?mod=Letters
I fully agree with the WSJ article. I also still think everything I did when I wrote the previous post.
It's an interesting project. It's not art, however. (Well, I'll grant the
creative writing part of her project can be considered art. The act--should she carry it out--would not be)
I'm really fucking sick of people throwing the word 'art' around like a trendy banana sucking a lollipop, wearing a fedora and black shades, grinning like it's better than you.
You can't just call something 'art' and have it be such any more than I can call an apple a dildo. If you're trying to say that 'art' is simply a term we use to define a
certain type of thing then I completely agree with you. But all words are like that. I can twist any noun into the same pretzel mess art is in.
It's completely pointless to do so, however. A word is only useful so long as it's, you know,
useful. If you stretch the word too far it will shatter and fragment and become such pitiful entities as "modern art" or "classical art". Because it's not the fucking word that matters, but the
thing. And as long as humans exist we'll continue to use--or fabricate--words to describe these
things. Nobody wants to stand in a fucking village saying "Smurf, smurf the smurfing smurf by smurf!"
Something can have value without being "art". This is, in my mind, a large part of the problem. For some reason we can't bring ourselves to assign value to things that serve no function if they aren't art. Which is retarded. If someone wants to pierce their tongue with a shard of dirty glass, suspend themselves in the air and bleed down on series of umbrellas then fine. Great. If they have a reason that makes me think I'll certainly say it has value.
But why should that be considered art?
I'm sure someone, somewhere will read this and think, "Oh, you're just being picky about what you want to consider art. Stop being so narrow-minded."
My answer? Of course I am. That's my entire point. Words have arbitrary definitions that we can assign at will. There's literally no limit to what we can define art as. Pretty soon source code becomes art. A dog pissing in snow becomes art. A man packaging up his feces and selling them in cans becomes art. A dog dying in a corner becomes art.
If I can stretch the definition wide enough I can say
everything is art. And if everything is art, then art is everything. Thus, everything is everything.
The word loses all meaning.
So no. This isn't art. Not because it has no value. Not because it isn't creative. Not because it shouldn't be treated with respect.
But it's not fucking art. It's a different beast entirely. Like art, it's a form of expression. It's valuable. It's just not art.
Also, me shooting the 'artist' in the corner where he tied up the dog would also be art. ;)
Also, me shooting the 'artist' in the corner where he tied up the dog would also be art. ;)
Yet someone tries to draw attention to their plight, and suddenly they're deserving of capital punishment?
I sincerely hope that dog was being fed. That said, starving one dog to death pales in comparison to the plight of feral city animals.
The feral animals are nobody's current responsibility. Their situation sucks but they can hunt the streets for morsels and smaller prey. Capture one of these dogs and you take away any chance of survival he has without feeding him.
Because this 'artist' captured this dog it was his responsibility. Instead of doing the correct thing of getting the dog's illnesses treated and feeding it, he chained it to a wall of an art exhibit, on a very short lead, and allowed it to starve/dehydrate in front of everyone's eyes. His actions were deplorable, the peoples' inaction was deplorable, the fact that they are asking him to do it again is disgusting.
You think humans are born good.
I think animals are incapable of evil.
What if he had taken a starving child off the streets of some 3rd world country and chained him to a wall? The 'artist' did not offer the dog food, did not offer the dog water, and by the time the dog was taken off exhibit the animal was too sickly to consume either and died. Wanton cruelty, despite his claim to want to draw attention to the suffering of the local animals, is unforgivable in my eyes and, yes, if given the opportunity I would probably take his life in exactly the same way as he took the dog's.
You bring up an interesting point about a 3rd world starving child. The interesting bit is that this isn't unusual.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/kevincarter.htm
http://www.hemmy.net/2006/07/28/phot...winning-photo/
No, he didn't help the child who almost certainly died shortly after. He was under fairly strict guidelines not to help (for good reasons, actually).
After taking that picture he received death threats. Why? Because he didn't help. (And really, what could he have done?)
We'd prefer problems like this just go away. We're empathetic creatures and hate seeing people or animals suffer. But what we do is simply look away. We hate it when people force this suffering onto us.
Assuming the man in question did indeed starve a dog to death and not just pretend, then yes--I'd say he was misguided. Yes, I'd think he should be punished (although advocating death for starving a dog? That's insane, IMHO)
Imagine it from his point of view. This isn't the U.S. where everyone is happy and fat. This is a country of less means. This is a nation where starving dogs are common. People get frustrated kick the dogs. Throw rocks at them. And nobody cares.
Can't you see how someone with good--albeit obviously misguided--intentions could do something like this? If he felt that was the only way to get people to listen? And people did listen.
But, no. We'd rather ignore the problem. As long as a starving dog isn't trapped it's not our responsibility. Because a starving dog in a city really has a chance, right? Just like starving kids have? It's not like the stronger people/dogs aren't going to let it scavenge what meager food is available. Right?
We don't want to look. We don't want to see it. And when someone forces us to, we overreact.
If you read a story about someone shooting a dog, you wouldn't call for his death. Even if he kicked it to death.
But take a starving animal and force people to look at it. An animal who almost certainly would die soon without his intervention. And you call for his death.
Why?
Because you didn't want to look and he forced you to. And so you focus your feelings of anger on him. So much so that you think he should die for killing a doomed animal.
I think your reaction was precisely his intent.
I think your reaction was precisely his intent.
These two art forms are also very different, not because of the different species but simply the difference between a picture (moment in time) and the agonizing death by starving and dehydrating of a trapped dog. The starving child picture would have been much more repulsive if the child had been chained to the ground and left there purposefully (though I still believe that someone should have gone out and helped him. There is no excuse for leaving.)
Both of these things opened peoples' eyes, sure. What would be more effective? Possibly creating a decent movie. Chaining a dog to a wall requires no artistic talent. No artistic vision. Photographing a starving child requires an artistic eye but a well-done movie would have immersed the viewer in the situation, not simply repulsed them.
Also, I doubt the poor, struggling Costa Ricans actually had the money or interest in seeing an art exhibit, which would go along with them probably not having the food to spare to feed the starving street animals. Sure this raised awareness in America but, in America most of us would feed a starving dog anyways. That and Guillermo Vargas has changed his statement of the purpose of his exhibit a few times:
1. The dog would have died anyways.
2. I cannot say if the dog died or not. (The dog did in fact die the day it was taken off exhibit.)
3. I wanted to do it to remember Mr. Natividad Canda. (A burglar killed by two rotweiler guard dogs. Serves him right?)
4. I did the exhibition to show the terrible situation of Costa Rican street dogs.
If I had been ignoring any starving animal at any point in my life perhaps this display would have had a positive/'intended' effect on me. As it is, I feed pest roaches running around the pet store where I work. I have always fed wanton pigeons at malls, I have fed stray cats and the occasional raccoon visitor, there has never been a time where I have seen an animal suffering or starving and not done something about it. (Matter of fact I sped down the freeway about a week ago at traffic time, 95mph in order to get a hummingbird with a broken wing to the humane society before they closed. I made it there with a minute to spare and lost 2-3 hours that I needed to work on my finance project. This sacrifice is not uncommon here as far as I know, so the audience effected by Vargas' display really didn't need that display.)
If I read a story about someone shooting an innocent dog that wasn't dangerous or attacking the person, I would want the person dead. I don't think that is unreasonable, but I also support the death penalty for those who commit unprovoked murders against humans.
As far as starving creatures having a chance, humans have no natural devices with which to hunt. We need animal furs to keep warm, weapons to do damage, rains to have agriculture. Without technology we are basically screwed and will die. A starving child has no chance.
A starving dog has fur to fend off cold, teeth for tools and heightened senses to hunt more efficiently. The dog could have lived on the streets even if its existence wasn't near ideal.
I can't accept the notion that an animal's life is worth that of a human's. And while I would not call something like this "art" (which was the point of this thread :P ) I certainly believe that sometimes drastic measures must to be taken by men willing to suffer the consequences--this is how we progress. And yes, obviously I think he should be punished.
But death? For killing an animal?
Sorry, I can never see eye to eye on that one. Those who are cruel to animals certainly deserve punishment. In severe cases they should probably be imprisoned (or sent to a mental health hospital).
But death? Sorry; I can never accept this.
You can pretend like you are arguing your points back and forth and trying to convey something but it'll just be tossing your opinions back and forth endlessly until everything is out in the open and we all know what everyone thinks.
But that's what forums are for! :D
(and sweet weekly character posts every 2 months...)