PDA

View Full Version : is this art?



kortick
22-Apr-2008, 09:30 PM
LATELY, a number of emails have been doing the rounds, condemning the actions of the artist, Guillermo Vargas ‘Habacuc’.

Last year, the Costa Rican ‘artist’ is alleged to have paid some children to chase and catch an abandoned dog. He is said to have tied the animal by a very short rope to the wall of an art gallery in Managua and left it there for several days, without food or water, until it died.

During this time, many people visited the art gallery, paying absolutely no attention to the torment of the dying dog.

The prestigious Central American Biennial exhibition incomprehensibly decided to consider this barbarous act as art, and Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action at the Biennial of 2008 in Honduras.
-- ----------------------------------------------

now there is a petition going around to stop him from
killing another dog. I am not trying to get anyone to sign anything.
I want the opinion of people here-does this constitute art?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cBBudN0_-E

here is a video of it.

i offer no opinion.
i ask for feedback.

mista_mo
22-Apr-2008, 09:36 PM
How could this be considered art? what type of story does it attempt to tell? what message does it send out to the population? All this is is a sick f*ck who doesn't have the intelligence to see that killing a living thing cannot be considered art.
Some say that art is subjective, that it appeals to a select group of individuals. What group does this appeal to? How could it appeal to anyone outside of animal snuff films?

Where do these people come from?

Terran
23-Apr-2008, 02:54 AM
Is it art?....sure....anything displayed for others to see or to know about is art ....whether it makes a statement or not....

Is it in bad taste...absolutely
Is it cruel...definitely...

It would have been better and less cruel if he took a dog from an animal "shelter" that had already been killed and put that on the rope in front of the gallery.....

kortick
23-Apr-2008, 03:58 AM
I underderstand what you are saying

but to me anything put foward to see or know about is
information.

art is defined as the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

does this dog display meet that criterea?

DubiousComforts
23-Apr-2008, 04:20 AM
i offer no opinion.
I certainly will. This poor excuse for a "man" is a sick-o that will do anything to garner attention for himself, and anyone that tolerates this type of behavior--each and every slack-jawed moron who walked through that exhibit and did nothing, for example--is a brain-dead idiot.

There's a blog (http://guillermohabacucvargas.blogspot.com/) about this hack which links to the online petition, but I offer that petitions are useless when you're dealing with criminals and insane people.

Terran
23-Apr-2008, 05:56 AM
art is defined as the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

does this dog display meet that criterea?


I would say it does...it does generate a visceral reaction...a strong emotional response...the arrangement and display is more than "ordinary significance"...It creates a discourse, and if the artist generated these emotions and reactions from people intentionally than it is "art"...even if it is in horrible "taste"...

"Art"....*shrugs*...it can be anything...

SymphonicX
23-Apr-2008, 12:39 PM
Someone asked me to define art once, and I simply came back with "skillfull representation"....this is definitely NOT skillfull representation.

kortick
23-Apr-2008, 01:53 PM
I have always associated art as a creative medium

ex. you take a blank canvas and create a painting,
or a blank page becomes a story, a silent room becomes
filled with musical sounds in a new sequence, a scupture
appears out of a lump of clay or various odd things.

it is always where there was nothing the mind now
created something unique.
this takes something ( living dog) and makes it into a corpse.
something that nature would do eventually so it is not
a new achievement.

But Terran is right, art is very subjective.

i guess this is the art of dying (or killing)

my thoughts only

Dommm
23-Apr-2008, 02:47 PM
Then he should have painted a picture of his vision of the dog dying not killed the poor thing, then most people can be subjective about it, not sickened???

Terran
23-Apr-2008, 04:00 PM
I have always associated art as a creative medium
ex. you take a blank canvas and create a painting,
or a blank page becomes a story, a silent room becomes
filled with musical sounds in a new sequence, a scupture
appears out of a lump of clay or various odd things.

Yeah but that association leaves out "conceptual art"....where the process or concept behind the object, whether the object be found or created, is more important than the actual object....(There are many many forms of conceptual art)

"Art" is not something that has to appeal to others...hell many serial killers create "art" using their victims as materials and profilers sometimes become "art critics" to some degree while trying to profile the killer...."What is the killer trying to say with this victim?"...."What is the focal point of this 'piece'?" "What is the meaning of orientation of these objects?" etc etc.....


Is this grotesque by most people's sensibilities? Hell yeah! This does not stop it from being "art" though...


Then he should have painted a picture of his vision of the dog dying not killed the poor thing, then most people can be subjective about it, not sickened???

Maybe the concept behind this piece was to show something about humans.....the concept being a dog tied up to a museum starving while people coming and looking at it, all doing nothing, completely immune and distanced from something horrible happening right in front of them....and not untill the dog dies does anyone even remotely care......

A painting of a dead dog would be difficult to draw this level of conversation or depth...

DubiousComforts
24-Apr-2008, 11:35 PM
Is this grotesque by most people's sensibilities? Hell yeah! This does not stop it from being "art" though...
Bulls**t, any serial rapist or murderer could claim the same thing. You may argue that rape/murder involves human beings and that animals have no rights, and I'll counter that no human being has the right to inflict cruelty or death upon another being for the sake of "art."

There would be artistic content if the numbnuts invloved was smart enough to document the suffering of stray dogs in Costa Rica through photography or a similar medium in such a way as to inspire people to deal with the problem. But that would take brains, talent and craftsmanship.

kortick
24-Apr-2008, 11:44 PM
Following that logic out to its
ultimate conclusion terran,
I guess it is safe to conclude
that the Nazis were
perhaps the greatest
artists known to mankind.

Many serial killers proclaim their "work"
to be art. But is it so?


The death of this dog may provide
amusement to some, it may also provide spectacle
but does it make it art?

and would you as a nation wish to be represented
by such a form of art?

MikePizzoff
25-Apr-2008, 12:34 AM
Artistic? No!
Psychotic? Yes!

major jay
25-Apr-2008, 01:51 AM
I guess it is safe to conclude
that the Nazis were perhaps the greatest artists known to mankind.

Beetoven is good. But what about the people that made Mad Foxes?

Terran
25-Apr-2008, 02:19 AM
"Taste" or decency even morality does not dictate "art"....

With the advent of such things as performance art and conceptual art anything is art, as long as it is portrayed as art....:rockbrow: ....Im serious


You can find similiar discussions like this all over the art "world"...and some like to say "If you have to discuss it, than it probally is art"

SRP76
25-Apr-2008, 03:36 AM
Art is something the artist has created. Unless he created a dog, it's not art. To my knowledge, he's not God, so he could not have created the dog. Therefore, no "art" for him.

Terran
25-Apr-2008, 03:44 AM
Then I suppose you have never heard of conceptual art? The actual dog is not the "art"...

Did not the artist create his concept with his use of the dog?....
In the same way that someone creates a painting with the use of paints and a canvas.



Conceptual art is art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic and material concerns.

Or perhaps this is a better description

In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art. – Sol LeWitt, "Paragraphs on Conceptual Art", Artforum, June 1967.


For the layperson, this quotation highlights a key difference between a conceptualist installation and a traditional work of art - that the conceptualist's work may require little or no physical craftsmanship in its execution, whereas traditional art is distinguished by requiring physical skill and the making of aesthetic choices. As Tony Godfrey has put it, after Joseph Kosuth's definition of art, conceptual art is an art which questions the very nature of what is understood as art.

And dont misunderstand me....I also think this is horrible, inhuman,...monstrous......but that doesnt mean its not "art"....

SRP76
25-Apr-2008, 04:10 AM
Then I suppose you have never heard of conceptual art? The actual dog is not the "art"...



He can claim absolutely no part of it as his. No-thing. For there to be art, the "artist" must create something, whether it be an idea or a physical object. This guy did none of that. Every aspect of this is common and everyday, and has been long before he was around:

Tying a dog to a wall is something millions of dogowners do every day. There is no creativity to it, and he certainly didn't originate the concept.

Displaying an animal is also nothing new. Zoos have been doing it for centuries.

And even allowing an animal to die is not his creation.

This is no more "art" than one of us pointing at a lawn and saying "watch the grass grow! Aren't I creative?".

_liam_
25-Apr-2008, 04:20 AM
I disagree, aspects of your art have to be common or everyday - it's a major part of it, by replicating colours, textures, sounds or situations that are in some way evocative of those found in everyday life, you imbue your work with an emotional resonance.

Art is about synthesising something to express a feeling or convey a message.

The synthesis here is placing the dog in a situation it wouldnt otherwise be in, and putting it through a process it otherwise would not have gone through.

Basically if you contrive any form of object, sound or situation to serve such a purpose, it is art.

So yes, this is art - if this guy is genuinely trying to get a point across.

However, that doesn't stop it from being callous, barbaric and attention seeking! A loathsome individual who should be monitored by the relevant authorities, imo.

kortick
25-Apr-2008, 06:58 AM
I disagree, aspects of your art have to be common or everyday - it's a major part of it, by replicating colours, textures, sounds or situations that are in some way evocative of those found in everyday life, you imbue your work with an emotional resonance.

Art is about synthesising something to express a feeling or convey a message.

The synthesis here is placing the dog in a situation it wouldnt otherwise be in, and putting it through a process it otherwise would not have gone through.

Basically if you contrive any form of object, sound or situation to serve such a purpose, it is art.

So yes, this is art - if this guy is genuinely trying to get a point across.

However, that doesn't stop it from being callous, barbaric and attention seeking! A loathsome individual who should be monitored by the relevant authorities, imo.

I understand what your saying, but can the same thing be said about someone who causes a car wreck where people die?
he is putting common objects and people in situations thru a process they would not have otherwise gone thru.
is this an expression of artistic vision.

the problem here falls into absolutes.
if everything is able to be considered art, then art itself is
made useless by the nature of it being everywhere all the time.
by this logic SRP is right, someone could say grass growing is art.
it isnt. it is a natural occurance.

what is light without dark?
what is sound without quiet?
what is happy with out sad?

what is art if there is no such thing as something not being art?

these questions i wonder.

Craig
25-Apr-2008, 11:27 AM
I've just been reading about this. Apparently the dog was in a state of starvation when it was captured, and was only tied up for the 3 hours that the exhibit lasted, and was fed regularly by the artist before it escaped the next day.

The Humane Society investigated and, despite condemning the use of live animals in art, acknowledged in reference to reports that the dog had been starved death that the facts had been misconstrued by some news articles. So assuming I've read right, all this fuss is a bit overblown.

_liam_
25-Apr-2008, 02:07 PM
I understand what your saying, but can the same thing be said about someone who causes a car wreck where people die?
he is putting common objects and people in situations thru a process they would not have otherwise gone thru.
is this an expression of artistic vision.

the problem here falls into absolutes.
if everything is able to be considered art, then art itself is
made useless by the nature of it being everywhere all the time.
by this logic SRP is right, someone could say grass growing is art.
it isnt. it is a natural occurance.

what is light without dark?
what is sound without quiet?
what is happy with out sad?

what is art if there is no such thing as something not being art?

these questions i wonder.

Yes I see what you mean, but what stops everyday unnatural events becoming categorised as art (and thus negating the value/distinction of art, as you say) is the intention of the one who instigates it.

If somebody had read the book "Crash" too many times and wanted to make a statement about technology/sexual violence, they could cause a car crash, and it would be a work of art for that person, and anyone else who was able to pick up on the meaning/intention behind it. I know how loopy it sounds, but this is just the nature of what art is.

A field of grass growing is not a work of art, because no work has been put in, it has not been contrived to suit a purpose. If you were to seed a field of grass, tend to it and draw attention to it because you feel it can somehow convey your feelings on a matter, then it becomes a work of art.

The element which is up to us, is to determine whether a work has any artistic worth/value - a lot of things in contemporary art don't, imo.

kortick
25-Apr-2008, 03:02 PM
I've just been reading about this. Apparently the dog was in a state of starvation when it was captured, and was only tied up for the 3 hours that the exhibit lasted, and was fed regularly by the artist before it escaped the next day.

The Humane Society investigated and, despite condemning the use of live animals in art, acknowledged in reference to reports that the dog had been starved death that the facts had been misconstrued by some news articles. So assuming I've read right, all this fuss is a bit overblown.

first of all thanks for your input, Craig
And Liam thank you as well, I do understand what you are saying.
I stated in the first post it was never my intent to get
anyone to sign any petitions against this person.
my question was simply put: is this action as stated truly art?

here is a quote from the artist himself which contradicts your findings:

"My name is Guillermo Habacuc Vargas. I am 50 years old and an artist. Recently, I have been critisized for my work titled "Eres lo que lees", which features a dog named Nativity. In my home city of San Jose, Costa Rica, tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the streets and no one pays them a second thought. Now, if you publicly display one of these starving creatures, such as the case with Nativity, it creates a backlash that brings out a big of hypocrisy in all of us."
"I knew the dog died on the following day from lack of food. During the inauguration, I knew that the dog was persecuted in the evening between the houses of aluminum and cardboard in a district of Managua. 5 children who helped to capture the dog received 10 bonds of córdobas for their assistance. The name of the dog was Natividad, and I let him die of hunger in the sight of everyone, as if the death of a poor dog was a shameless media show in which nobody does anything but to applaud or to watch disturbed. In the place that the dog was exposed remain a metal cable and a cord. The dog was extremely ill and did not want to eat, so in natural surroundings it would have died anyway; thus they are all poor stray dogs: sooner or later they die or are killed."

by his own words he confesses to allowing this dog to die of starvation, was aware of it and "let him die".
His artistic cause was to bring attention to sick strays.

a true artist would have found a way to do so without such glory seeking
and killing a living being for personal fame. IMO.

does killing something painfully truly fall into artistic expression?

I am at a loss to understand. I'd like to think this was noble.
but at the end of it all you have a dead dog and a man profiting.
my perceptual filters are clouded by these opposing realities.

Adrenochrome
26-Apr-2008, 04:35 AM
This is the first thread replied to since my "unbanning".
All I can say is, it's a good thing I don't know where this freak lives.

Neil
26-Apr-2008, 09:13 AM
What say we chain a couple members of his family up and do the same to them as 'art'?

FFS! What is going on!!

If he'd gone into the streets and documented what was happening 'naturally' then fair enough. But to go out of your way to cause suffering is just wrong!

slickwilly13
26-Apr-2008, 05:50 PM
This is the first thread replied to since my "unbanning".
All I can say is, it's a good thing I don't know where this freak lives.

Does this mean SoCal will be back one day?

Neil
26-Apr-2008, 07:05 PM
"Taste" or decency even morality does not dictate "art"....

With the advent of such things as performance art and conceptual art anything is art, as long as it is portrayed as art....:rockbrow: ....Im serious


You can find similiar discussions like this all over the art "world"...and some like to say "If you have to discuss it, than it probally is art"

Wow! That art exihibit in WW2 where the nazi's line up Jews and shot them rocked :rolleyes:

At some point in these sorts of conversations you all have to agree that common sense has left the building...

kortick
26-Apr-2008, 11:42 PM
the sad part is this is not just some conversation for the sake of opinions.

he is planning on doing this again at the next event.

meaning another dog will die for this mans idea of "art".

common sense has left long ago I am afraid.

major jay
26-Apr-2008, 11:46 PM
Art should be emotional. Positve or negitive.

kortick
27-Apr-2008, 01:16 AM
well i dont say this to be mean but...

the next time someone in your family dies we will hold the funeral in an art gallery so everyone can feel the emotions, positive or negative. And their remains can be treated the same as a picture on the wall or a vase on a shelf. no different. they are only art after all.

this is what I mean is death art?

Craig
27-Apr-2008, 02:00 AM
I'm still not convinced the dog was 'killed for the sake of art'. Despite what the artist may have said, The Human Society (the ones more likely to condemn him) said the information that the dog was literally starved to death was misconstrued somehow.

@ Kortick, major jay didn't say everything emotional is art, he said art should be emotional. Though there's no doubt that someone's death could be displayed as art.

My opinion on the 'is this art?' question is this: While I despise most modern or conceptual art, I feel that if something, anything, can be percieved as art, then it is art.

_liam_
03-May-2008, 03:58 PM
Wow! That art exihibit in WW2 where the nazi's line up Jews and shot them rocked :rolleyes:

At some point in these sorts of conversations you all have to agree that common sense has left the building...

Yeah but art is not about common sense is it? It's about expressing emotions through whichever medium you think best

Once again, just because something is a totally sick piece of sh*t, does not mean it is not art.

Some of you seem to think that by pointing out how sick it is, you somehow manage to negate its status as a work of art - this is not true, something can totally unacceptable and disgusting, but if the artist intended it to be art, then it is art.

Further to this, just cause one disgusting display is intended as art, this doesn't mean that all abominable things are eligible to be considered so, as such, the comparison to the Nazi thing is not really valid, as the Nazis didn't really intend their mass murder to be perceived as art.

It is a potentially confusing thing to try and define, but ultimately it boils down to ;

If you have a feeling or message you want to externalise and make available to other people through some means, then it's art.

dannoofthedead
04-May-2008, 05:11 AM
Astounding. Not only the fact that someone is going to commit animal crulety in full view of the public, but that so many people would be coming up and looking at this dog dying and not give it a second thought. I'm really not sure what is worse. Oh, wait, the people that provided the wall are encouraging him to come and do it again.

Lets get some photos from Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment and post them in front of a men's shelter. That's art, right? Let's get some rats that are heading for medical testing and smash 'em into the walls of a children's hospital with Little Timmy & Tammy watching. That's art, right?

People suck. Thats probably the most eloquent way I can phrase it. People get rewarded for cruelty and malevolence and people make excuses for why it should be considered "art" or "social commentary."

And then people see the suffering and torture right in front of them and ignore it without even a second thought. People just suck.

_liam_
04-May-2008, 11:51 AM
Lets get some photos from Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment and post them in front of a men's shelter. That's art, right? Let's get some rats that are heading for medical testing and smash 'em into the walls of a children's hospital with Little Timmy & Tammy watching. That's art, right?


oh bloody hell

NO IT ISN'T

yes people do suck, mainly because they don't bother to listen!

Terran
04-May-2008, 02:27 PM
oh bloody hell

NO IT ISN'T

yes people do suck, mainly because they don't bother to listen!

Fustrating isnt it. Right after you addressed that.....*shrugs*
:D

major jay
05-May-2008, 09:16 PM
Astounding. Not only the fact that someone is going to commit animal crulety in full view of the public, but that so many people would be coming up and looking at this dog dying and not give it a second thought.

I'd like to believe this was what he was trying to expose. No one reacted. Why?

DubiousComforts
07-May-2008, 05:44 PM
Some of you seem to think that by pointing out how sick it is, you somehow manage to negate its status as a work of art - this is not true, something can totally unacceptable and disgusting, but if the artist intended it to be art, then it is art.
Artistic intention does not automatically make anything "art." How would you know anyone else's true intentions but your own? It's safe to assume that anyone willing to chain-up a dying dog in order to serve their own ends as an "artist" is going to be dishonest about their intentions.



Further to this, just cause one disgusting display is intended as art, this doesn't mean that all abominable things are eligible to be considered so, as such, the comparison to the Nazi thing is not really valid, as the Nazis didn't really intend their mass murder to be perceived as art.

It is a potentially confusing thing to try and define, but ultimately it boils down to ;

If you have a feeling or message you want to externalise and make available to other people through some means, then it's art.
How does anyone know the Nazi's true intentions? Like anyone committing an atrocity, the "master race" wasn't forthcoming about their intentions or motives. That's exactly like someone who chains up a dying dog and then pretends it's something other than the atrocity that it is.

This guy pulled a stunt, not an artistic work. There is a difference. What's truly frustrating is that people are too dulled by societal conditioning to label this exactly what it is (which answers your question why nobody reacted, Major Jay).

THINK!

major jay
08-May-2008, 07:16 PM
people are too dulled by societal conditioning to label this exactly what it is

That's very disturbing. I'd hope I'd act differently.

Trencher
24-Jul-2008, 07:41 AM
It is evil art.

clanglee
24-Jul-2008, 09:29 AM
Ahhh. . thread necromancy
http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/thread_necromancy.jpg

Trencher
24-Jul-2008, 10:06 AM
Only a month or two old.