Art is not the intent to shock

During the random blogsurfing of my favourite bloggers, I came across an article of how an artist starved a dog to death in the name of art.

This was what I did.

I read the entry.

I pondered about it.

I signed the petition against it and added a comment, "Art is not the intent to shock"

I googled it.

I then did more pondering.

But I probably should have googled everything before signing anything.

Outrage at 'starvation' of a stray dog for art
Gerard Couzens in Madrid
Sunday March 30, 2008

Chaining up a dog and forcing it to go without food and water in the name of art is a surefire way of making yourself unpopular with animal lovers. The furore created by Damien Hirst's pickled sheep and Tracey Emin's dirty bed pales into insignificance against the international outrage Guillermo 'Habacuc' Vargas has unleashed.

The Costa Rican has been called an animal abuser, killer and worse over claims that a stray dog called Natividad died of starvation after he displayed it at an exhibition last year at the Códice Gallery in Managua, Nicaragua. Vargas tethered the animal without food and water under the words 'Eres Lo Que Lees' - 'You Are What You Read' - made out of dog biscuits while he played the Sandinista anthem backwards and set 175 pieces of crack cocaine alight in a massive incense burner. More than a million people have signed an online petition urging organisers of this year's event to stop Vargas taking part.

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.'

Source: The Guardian

I suppose I should have googled before I signed the petition but my excuse was that it was 2 a.m. in the morning. When I read that article, I was first outraged which quickly settled into a clinical detachment meaning I questioned my outrage.

What is the difference between having a dog slowly starved to death in the street and having it starved to death in a museum?

If we are questioning the medium, isn't realism one of the highest form of art?

My mind is fixated on that ONE question: What is the difference?

I'm sure there has to be some explanation for it. I can't say it is wrong just because I feel replused. Just because I cringe in disgust at having death manipulated at the hands of a man filled with cruelty?

Guillermo Vargas infringed on the rights of a dog? Is that sufficient explanation?

I never had a dog. Though I do not dislike them, I have to admit that other than the occasional petting and playing of my friends' pets and strays, my affection is weaker for them than other animal-lovers. I wanted to say that Man has more rights over animals. Then I realised that I don't entirely believe in that sentence either because we are a mere part of this Earth.

Perhaps what I truly meant was that Man are stronger than animals. Hence it is not a question of right or wrong. When viewed from another perspective, the question posed is whether Man has a duty to protect and not abuse his strength and position?

Yes. But when it comes to a bigger reason, perhaps in the name of art or education, which side should the balance tip towards?

We all have a duty to fulfill and part of the reason for existing is to fulfil that duty. Hume once said, "I believe that no man ever threw away life while it was worth keeping." Though his discourse was on suicide, that was a phase well-remembered enough for me to recall in the thinking of this issue. If a dog's life cannot be sacrificed for art, then how do we justify sacrificing our people for war?

If a dog was tied up and starved to death in the name of science, will there be lesser outrage? Imagine a scientist stating that his reason for doing so was to study how the organs shut down when deprived of food. Is science any less important than the arts?

What I understand of society as a whole is this. Life is more valuable than art but may not be more valuable than education, should the particular infomation be valuable towards saving future lives However our country, our land, our people, our identity as a people could possibly be more valuable than life itself.

Which is interesting....really...considering that the differences is what we make out of it.

And yes....even after knowing it is a hoax, I will still sign the petition. (Boycott to the presence of Guillermo Vargas "Habacuc" at the Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008)

The reason being, I don't like ugly deeds, ideas and actions. And you have to admit no matter how wonderful an idea or reason the artist had, having a mangled dog slowly die in front of you isn't exactly the prettiest of sight.

But the irony is because of that exhibit, the artist is chosen to preseent at the Bienal Centroamerican Honduras 2008 but with a different exhibit. (Note: nobody has been able to prove that the events were misrepresented, other than the artist's and the director's claim that the dog ran away.) Read Starving dog art

With all the controversy, he is going to get even more publicity.

...

Ah well...