|
April 11, 2008
Filed Under (News) by Mad Morten
You must have heard the story by now; how back in October 2007 Costa Rican artist Guillermo Habacuc Vargas captured a stray dog and chained it in a gallery without food and water with a big sign on the back wall made of dog biscuits stating “Eres Lo Que Lees” (“You Are What You Read”). According to the story, people watched the dog called Natividad perish in the gallery from lack of food and water. There’s only one small problem: Most of this story is pure invention – the proverbial feather that turned into five hens. For the dog did not starve, nor die! Thousands of blogs and web sites are asking for you to sign a petition to prevent the artist from partaking in a new exhibit this year around the same theme. And hundreds of thousands have signed the petition, joined Facebook groups and sent emails, hate letters and even death threats to the artist as well as the galleries involved. Read on to see why you should check your sources before joining the witch hunt. I first came across this story several months ago on a blog. Having all the tell-tale signs of being an internet hoax, I thought little of it. Then yesterday I got 10 invites to join a Facebook group about a petition to stop the artist from repeating the exhibition. The group had grown 70,000 members strong and I started to worry, not for the dog but for my friends who so willingly let themselves be caught by the dragnet of mass suggestion. You see, the story of the artist killing a dog in a gallery makes no sense: First off, no gallery owner in their right mind would ever allow something like this to take place, for obvious reasons. That people believe it could have happened can be chalked down to the western world’s arrogant and misinformed view of the third world – views like “It probably happened because in Nicaragua they have no laws.” Secondly, the information about the dog not being fed and its eventual demise is purely circumstantial. There are no images, video or other documentation of the dead animal, and all the blogs, groups and petitions cite the same (badly written) source. Thirdly, it is unclear where the story originated. There is mention of an original article in a local newspaper, but no links nor quotes. This, combined with the fact that there is not a single reference to the story in any major news outlet worldwide makes it pretty clear that the story’s origin is shaky at best. Considering how hungry news media is for precisely this kind of story, the fact that they’re not covering it tells us a lot about the story’s validity. Finally, the gallery put out a public statement saying that the dog had been fed throughout the exhibition and had escaped after the first day. The Humane Society validates this on their website:
I am writing this not only because the very premise of what has become a giant online witch hunt is false, but because however ethically unsound and fundamentally stupid the artist might have been in the conception and execution of this exhibit, his message is being proven every time another ignoramus signs the petition:
The inscription on the wall behind the dog (spelled out in dog biscuits) read “Eres Lo Que Lees” or “You Are What You Read”. The meaning? Although you don’t really care about the dog starving right in front of you, you’ll be outraged about its starvation when you read about it. It’s a well known fact that our moral judgments are often based on those of people we consider “moral authorities†rather than our own reasoning. As a result, the people at the exhibit who were largely unaffected by the actual display of the dog, would be outraged when they read about it in the news the next morning and thus “became what they read” because the newspaper (the moral authority) told them they should be outraged. And the artist was dead on. Although I doubt he realized just how big this thing would grow and how people are a little too willing to jump on bandwagons and throw rocks even if they are destroying their own glass houses. The moral of the story is like a tall glass of vinegar: With the unlimited access to information comes the heavy responsibility of critical thinking. Not everything you see is what it seems, even if your friends think it is. This is especially true when it comes to the internet. It’s not always easy to tell what is real and what is fabrication, and until someone invents bullshit-detecting glasses, everyone has to learn to do due diligence and research what they find on the internet thoroughly before starting wide reaching campaigns to ruin other people’s lives. Let this be said: Although I understand what Guillermo Habacuc Vargas was attempting to do with his exhibit, I strongly disagree with his actually putting it to life. Even though he fed the dog and let it go after the exhibit was over, he made the dog into an object displayed for the amusement of others. And that’s wrong. But so is any other dog show. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the actions of those who have put this petition in motion. Since it is based on the false premise that the dog was killed by the artist, it is in fact a defaming document now signed by hundreds of thousands of people. Not only is this in itself a crime, but it belittles the true plight of the millions of people and animals subjected to real cruelty every single day. If you really care and want do make a difference, don’t sign random petitions, join Amnesty International, help stop the genocide in Darfur or volunteer for the SPCA.
96 Responses to “Starving Dog as Art – Don’t Believe Everything You Read”Leave a Reply |
|
April 12th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Well done my friend.
A very insightful and riveting article.
I enjoyed it immensely.
Lets hope the message gets through, “Question everything”!
Cheers
Aaron
April 13th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Thanks for the clarification that was very useful. I agree with what you’re saying.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:58 am
The artist making a point about something is one thing but all those “cool” people standing there observing that sick dog is quite another. Why slam facebook groups for getting outraged when we all feel impotent about making change? And, unless you were there how do you know what in truth occured?
I don’t believe that any gallery would take part in “starve the dog to death” experiment in human behaviour but then – ya’ never know – well paid footbal players think it is ok to engage in dog-fighting.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Thank you for setting us all straight. However,speak for yourself when you say people don’t really care about the starving dog! You don’t know me, nor what I’ve done in my fight against animal abuse, and I resent you referring to people who care as “another ignoramus”. You can be informative without being insulting!
April 14th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Phyllis: I don’t know what happened. What I am angry about is that people take the first thing they read – no matter how outrageous – and act on it. It took me less than 5 minutes to find out that there are NO reports of the dog being starved or dying. The only source of this info is the original petition. It’s infuriating because people are signing a petition stating that this artist is a murderer of dogs and that he should be banned from further exhibitions. So the entire petition is false.
Nancy: I did not insult you nor your work saving animals. I myself was outraged by the USE of the dog as an exhibit. To quote myself: “I strongly disagree with his actually putting it to life. Even though he fed the dog and let it go after the exhibit was over, he made the dog into an object displayed for the amusement of others. And that’s wrong.”
I did not call you an ignoramus either. The ignoramus is the person who blindly believes everything they read on the web without even taking the time to research it properly. Case in point: If you click on the link at the Facebook group, you’ll get to a post where the blogger confirms what I’m saying in my post. Quote: “The story of a dog being starved to death as part of an art exhibition appears to have been falsely reported by Costa Rican newspaper The Nation, according to new sources. I reported the appalling story here last week among global outrage about the exhibit and a reported invitation to repeat the work elsewhere.”
So if people clicked one button, they’d see that the premise of the whole outrage is false. Yet they still join.
Had the petition been about animal abuse in art, I would have no problem with it. But it’s about an artist killing a dog for art. And that never happened. Nuff said.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I don’t know why anyone would EVEN try, to say that starving a poor helpless animal is art. Arrt is beautiful. This is discusting. A big fuck you to anyone who thinks this is art. When I saw those pictures. I cried, I felt so bad… So discusted and so angry. all that kept going through my head was how could you do this to a animal.
You really must have no heart; no soul; No concience who just wants to be loved. The people who think that this is art need a reality check, and to the people who did this. YOU DESERVE TO GET TIED UP AND STARVED. then maybe you will know how these animals feel. Please sign , and put these people away forever. HELP THESE ANIMALS THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Actually, Kariissa, “Art” makes a statement, which is what this artist had done. I do not agree with his methods, as I hate animal cruelty in any form, no matter how small. I won’t even let my boyfriend put down mouse traps in fear of hurting the mouse for cripes’ sake. So, where were we? Ah, yes. It is partially the fault of Western culture, and the fact that we need such a large shock factor in our art these days. I agree with the message, just not the way the message was implied.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
OMG! I THINK THATS WRONG. THATS BLOODY RIDICLOUS! EVERY LIVING CREATURE HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE AND DESRERVES TO BE TREATED LIKE YOU OR I. ART… IS SUPPOSED TO BE BEAUTIFUL; ITS SUPPOSED TO BE SHOCKING! MAGNIFICANT… SWEETHEART IM AN ARTIST MYSELF! ART.. IS NOT STARVING A INNOCENT CREATURE BECAUSE YOU GOT YOUR HEAD STUCK SO FAR UP YOUR ASS THAT YOU THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DAMN WELL RESPECT YOU STARVING A DOG. THIS MAN FUXKED AND IF YOU AGREE WITH HIM YOUR FUXKED. DAMN PEOPLE CANT YOU SEE THIS IS WRONG!!! these animals have a right to life, and I think they deserve a chance. I DIDNT SEE A MESSAGE. I SAW A MAN WHO IS SO MENTALLY MESSED THAT HE THOUGHT THAT MAYBE JUST MAYBE PEOPLE WOULD RESPECT HIM. THIS MAN OBVIOUSILY HAS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE; FEELING; HE HAS NO HEART. AND I HATE WHAT HE DID TO THIS ANIMAL. .. YOUR GOING TO SIT THERE AND BLAME IT ON CULTURE? IBLAME IT ON HIM AND THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. AND IF IT WERE MY DECISION THEY WOULD ROT IN HELL. thanks for your time. lmao.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
i think that is so wrong. no animal deserves 2 be treated that way in the name of art cos that aint art. the ppl who have made this so called art should be given the exact same treatment and see hoe they frigging like it. im disgusted by this
April 15th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Kariissa: Keep in mind that the dog was not starved and not killed. That’s a false rumour perpetuated by the petition. According to the gallery and the artist, the dog was actually fed both before and after the 3 hour exhibit.
You can argue that exhibiting a dog as art is wrong all you want, but the whole point is that the assumption that the dog was starved for art is inaccurate. You have to judge the artist based on his actions, not what people claim (falsely) he did.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:07 am
In reply to kariissa.
This IS art. The artist found this dog. People ‘do’ this to dogs everyday! Do you know how many homeless dogs there are? The only reason why you care is because this one was put in a gallery space.
If you care so much, why not volunteer at a humane society or adopt some stray dogs of your own?
Cry all you want to, your internet tears don’t help anyone.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
How do you acount for the horrible photos of the dog?
April 16th, 2008 at 12:34 am
I account for the horrible photos as being photos of a starving dog that the artist found on the streets of Costa Rica (or was it Honduras? Nicaragua?) where the exhibit was and where he’s from. Starving dogs like this rove by the hundreds or even thousands, but few do anything about it.
I understand it’s shocking to see. That’s the point. But don’t forget the artist did not do this to dog; the world did. He did not starve it. He let it go back to the street after he was done showing it.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Only have a few comments. In post #5 you say he “fed the dog and let it go” yet all reports that you’ve sent us to say that the dog escaped…Think there is a difference there. Also a brief comment to post #13. “He let it go back to the street after he was done showing it” Shame on him…I imagine there could have been another way for him to get his message across. Maybe a better outcome would have been to keep that dog, fatten him up, get him healthy and “exhibit” him again in 6 months, as a brand new healthy and happy dog…I also read that the artist refused to comment on whether or not the dog died. I do agree stories can be fabricated on the internet and elsewhere, but taking a dog (stray or otherwise) who is obviously in distress and not HELPING him but tying him up in that way even if for just a few hours is abusisve. It is wrong!!! There may not be proof that he let the dog die, there is also no “proof” that he fed the dog. There is proof however through the pictures that he tied up the dog with no visible water or food, and most obviously did NOT help the dog, but allowed it to continue to suffer. Whats next? taking a homeless, starving person and sticking them in a room and putting them on display for an exhibit, and then saying “well I didn’t let him die” he escaped!!! I’m usually pretty rational, but no matter how I look at this its still wrong, and I don’t like the idea that he might be able to do this again. That said I appreciate all points of view and thought your article was very interesting…
April 16th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Wow, never thought it would be this bad… First of all, don’t try to say what is and isn’t art, it’s completely up to you what you find as art. Now, think of all the photos of people and animals you saw in your life, taken as “art” that were starving, dying and being tortured, and them being “art” since it was only an outside (meaning it did not effect the subject) act. Now think of what he did, displaying an animal like that for 3 hours (we do NOT know anything that happened outside of those 3 hours) and making a very strong point. I do not like the idea of using weak and sick animals or people just to make a point, but it’s done every single day. If those photos made you cry, how do you live with yourself every time you go outside and see people starving on the streets?!? You care this much because it’s been hyped, the artist made his point perfectly, and maybe added some more stress to the poor creature, but that’s about all. Any comment from him about the dog being alive or him feeding it would ruin the whole idea so don’t be surprised he didn’t say anything. I don’t know if the dog died or not, I don’t know how long he was left there, I don’t know if he was fed, I DO know that there are much worse things being done every second that you do nothing about, so keep on being a hypocrite if you want to, but this artist or his art is not the real problem here, it’s us and how we react to these “facts”, how we care only when it’s made to seem cruel, how we don’t move a finger about the real issues and just cry and moan over the bits we are forcefed by the net and media. I’m the same as you probably, I don’t do much for my surroundings, for my animal and human companions on this planet, but at least I’m not hypocritical about it. Think it over before posting this nonsense (the comments that is, not the article). You are what you read can sum it up nicely, I only wish something like a starving stray dog didn’t have to go on show for us so see how sad we really are.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Posting No.14, dgale……….thank you! Extremely well said. Couldn’t have said it better myself! As for Kariissa, posting No. 8, I feel your frustration. I find it ironic, to say the least, that anyone can justify this, or any stupid thing some fool does in the name of art, as art!!! As No.14 says, in a nutshell, anyway you look at it, it’s just wrong. Period. In reply to Amanda, #11….. I DO volunteer at TWO shelters, ALL my pets are adopted, and this is NOT art! Bad things happen everyday and there are still a lot of decent people out there trying to help. Children are abused every day, women are raped, people get murdered. A lot of horrific things happen on a daily basis, all around the world. Should we all just turn a blind eye and say nothing? Just because this happened in a gallery does not make it art. Maybe I’m just not understanding what your point is. We do what we can, where we can, and we shouldn’t try to justify what is clearly an injustice.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I certainly hope this was a hoax just to get people’s attention, which obviously worked.
Truth is, many of us need to be shocked, outraged, horrified, basically slapped in the face to have a strong reaction or any reaction for that matter which is sad and unfortunate.
This guy used basic human psychology to get a message across and well, I think he succeeded.
Let’s now hope that Natividad helps(helped) save millions of animals around the globe.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
i don’t believe humans should take part in the saving of animals in the environment it is up to the animal to fend for itself. all of this hunting to thin out the numbers is bullshit. Anyways the environment should be survival of the fittest and humans do not need to take part in controlling the animal population if the animals reproduce to much and start to starve that is natures way of thinning out the numbers and it is not our job to save every hungry animal
April 16th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
if this is not art and is exploitative, where does that leave aspca ads or peta propaganda. both are employing images of suffering to promote their ideology. how is this different? besides the fact that it actually got people talking about these issues while animal rights propaganda rarely does.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:06 am
#19 It is different because PETA and the ASPCA aquire their photos through investigative and journalistic means. They report on things like slaughter houses, puppy mills, shelters and abused animals. They do not stage pictures to use for propaganda or to promote their ideology. I respectfully disagree that animal rights “propaganda” does not get people talking, as I’m sure the thousands of people who volunteer their time to organizations which try in some ways to prevent cruelty of animals, would too. #15 I’m not sure who you might be directing your comments to. In my previous post I never discussed whether I thought this was art or not, I would like to comment on the following statement you made “think of all the photos of people and animals you saw in your life, taken as “art†that were starving, dying and being tortured, and them being “art
April 17th, 2008 at 12:39 am
sorry computer malfunction before I could finish my post (see above)
I simply want to say that yes I have seen photos as you describe in the past. But I have never known of a photographer or “artist” who deliberatly (to quote you: starved, killed or tourtured) the subject of the picture in order to create “art” Photojournalists have reported on the tragedies that you have described to bring awareness to others, they do not cause the suffering themselves. Now if one of these artists from our past in fact actually tourtured an animal or person themselves in order to get a picture (or form of art) I’m sure the same type of debating which is going on concerning this particular incident would have taken place. Lastly qiU you are way off base and offensive and rude when you have the nerve to call people you don’t even know hypocritical. I’m sorry that you are a self proclaimed passive inactive member of society but do not assume for one minute that others submitting comments on this thread are the same as you. My Brother spent 2 years with MSF in the North Kivu Province DRC helping the dying and suffering of this earth, and all of us in the family dedicate ourselfs to helping those less fortunate, as I’m sure others who are reading this do also. You should be ashamed of yourself.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:08 am
qiU, well said, I pretty much agree with everything you said.
dgale, we’re all hypocrites, that includes me, you and Habacuc Guilermo Vargas. Surely there are bigger hypocrites than others but the fact remains that most people don’t give a flying f*ck about other’s agony and misery because it doesn’t affect them directly or isn’t right in front of their eyes.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:13 am
one of the best work of art i’ve seen so far! so out of the box and very moving!
April 17th, 2008 at 8:24 am
I just want to say that in the only reports I have read that say the dog did not die say he “escaped”. So my question is what would the “artist” have done with the dog if it had stayed!???? I have no doubt that this arse would have let the poor dog die! I personally have volunteered at shelters and have rescued pets of my own so I don’t want to hear anyone out there say I don’t care just because these photo’s enrage me… personally if these photos don’t enrage you, you have something terribly wrong with your brain!!!!!!!!
April 17th, 2008 at 8:40 am
chill out, drink a nice glass of iced tea. this exhibit was great art.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:10 am
“Nancy: I did not insult you nor your work saving animals. I myself was outraged by the USE of the dog as an exhibit. To quote myself: “I strongly disagree with his actually putting it to life. Even though he fed the dog and let it go after the exhibit was over, he made the dog into an object displayed for the amusement of others. And that’s wrong”
Then what the hell do you call a pet?
Just becuase you paid for it and it lives with you doesn’t change that its the same thing.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I still haven’t decided how I feel about this exhibit. There are compelling arguments on both sides of the issue. But, what I do want to say is that whatever your feelings on the method are – you don’t get to decide for the rest of us whether or not it’s art. Stop proclaiming that it isn’t, because you don’t speak for everyone. In any case, regardless how you feel about his methods, it’s gotten people talking about animal cruelty, and in that way it was effective. One might call it a success, no?
The only thing I’d caution against is post 22. This exhibit is too far to go if your goal is simply to be “out of the box”. That’s not a good reason to cause or allow suffering and in fact, is a really stupid reason to do just about anything, if it’s the only reason you have. Innovation is good, don’t get me wrong – but being “different” just for the sake of it? Childish, if you ask me.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
A picture says a thousand words, I dont care what anyone says. That dog should have been under medical attention….NOT ON DISPLAY. I’m thinking this so called artist needs some professional help too!!! This planet is going mad…im speechless.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:06 am
get grip, you fools the dog lived the dog was fed, you are all thick to beleive the hype that it was being starved to death. Get off the internet and go and save some starving dogs actually on the streets every day.. fools..
April 18th, 2008 at 1:09 am
the fact you (i assume) have read the above article, and still you people who have commented with your bile about how sick and shocking it all is, can you not please understand simple stuff…….. it dodn’t die, hell an animal welfare officer was present….. i’d like to let some of you knee jerk freaks starve to death in a gallery…..gimps
April 18th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Technically, this IS art. Art is and can be anything, from how a leaf is blowing in the wind to your favorite song. What makes something art is how it affects the one viewing it. Art does not have to be beautiful, it just has to make you feel emotion.
Example: Take your favorite photo (yes, photography is art) and show it around the random people on the street. To you it might be beautiful, but to Joe Blow on the sidewalk, it’s nothing more than a photograph.
Now, for this piece of art, I want to thank Mad Morten for his correction of this rumor. The dog was captured on the street, fed, put on display, fed, then released/escaped. While I don’t agree with his methods, he did nothing to the dog that would cause harm (I mean come on, he FED the starving dog and gave it a shelter.) While many say he should have kept it, you have no clue on the dogs attitude towards humans. For all we know this dog could be scared of humans, the artist was in the right in releasing (if he did) the dog.
Now wrap your minds around this…He literally brought animal cruelty to the attention of over a million people with this exhibit, since the dog did NOT die, take this exhibit as a sign to stop saying animal cruelty is bad, and actually do something about it.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Josh #26………..what are you talking about? I was responding to Amanda #11′s opinion. Mad Morten #5……. “his message is being proven everytime another ignoramus signs the petition”, quote unquote! You said it. You ARE insulting people who care, because they react on impulse. Don’t get technical about whether or not the dog starved to death or not. I agree this ‘artist’ brought a lot of attention to animal abuse, but I still don’t, personally, agree with the way he did it. And to the few of you who cannot post an opinion without swearing or name-calling……you need to grow up. Everyone has an opinion, good or bad, and nobody has to agree with anybody if that’s what they choose to do. What we can do is give each other more insight and be civil about it.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:23 am
I arrived here via the ‘petition’ documenting the outrageous conduct of Guillermo ‘Habacuc’ Vargas in chaining up a dog and forcing it to go without food and water in the name of art.
After trying to piece together the actual facts of the matter and using a bit of common sense and an appreciation for aesthetics I have come to conclude that:
1. That nearly everything that has been claimed was factually incorrect.
2. Contrary to the popular sentiment, this was indeed art … of the highest order.
3. That people are highly susceptible to emotionally charged propaganda, and once implanted, are very resistant to altering their negative impressions, even when supplied with reliable countervailing evidence.
The message written in dog biscuits on the gallery wall:
“You Are What You Read”
I suspect may suffer a bit from being a too literal translation and might be more properly expressed as:
We Are What We Choose to Perceive
Which once extrapolated, contains the moral imperative to be very careful of our perceptions, and to guard ourselves from forming false impressions; particularly when presented content that purports outrageous acts.
That is, in fact, the template by which propaganda has been classically waged.
Plant a story documenting the outrageous conduct of your enemies, in which they are charged with unconscionable cruelties; thus invoking the climate where any aggressive actions against them are seen as righteous retribution for their morally indefensible acts.
The higher point is that incredible cruelties are perpetrated by exactly such mechanisms.
In which case, I would not be surprised to discover that the petition was drafted by the artist himself.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Do you happen to have a better quality jpeg or something of the closeup of the dog. I’d like to try and blow it up and frame – but the photo on all the websites is like 72 dpi. If you have something better – can you send, please.
I do appreciate the point about joining SPCA, Am Int or Stop the Genocide in Darfur
April 20th, 2008 at 11:58 am
WOW I love how many morons there are in the world. IF YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THESE DOGS START TAKING THEM INTO YOUR OWN HOMES AND GET THEM OFF THE STREET. I mean Lord, how many of you hypocrites who say you love animals so much are actually a member of PETA or a like group?
The whole purpose of this experiment was NOT to starve a dog and piss a lot of people off, but was to SEE how many people would get pissed of when they THINK someone is starving a dog BUT HAVE THE RESOURCES to learn that the DOG WAS NOT ACTUALLY STARVED.
In short, Guillermo Vargas Habacuc now has the petition on his desk and will ring each and every one of you moron’s doorbells just to laugh at you.
WOWZERS!
April 20th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I like how you take an animal cruelty case and act as if it were some lame gossip story about Britney Spears. Be thankful that people are starting to care about issues with substance. Even if the people who were at the exhibit were not outraged, they probably don’t have the same values as the people who were upset by it. You say the gallery put in a statement that said the dog had been fed throughout the exhibition and escaped the next day. So they fed a starving dog the one day they used it in an exhibit. Obviously the conditions for the animal were not ideal, hence why it ran away. You even said yourself that a local animal welfare organization said the dog WAS in a state of starvation. Some places in the world think human slavery is okay, some places in the world think animal cruelty is okay, but for the people in this world who disagree with that, don’t put them down for voicing their opinion. I’ve never though as animal rights as a “bandwagon,†but if that is what it becoming then that is a good thing. People should start caring about serious issues.
Yes, people shouldn’t believe everything they read but you are “feeling sorry for people†because they care. I’m sure people would have cared less if they had heard the “real” story but animal cruelty does happen all the time. I understand that it is frustrating to see people care about and believe in things just because others do, but why would you choose this story out of all the fabricated stories to prove your point. When you really care about something so serious, like animals rights, its hard not to react. I’m sure a lot of people read your blog and decided to believe you without researching your points just because it sounds good.
April 20th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I don’t belive what you wrote. You have no proof in saying that Guillermo fed the dog and the dog escaped, not in the dogs condition where he could barley stand up, how could he have escaped? How stupid do you think we are to believe what you are writing? There is nothing you can do to soften the story of this animal abuser. This is a true story and it is not fabricated. The wheel is in motion to ban this fake artist from doing this again. This just shows you how sick Guillermo is at his old age if he was just toying with the poor dog and I believe Guillermo Habacuc Vargas is a fake artist. Like I said and many other have stated along with me, lets tie Guillermo around the neck with a rope, naked with no food and water and call it; “The Starving Artist” he is old anyway and will probably die soon.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:48 am
nugdanleo: Your assumption that the artist would have let the dog starve to death had it not escaped is based solely on your emotional reaction to the petition, not the facts. There is no valid reason nor evidence to support such a claim. The only actual non-disputed evidence available is the statement from the gallery saying the dog was fed and only displayed for 3 hours. Noone has contradicted this. And if we believe the latter part of their statement (that it escaped) we should also believe the former part (that it was fed) and it would be reasonable to assume that the feeding would have continued had the dog not escaped.
S.A.S: You are missing my point entirely. My article is not about animal cruelty at all but about how information gets distorted and twisted to such an extent that the truth is completely burried and how people are too willing to believe everything they read on the internet. My only point was that the petition whipped up a storm of interest on the internet because of it’s claims that the dog was starved and died while in reality the dog was fed and escaped. In spite of this, thousands upon thousands of people signed the petition not bothering to check whether the claims were factual.
To put it in perspective I’ll give you another example: A few years back someone changed the Wikipedia entry for the current Norwegian Prime Minister to say that he was a convicted pedophile. This was a complete fabrication of course. In spite of this, people all over the world were quick to condemn the fact that a pedophile was running the country. Fortunately this claim was a little too far fetched and it didn’t take long for it to be quashed. But for all intents and purposes it’s the exact same phenomenon: An outrageous claim is posted online; people read it and act based on their immediate emotional response rather than critical analysis of the information; the subject of the original claim is slandered by thousands based on fabricated information.
Jennifer: There are only three sets of proof in this matter:
1. The images from the exhibit in which the dog walks around, lies on the ground and does other dog-like things.
2. The statement from the gallery saying that the dog was fed before and after it’s 3 hour display and that it ran away after one day.
3. The statement from The Humane Society confirming point 2.
There is absolutely no evidence to support neither the claim that the dog was intentionally starved nor that it died. This version of the story, which originated in a newspaper (I forget the name) was later retracted. All the subsequent reiterations of this version were provided by the petition.
There is no valid reason to believe the story as put forward in the petition – especially because even the people who created it readily admit they were wrong and have ammended their stance to a more moderate version where they condemn the use of an animal in the exhibit. You are of course free to believe whatever you want, but for your own sake I urge you to take another look at the evidence before you start acting as judge, jury and executioner.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:06 am
Just forget one moment death of a dog and son on, just one thing, is it something civilized just to make a dog as an object which you possess, if he’s sick is worse !!
Imagine once a friend of you, you’re taking from an hospital, or from this house, where he’s waiting alone for death, and you bring him “to show what is his life” ????
Living persons, animals, are not objects !
April 21st, 2008 at 6:21 am
I am not sure that this dog really survived. According the article you refered to, the artist refused to make statement about if the dog survived or not. And that now (after international protests) the Gallery try to calm down the crowd is clear. They fear protests against their upcoming event! I only know that even serious, conservative German magazines and newspapers here wrote that the dog died. And not all of their sources can’t be wrong. They would not rely on blogs e.g. And even if the dog have survived – how sick must a person be to display a sick dog like an object. Why did he not directly took a child?!!! (This is meant ironic).
You should read the statement of the Humane Soceiety more carefully, they spread second hand news, without giving a name and an exact source (“according to local welfare organisatins ….”).
Last but not least: I don’t think that a dog in this very bad condition (dried out, skinny to the bones, weak and obviously having scabies would be able to free himself and escape).
And if the artist is such a petlover – did anyone ready something about that he gave e.g. a donation to a pet rescue organisation?
P.S. I got 3 rescued old dogs from Spain – I really care!
April 21st, 2008 at 10:05 am
Direct quote from the “artist” which I have seen on almost everything I’ve read about this (because I choose to form my opinions after researching them, thank you very much)
“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.”
April 21st, 2008 at 10:28 am
Ash: Name your sources. I have not seen this quote anywhere and it contradicts all other quotes on the matter. Post the link and I will research it’s validity.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:33 am
I don’t remember where all, but I’ll look them up again after I finish my research paper.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
That quote is on here: http://www.pluginamp.com/network/node/3575 where she claims it’s translated from the artist’s blog… except there’s no link to his blog. There’s a link to his MySpace page but he hasn’t entered any blogs on there.
This site quotes that para as well: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/10/24/141352.php but this one says it wasn’t the artist who said it but a “witness”. And the “witness” is apparently the person who writes the above blog.. and claims that it’s the artist’s words…
Pretty circular and dodgy.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Ash- The quote you’ve provided then proves or suggests that Habacuc did feed or at least tried to feed that dog.
i.e: “dog was extremely ill and did not want to eat”
I’m an artist and know many art gallery owners and quite frankly I have a hard time believing that the representatives of that particular gallery he displayed his “art” at would have allowed him to mistreat the animal.
Another thing, most people there don’t pay attention to these stray dogs because it’s an “normal” everyday sight to them, take all the stray cats in Rome, you see hundreds of them everywhere and no one pays attention to them either. Why? Because they’re considered part of the ‘paysage’ just as these dogs are in Costa Rica.
I was ready to “crucify” this guy when I first read about his exhibit and almost signed that petition but paused and decided to think for myself… what if he used that one dog hoping he could save thousands of others?
Maybe I’m naive and tend to believe in people’s good intentions first.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I fee a bit of an “ignoramus” after reading this article… I was “one of those petition signers”. I received an email from somebody my dads age- a family friend with the info and link to the picture. As an animal lover as soon as I read it it I signed the petition. It is not that I am ignorant and do not realise the fickleness of the internet I just did not take the time to think about it properly until afterwards ( i am at work after all).I have come to the conclusion he must have have had a good reason for his use of the dog in the supposed “art” and I even actually agree with it in a large scale context to create social awareness – as long as the dog was not harmed. I am not sure of it’s place in an art gallery none the less. But also I do not feel it is appropriate to put people down for taking the stories and emails circulating for face value. If you look at the way some people mistreat animals there are many people in the world who would not think twice about starving a dag and watching it die (and much worse) purely for “entertainment” and also people who are not aware of the dog situation in Spain like myself do not have the background information to trigger them to realise its possible purpose and meaning. Anyway this could turn into a huge debate on many levels and get totally off the track… But I find it interesting that it has been such a though provocking thing for myself and many others……
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Mad Morten,
Please see: http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp
Snopes lists the status as “Undetermined”. They also state that a query to the WSPA (World Society for the Protection of Animals) indicates that the circumstances surrounding the “art exhibit” was unclear to them as well.
Personally, I believe whether the artist fed the dog or not, he still mistreated the animal by turning the starving dog into an exhibit. Had he truly wanted to help the starving dogs of his country, he could have just taken pictures of the starving dogs that roamed the streets and posted those in the gallery instead. Then he could have encouraged people to help the starving dogs. I understand that people in that country may possibly look the other way when they see a staving dog on the street as to them it is an every day occurrence but this “art experiment” was a horrific means of pointing that out. Creative, maybe. Hideous, absolutely…
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Susan: Snopes won’t deem something a myth unless they have 100% irrevocable evidence that it is in fact a myth. Considering the status of this story, such evidence will likely never surface (most importantly because the dog is gone (not “dead” gone, just “gone” gone). The Humane Society on the other hand would pounce on this with all it’s fury if there was any indication what so ever there was documentation of animal abuse. The fact that their statement is so vague and weak is as close you’ll get to proof that nothing really happened.
Here’s something else to think about: Try to find a link to this new art exhibit the artist is supposed to be participating in. I have yet to find any reference to this exhibit anywhere except the petition. One would think the exhibit would have a web site or at least an index reference. There is also no information on what kind of exhibit the original exhibit was. How long was it intended to run for? Was it a one day event? Is the artist connected to the gallery or just a visitor? What other works has the artist produced in the past? Is he famous or even acknowledged as an artist? There are so many lose ends in this mess that at times I wonder if everything including the artist name is pure fiction made up by someone who saw the pictures and was outraged by them.
I reiterate: Had this been documented, the story would be plastered all over the news. It’s absence from any credible news source is telling.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Even if it is true im not what i read!!! i wouldnt have been one of the people in that gallery fine with a dog being chained up and under the belief it was starved to death, look at the state of the animal, regardless of whether its true that it did in fact die in the museum, is it really honestly humane to have water and food just out of its reach and have it chained up in those conditions, i couldnt leave a stray dog out on the street to die if i knew it was a stray for certain, id feel compelled to help it, give it some food and water. and get in touch with the rspca to get it some help as no animal deserves to suffer, in this apparant hoax article it goes on to say the dog was later turned to the street; where it most likely starved to death anyway as the “so called artist” had already said thousands die each year, so he just plucked it off the street used it and threw it back like a piece of garbage knowing its fate; personally looking at the pictures i dont believe it was a hoax, i think this is just a post release to try and get people to lay off the evil bastard, but like ive already said even if it was and this article is in fact true, he is still a pice of shit, he took that animal off the street for his benefit to express himself, he then should have had the decency to get the animal any treatment it required and find it a home where it would be looked after, yes its one dog in thousands but just because theres a thousand other starving stray dogs dying does it mean that this dog deserves to share their fate. if you think yes then im sorry ive got to call Bullshit!!!!
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I don’t know whether I was more shocked by the exaggeration of the story or by this attempt to belittle people’s reaction to the story, however exaggerated. And then comes the justification for the artiste’s use of the dog – which by itself is a cruel act. Why didn’t he tie a starving man to the rail and post the same comment – wouldn’t it have made his point equally well or even better? Of course, there he would have had to face human rights commissions and probably the reluctance of the gallery authorities too. Yes, one shouldn’t believe all that one reads, but I’m sure being an ‘artist’ he could have found less cruel ways of making his point. And for those who commented appreciating this post – have you ever done anything even a wee bit selfless in your life in order to support someone who needs help? Whether the story is true or not, I’ll say this much of the petition writers – at least they cared enough to take out time from their selfish pursuits, and if that makes them ‘ignoramus’, I willingly join their group!!
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Poushali: I am in no way “belittling” the people who reacted to the story. I am simply telling people that you can’t believe everything you read on the web. One would expect that people knew by now that unless the info comes from a very reputable source, anything found on the web should be scrutinized. In this case, people didn’t do even basic diligence but instead jumped on the band wagon in spite of all evidence pointing to the petition being based on erroneous information.
John: If we believe the gallery and the artist (we have no reason to disbelieve them), the dog was fed both before and after the exhibit. Therefore it wouldn’t be cruel to put the food and water out of reach simply because the dog wouldn’t have eaten it anyway – not because it was unable to but because it was full. And as for the artist cruelly letting the dog go back to the streets to die, that’s pure conjecture on your end. There has never been any info put forward as to what the artist planned to do with the dog. Who knows… maybe he would have taken it to a shelter or even home if it hadn’t escaped.
My point stands: You are judging the artist not on his actions, but on your assumptions which are severely tainted by the petition and based on emotional response rather than rational thinking.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Hi all, really interested in talking to some of you about this issue on the Jeremy Vine programme on BBC Radio2 in the UK. Drop me an line on this blog if you’re interested in participating in the discussion and we can get in touch.
Thanks
Luke
April 24th, 2008 at 9:38 am
nice attempt to display the hypocrisy of people. yet, what do you call an artist who takes advantage of a social problem by attaching his name to it and yet does nothing to solve it himself? last time i checked that wasn’t art -that was tyranny. The reality is most of us realize there are many problems out there beyond our control but most of us wouldn’t, say, take a child dying of AIDS, tie a rope around its neck, and then spell out some pseudo babble on the wall with prescription drugs in a vain attempt to send the “message” about how socially ignorant people are and how the media controls the masses.
please.
this exhibit is as demonstrative of art as suicide bombers are to martyrdom.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
And what does it say when a gallery and artist sinks so low to resort to Hoaxing a starvation of an animal as Art. Hoaxing is a childish and irresponsible act for adults. And that’s if it was truly a hoax? I say a true artist does not need to resort Hoaxing and tricks as representation of Art! I have other comments on this at: http://muttonhead.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/guillermo-vargas-%e2%80%93-artist-or-sadist/#comment-22
April 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Sorry for reposting this but, I typed in the wrong email address above.
And what does it say when a gallery and artist sinks so low to resort to Hoaxing a starvation of an animal as Art. Hoaxing is a childish and irresponsible act for adults. And that’s if it was truly a hoax? I say a true artist does not need to resort Hoaxing and tricks as representation of Art! I have other comments on this at: http://muttonhead.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/guillermo-vargas-%e2%80%93-artist-or-sadist/#comment-22
April 24th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Thank heaven for people like you. I received the urgent appeal to sign the petition, visited Snopes instead. Typed starving dog in art gallery in a search engine, and was guided here. Bingo.
Of course, I can only afford the extra time spent because I applied for
my share of Bill Gates’ fortune.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I feel strongly about this. I am very happy that the dog did not starve to death. I am not happy that no one did anything when the dog was in the gallery. If I had been there, I would have cut the rope and taken the poor thing to a vet. He looks very sick and starving from the pictures, and we have the power to help him. I have an adopted dog and I am vegan. I think we all need to realize that if we feel strongly about this story, we need to make sure we are actively doing something for the welfare of animals. Support peta, adopt a pet, support your local humane society and the SPCA, and above all write to your representatives and VOTE! Also support other issues, like the Darfur crisis, Amnesty International, and whatever else you can personally do to help with health care and food in countries throughout the world, even the USA. We each can make a difference. Nothing will happen if we don’t try.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
The story deserves the publicity whether the dog died or not. It is not a hoax if the dog was actually in the exhibit.
Something like this would not happen in the USA because people would have rescued the dog within 5 minutes or less . And while there are some that would let stray dogs run there are many that try to help them or find their owners if they are lost.
I doubt any that were in the museum signed the petition or were outraged when they read it in the paper, if they couldnt drum up that inside themselvs at the time.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
John: I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong on this one. If an artist pulled a stunt like this in the USA, no one would have stepped in unless it was publicized in advance and PETA or a similar organization got a hold of it. The Western world is no different from the rest of the world in this respect. I guarantee you that the people that went to the exhibit thought nothing of the ethical ramifications of the dog simply because it was an exhibit. And neither would you had you actually been there:
When people are exposed to something in an environment they perceive to be controlled by an authority figure (in this case the artist), they stop thinking of themselves as participants and see themselves as impartial observers. This was proven in the famous Milgram Experiment where people willingly inflicted pain on others because they were told to and didn’t see themselves as actual participants. Likewise, the gallery attendees would perceive the dog not as a dog but as an art installation and would assume that the artist had taken the necessary steps to ensure it’s safety etc. Therefore they – as the majority of the population – would not lift a finger to help the dog because they wouldn’t think it needed to be helped. The dog would be totally and completely the responsibility of the artist.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am
[...] dog was a hoax Starving Dog as Art Isn’t Dead – Don’t Believe Everything You Read | Dabbler.ca [...]
April 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
It…it really is quite sickening how many people here originally fooled by the “hoax” will fight tooth and nail against having to accept they were wrong.
There are far too many posts here stating first that they recognise the artist didnt do anything wrong, then call him “the evilz”.
Are so many of you THAT pathetic that you cant accept the fact you were duped into being outraged?
April 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
And how pathetic are you that you care more about whether people were duped than they at least stood up for something worth a crap rather than the MORE than pathetic dribble you and the creator of this page are concerned with. If you’ve done your homework, you know that it was NOT a total hoax. The dog was captured and was starving and was tied down – whether the artist actually starved the animal is IRRELEVANT. What he did was make a creature w/less options than himself be an example for some stupid and uninspiring piece of ‘art’ and set an example for those morons also like yourself who actually might try to emulate him. If he had used the animal to reveal the kind of pain and sufferning that so many animals and humans go through on this planet when they starve – THAT would have been art – but he did not. Why? Because he’s as PATHETIC as you are.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Regardless whether the dog lived or died the artist should be hanged. He’s not an artist he a hack! Oh…and a piece of shit.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:35 am
Whether or not this is a hoax is irrelevant.I’m sick of these so called artists who just try to shock people into paying attention.The number of “artists” I’ve seen pretending to have fits on a street or shoving pictures of satan in old ladies faces after church,and filming it, is ridiculous.They just want to get the attention good artists earn without all the hard work.If he is trying to get a message across,I don’t think it’s one he cares about.If he thought the exhibit could make a difference to the way ppl think but he wouldn’t get recognition for it,then he wouldn’t have done it.Shock tacticts are the ammunition of the desperate and the ignorant(government,creationists,PETA,tabloids,creationists,michael jackson,shitty artists,creationists….)My point being any decent artist could’ve made the same point without involving a defencless animal.
p.s I really hate creationists.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
There is an interesting article about the artist in the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet today. Unfortunately only for people who read Norwegian. And the photo is one of Habacuc’s creations – a manipulated self portrait.
Dagbladet article
May 13th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
That’s the pic he’s got on his myspace page… http://www.myspace.com/casitadetentaciones2(from his blogger; artehabacuc.blogspot.com)
I better hope his myspace profile is a joke otherwise he’s alienated in more than one way.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:25 am
So ein Künstler (dieser Täufel) sollte besser auf der stelle tod umfallen!
Vielleicht ist da ja jemand der ihm etwas nachhelfen kann!!
Wenn ja!! also los!! aber nehmt es bitte auf Kamera auf, damit wir es alle mitgeniessen können!
June 17th, 2008 at 9:14 am
its ba ddat some1 wud do dat he wudnt lyk if it wa shim
June 21st, 2008 at 8:03 am
I don think it matters what actually hapened to the dog in the end. Its not essential infomation. But as you said, what defines, what or what isn’t art? The point of the matter is that the ‘artist’ captured a stray dog and tied it to a wall with rope. This itself, is surely a crime or an act of stupidity!
July 14th, 2008 at 7:07 am
As I walked down the streets of Sydney today, I saw a dog (who didn’t look like he/she was in great shape) and in front of me was a young lady who looked “properâ€. She looked at the dog and said “Look at that disgusting dog there!” and continued walking with her friend. I don’t want to judge but I think if she saw the facebook group about the dog she would join and comment about the inhuman artist!
We are what we read and especially what we do! You don’t need to join a facebook group to stop animal cruelty or any other inhumane acts. Just do what you can to help! Give the poor dog some food when you see it don’t call it disgusting!
August 30th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Wow… It’s sickening but also brilliant…
September 20th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
he was STARVED u bastards!
September 29th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Ahhh…the sweet nectar of moral indignation!
What a beautiful exhibit, wonderfully illustrated.
Art is about revealing the human condition in new ways and Vargas did this in spades.
This goes way beyond animal cruelty.
This is about people who can’t resist telling others to quit smoking or drinking.
This is about people who make laws making other people wear helmets.
This is about people so unfulfilled, so unsatisfied with their own lives that they have to tell others what to do with theirs.
The best way to change the world is to fulfill your own destiny.
What Vargas has shown us is how ugly it is to try and fulfill someone else’s.
Beautiful.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:04 am
OMG here we go again this article was ment as the other one to get a reaction well boy has it done that.Im sorry but to cover the tracks as someone so sick as to allow that dog to be chained up is unreal why did the tosser not take it to an animal shelter to be fed and looked after.There are some sick people out there and im not one of them.Wake up world!!!
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 am
and just because the dog was already starving when they capture him, is not a torture to be tied in a room with food, smelling it, almost tasting it, but cant have it…? isn’t that animal torture? I’m sure that isn’t art!
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I agree – i think there are so many other, less inhumane ways to get the point across. I signed the petition and even after reading this would sign it again because i disagree with how the so called artist went about doing it
December 1st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
You Are What You Read
“I think this guy is sick! Someone should tie him up, no, put him in a glass box, so that he can’t stand up. Then heat up the room that he’s in and have a waterfall going in the corner. And if the bastard doesn’t die in a day, then gut him from head to toe. That shit isn’t art it’s the work of a disgusting piece of shit, devil, who deserves to burn in hell for that.â€
This is just one of the thousands of outraged comments found across the internet directed at the artist Guillermo ‘Habacuc’ Vargas. Vargas gained global attention in 2007 when he captured an emaciated dog from the streets of San Jose, exhibited it in The Codice Gallery, Nicaragua. Tied up with no food or water he let the dog starve to death, with the title ‘Eres Lo Que Lees’ (‘You Are What You Read’) written in dog food on the wall behind the animal. The story swept across the internet as a chain email directing you to an online petition to stop the artist repeating the piece while representing Costa Rica at Bienal Centroamericana in Honduras in November of this year. The petition now holds over a two and a half million signatures. Angry blogs and Youtube videos call for Vargas to be given the same treatment as the dog and be tied to a post with no food or water. These blogs and videos feature thousands of comments, like the one above, condemning the artist as an “animal murderer†and denouncing his work as inhumane cruelty. Facebook groups have been created for incensed users to rant and rave about Vargas’ actions. These groups have hundreds of thousands of members. Vargas and the gallery have even received death threats.
The gallery later insisted that the dog, named Natividad, did not in fact starve to death but ‘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’ and then escaped after one day. Vargas has declined to comment on the condition of the animal but says he wanted to test the public’s reaction and highlight the plight facing thousands of stray dogs in San Jose.
“Habacuc has put the guests in a position to question their own moral responsibility. Failure to act to save the dog indicates a process of rationalization on behalf of the guest, which probably considered the perceived facts of the situation: the dog was a stray set to face death anyway, it’s so far malnourished that it will be miserable regardless, it’s for the sake of art and who am I to ruin it, etc.â€
Vargas’ refusal to comment on the dog’s survival has only furthered speculation about the dog’s demise and it is precisely what the artist wanted. The furore over the whole situation has become part of the artwork itself with each incensed comment and angry email adding to it’s message. Even though no one at the exhibition stepped in to help the poor dog, hundreds of thousands have felt aggrieved enough to sign the petition after reading the email or to leave a comment at the end of a blog. The artwork’s title You Are What You Read – it makes sense. To make no action when you feel things are in control but as soon as you’re told they aren’t and it’s easy to do “your bitâ€, everyone jumps on board.
Vargas’ work highlights people’s ability to ignore suffering and cruelty until it is presented to them out of the context of everyday life. There are tens of thousands of stray, starving dogs on the streets of San Jose and only a tiny proportion of the global population are actually trying to help them. Then as soon as one is publicly displayed, the whole world throws up their arms in outrage and jostles to get on the bandwagon. By putting the animal in an art gallery, Vargas made an example of the dog. While some people will find that cruel, the statement that he was making about cruelty was immensely resonant, sparking off this global debate. Vargas was, in fact, making an example out of us, the apathetic public. He understood, and intended, the outcry that took place, it was all part of his artwork, and while it doesn’t lessen the impact of the impassioned outbursts of those against the spectacle, it shows them in a different perspective. The comments are turned back on the commenters to expose their contradictions. The striking thing is that some people are still not backing down, in spite of the evidence presented that the dog survived and was well-looked after, and stubbornly continue to protest.
“With the unlimited access to information comes the heavy responsibility of critical thinking.â€
The furious reactions to the exhibit have come from all over the world, probably further than even Vargas could have imagined. The exaggerated interest has amplified the artist’s local concerns about stray dogs on the streets of San Jose and turned them into a global discussion about animal cruelty. This would have been incapable of happening without the World Wide Web. This far-reaching technology has shrunk the world to an unimaginably small scale. Through instant messaging, Facebook statuses and online forums; news, information and gossip can be sent around the planet in a flash and can be discussed between people of cultures than would not usually have contact. The internet has become an interactive, electronic debating table where anyone can voice their opinion, intellectual or ignorant, and be heard, but with the abundance and easy availability of information, you have to be careful what you believe.
Anybody can access Wikipedia and write something, anybody can write a blog and anybody can read them. Chain emails arrive in inboxes everyday claiming that Bill Gates wants to give you money or that forwarding the email to ten more people will bring you good luck and most people delete them instantly but something about Vargas’ case was different. Even though it only takes a couple of minutes ‘googling’ the name Guillermo Vargas to find websites and weblogs that provided evidence to the contrary of the petitions and protests against Vargas’ work, millions of people didn’t take the time, when faced with the chain email, to think for themselves, do a tiny amount of research and come to an informed decision. Instead they condemn a man off the back of uninformed evidence.
The increase in audience awareness across the world has shifted the possible outcomes of work for artists such as Vargas. His exploration into the reaction that this work could cause highlights how much our communicative powers have changed over the last decade. But equally it exposes our almost unquestionable belief in the information that we know is being written behind screens. Our faith in the words written by others has come out of historical approaches to recording and writing our histories and events. But in this new age of mass un-vetted and uncontrolled communication our creative and expressive avenues must become increasingly self aware, for if you are what you read then we must be able to stand behind what we write.
References
http://www.theginblog.com/2007/10/artist-chains-up-dog-until-it-dies-is-this-art-or-animal-abuse/
http://www.pluginamp.com/network/node/3575
http://www.dabbler.ca/news/parliament-of-one-starving-dog-as-art-%E2%80%93-don%E2%80%99t-believe-everything-you-read-20080411/
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“Anomymous” is a troll and a coward who likes to push people’s buttons. Whatever.
I find the whole thing repugnant and the “artist” lacking a soul. And art without soul is just masturbation.
January 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
i don’t get it now was it starved or wat? and if it wasnt wat was it doing in the musuem wat is the exhibit please will someone explain wat it actually is thanks
February 19th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
First, I get the point. But your article could be just as false as any report about Vargas’ exhibit. Second, you contradicted yourself in saying first that the dog “escaped” after the first say, and the later by saying that Vargas fed him and let him go “after the exhibit.” So which is it, did the dog escape or was he turned loose? Third, I would say that since the exhibit was in Nicaragua, a third world country, that most of us who are reading this article never witnessed the exhibit personally, so to accuse anyone of anything is highly inappropriate and only shows that you are the ignoramus. Let me say again, I get the point, not everything we read is true, but is it not better to feel something and to sign a petition or anything else, than to do nothing at all? Furthermore, your article is worthless because you have managed to completely negate what you have said by contradicting yourself. Why don’t you read what you’ve written before you put it out there for hundreds of thousands of people to read? Or better yet, pay someone else to do it since you seem to be lacking in that department!
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 am
bahahahhahaha listen to you all trying to be all sophisticated and out do each other with your vocabulary ‘OH LOOK AT ME I CAN USE MY TALKING ROUND HOLE’
no but seriously this is gross i cant wait to be able to stop this shizz from happening
October 8th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I really appreciate this article and also those that actually take the time to read it, and digest the information presented before posting an aggressive response. I am so completely exhausted with reading the posts people are leaving because the majority are misinformed and haven’t actually researched the work whatsoever. Vargas didn’t starve the dog. He simply showed a dog trapped in starvation because he was outraged at seeing starving dogs suffering. He was saying HEY LOOK AT THIS, STOP IGNORING THIS ISSUE. But what did they do… they ignored the issue at the core and instead jumped on their soapboxes and demanded his blood. Using a life form as an object is perhaps questionable but I think it’s deeply ironic that animal lovers scream for the blood of someone that has probably stimulated more discussion on animal rights than any other individual of this decade. Regardless of his methods it has certainly shone a spotlight on the topic.
Essentially if the only source you’ve got to substantiate your claims is a youtube posting of someone going “Oh my god, this artist like totally killed a dog” then you need to dig a little deeper.
If an artist tethered a healthy dog in a gallery until it died then I would be offended and outraged too. But that isn’t what happened.
Thanks MadMorton on presenting some substantiated and factual information amidst the irrational uproar… though I’m pretty sure that the people calling for eye-for-an-eye vengeance can’t hear you above their screaming.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Even if he wasn’t successful in following thru on his “exhibit”… if as you say, the dog did “escape” (which the word “escape” implies wrong doing) the fact that he thought that it would be a good idea to tie the animal up in a gallery rather than giving it a safe and secure place to recover along with vet care is animal abuse. So, my signing the petition that he NOT do this again still stands. I am an artist… I understand his point… but being a creative person, if he is a true artist he could have found a way to deliver his message without ever getting a live animal involved… my thought is he took the easy and abusive way around the subject.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Although I will confess that I have not dug very deeply on the matter myself, I do not feel that I need to. Art is not meant to be beautiful, it is only meant to evoke an emotional response. That being said, I think that the artist is using the public’s response- good, bad, or most of all, indifferent- to further his artistic message here. It takes controversy to get attention, and the fact that the status of this dog is particularly unclear feeds right into the controversy. For all we know, he could be at the artist’s home right now, fat and happy. That doesn’t matter. What matters is, the world found out about this particular dog much too late, and the fact that the dog’s status is unknown just points out that the dog is another one of the world’s lost souls, and if he had not been exhibited, no one would have known or cared what happened to him. The fact that there are claims that the dog was presented with food but was too sick to eat just shows that it was too late for anything to be done for this dog, but public interest was supposed to be sparked to give attention to the ones that could still be helped. Far be it from me to say whether this dog was used for the greater good, but I do have enough background to know that a dog found in a state such as this and taken to a shelter would have been euthanized anyway, because (just judging from the pictures, I did not see this particular dog myself) seemed to be too weak, too sick, and too flea-ridden to live for much longer. I am by no means claiming that I agree with the artist’s methods of getting attention, but the fact is that they were effective both as art and in getting attention. I do think that, since the exhibit where the dog used to be simply has the dog bowl and a dog-less collar and leash, the same message could have been achieved by just using the empty collar and leash the whole time, but there would not have been such a stir or such public backlash. This dog is an animal, which is to say, a piece of nature, and this exhibit is merely putting on display something most people have a difficult time accepting- the fact that PEOPLE, despite their best efforts to claim to love animals, and despite the love and countless hours volunteered by animal rights activists, are the ones, on a much larger scale, doing this to animals and altering nature to a point where dogs like this one are common, everyday sights in so many parts of the world.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:31 am
This show is about the statistics of this particular artist’s popularity. How do we define art today is a very confused and difficult subject, but based on the related information we could find on the internet, we know this so called “art” has stirred up anger and hate in human emotions. Whether this dog was fed or let go, or picked up by some good-hearted people afterwards, we don’t really know, because we didn’t witness the facts. But what we did witness was this man has picked the weakest being of the society, and he put this sick, bone and skin (obviously) starving dog on display. Clearly, the process of this show had no love, nor compassion. What is he trying to convey through such gesture? The statistics of people’s acceptance for human starvation, or how animals are suffering as strays in the world would not be affected because of this show, but the statistics of the popularity for this artist has increased greatly in front of our eyes, a statistics which might have surprised the artist himself.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Hang on a minute… you actually have no proof that this story is wrong, wat ur saying is that theres no photos or videos of the dead dog therefore its not true.
you have NO evidence yet theres evidence that it is true so er why dont u get ur facts right?
November 29th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
@Vicky: Actually it’s the other way around. There is no evidence what so ever that the dog died. There is one misquoted news story from an irreputable source, that’s it. All the other stuff is anecdotal and spun off from that one source. The artist as well as the gallery and several attendees have all stated that the dog was fine.
My point, which you obviously missed completely, is that people automatically jump to the colclusion that the dog must have been killed without bothering to look up the facts or even consider an alternate explanation. They act with their feelings rather than their heads. Which is exactly what the artist was trying to say.
True, there are no pictures of the dog walking away, but why would there be? It’s not very interesting. However, if the dog really was dead I can assure you plenty of people would have taken tons of photos and posted them. So in retort I say to you: Prove to me that the dog really was killed. Where are the photos, the police report, anything other than one misinterpreted newsreport from a questionable source. Get your facts staright before you start complaining about others.
December 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
So he took a dog off the streets, fed it, and then tied it in one place for a few hours, which to me seems about as cruel as putting a dog in a kennel or a small room. Then it got away, which doesn’t make much of a difference because he planned to let it go. I see that some people have an objection to having the dog tied up even if Vargas didn’t starve it himself, but to me, it seems pretty fair for it to be treated so well. All in all, the more he gets trahsed, the stronger his statement becomes, in its ironic, beyond-his-control way. Pretty kool exhibit.
December 26th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
as for vicky and others, it’s just innocence until proven guilty, as well as believing the statements made by the gallery vs. no reliable opposing sources. Why not believe their word, aside from a misinforming petition that’s aroused your suspicions.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
hi
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Seriouslyyyy anyone who thinks this is an “injustice” is an idiot and probably has never left their home. Go to cuba, the dominican, costa rica and many south american countries and you will literally find hundreds of dogs like this roaming the streets and your biggest concern is that this artist won’t be able to do this again? That dog has probably died, as have hundreds of thousands since then, yet you are outraged at this artist for putting ONE on display, to prove a point that you are all stupid, which you are. Stop wasting your “time” (The 3 seconds it takes you to sign an online petition?) and do something about starving dogs if you are really upset. Even if this guy is a “monster” you are not going to be able to stop people like this from doing what they do or existing why don’t you focus your energy in a positive manner instead of “trying” to stop people from doing something in the future which they didn’t even do in the past.
June 29th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
I remember when a friend told me about this and was “appalled” by it. It’s so hypocritical. That dog probably had the best day of his life in that exhibit. He was fed and people were paying attention to him. If they had seen him wandering the streets they would have ignored him and left him for dead anyway. The artist was dead on with this one. “Screw the hundreds of people who die everyday in other countries from murder and starvation, we need to stop this artist!” Get real.
July 10th, 2010 at 8:09 am
why don’t we close our eyes for one minute….think of Guillermo and Navidad,and pray for both of them….they both need help ..just like all of us….I am an artist as well ,I live in Costa Rica,I am a Canadian.I still don’t think that this is art…. Since we moved here, one year ago, we adopted 6 starved and abandoned dogs. The joy I feel in my heart everytime I look at them …happy and relief from suffering is indescribable!!Poor Guillermo,He miss that opportunity to help….an other being. There is over than one million abandonned dogs in Costa Rica.There are vets that work almost for free to help those animals here in Costa Rica and a lot of volonteers. I wish I could have met Navidad before, bring him to the vet, heal him, givind him food and love…He is living in my heart forever….May all beings be well and happy….Excuse my english..I am French!
July 10th, 2010 at 8:37 am
What I really wanted to say ,is that Compassion is the key for happiness…And without compassion for each other, human or animal…”WE” will always suffer as a society. I wish Guillermo and all other human to cultivate compassion for his own happiness and for the whole world.If “WE” as individual cultivate more compassion in our life …at the end the world would be a better place to live with less and less suffering…Again, may all beings be well and happy and may they live without suffering…
September 15th, 2010 at 4:42 am
Mad Morten, I don’t really like your tone of indignation directed at people who criticised the use of a ‘starving’ animal in a piece of conceptual art. Guillermo may well have been making a valid point. BUT he had absolutely no right to exploit the dog in this way. Having taken it off the street he had a duty as a compassionate person to look after it. To say that it escaped, well do I believe that ?….possibly, to get himself out of the hole he dug himself. I am an artist and particularly like art that challenges us, but this was bordering on sensationalism, with no outcome, either practically nor artistically. I am sure that you are aware that there are quite a few artists who use animals in their works of art: Ukraine-born Nathalia Edenmont,who made a purse out of her cat or Teemo Mäki’s cat project, in which he videotaped himself killing a cat and then masturbating on the dead animal. Both these projects sound just as ludicrous as the starving dog in Costa Rican artist, Guillermo Habacuc Vargas piece, but they are true. How are we as a reader supposed to distinguish between what is real and what is not? How dare you or your brown noses refer to us ignoramuses. It is you who are ignorant for not treating this installation with the contempt it deserves. Shame on you
December 15th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
it is no art it is shit