Dogs Starved for Art (WARNING: Not for Faint Hearted!)

[checkers]

I know art can be pretty much anything, but since when was Art the killing of an animal? as a member of DeviantART I came accross a Journal entry, of which it supplied this URL, and that a man is paying young people to obtain a Dog for him, pay them off and then tie this dog up and starve it to death, for people to go and visit and look at, while it starves, the exhibittion (SICK) was closed as the Costa Rica animal protection got wiff and managed to untie this dog, but sadly the dog died the following day.

Link to the 'Dead Dog Art' page, I advise you not to click and turn back if you do not wish to see some disturbing images of Dogs.
^ The above URL is an article about this 'dead dog' artwork, it features images of this dog being tied up dying, people viewing the dog and a petition signing.

- I wouldn't normally make a topic like this, but at the current I'm quite shocked at it and I just wanted to try and get the message accross to you guys as I know most of you here are pet lovers and I'm sure you'll sign the petition.
Please move to Chit-Chat if Needed!

-rereads- Even if the dog was sick, you don't starve it. D:

[Spivsy]

Oh wow, that's just terrible. There are sick bastards out there, I hope he gets his commupance.

[KauKrazy]

I am not going to look at the pics because it's not art, it's a crime and I probably would be sick. But I think that they should do jail time for this. No fine would ever be enough for deliberately inflicting pain on an animal.

[danceu4ia]

I thought I could handle the pics, but I need to go throw up now.

Why would people watch and do nothing?!?!

[Ailiel]

That reminds me of a movie preview I saw yesterday, for a movie called Untraceable. The premise seems more interesting than the actual movie will be. A serial killer has set up a website with a live webcam where you can log in and view a person being slowly killed with a low dose of some lethal drug. The more people who visit the website, the faster the drugs are administered and therefore the faster the person is killed. The first person takes several hours to die, the second 20 minutes. As the title suggests, the website is untraceable.

Obviously anyone would find this horrifying, just like displaying the slow torture of a dog for our own viewing. But is it not a form of art? Does it not reveal to us the seedier aspects of human nature? Why does traffic always slow down when we pass a car wreck? Why are we so fascinated and captivated by suffering, trauma, and death? Back to the earliest records of civilization, there is evidence that blood sports provided amusement... the coliseum in Rome witnessed slaves fighting to the death against lions.

You're right that this does turn my stomach. But why this, when I put on leather shoes and purses with no qualms? I recently stopped eating meat because I felt hypocritical. I could never brutally murder a cow the way they are killed in a slaughterhouse, but I found it acceptable that other people did so on my behalf? I like the taste of meat, but I stopped purely for my own ethical reasons. But I haven't yet thrown away all my leather.

It is animal suffering for our own entertainment, I guess, but doesn't that go on in the world everyday, with no one but the crazy nutjobs like PETA starting petitions about it? What is really wrong with the human race that we find this sort of thing, suffering for our benefit, acceptable? It Untraceable really happened, would people really go and look? Would curiosity get the better of them?

I have no desire to click on that link, but others here did and have, and I have to wonder why.

[AngharadTy]

People have devoted their careers to determining the exact nature of the relationship between art and morality. I think they're separate questions, myself. Is this art? I don't know; it doesn't reach me in any way except through disgust, but neither does Jackson Pollack, and people pay through their noses for his work. Is this moral? Of course not.

edit: Also, of course people are going to click a link if it's provided. Not all people, but some. It's the "don't think about white elephants" trick--give people a link, even labeled "don't click this," and naturally, curiosity will lead some to do it. The internet is full of such things--I've seen the video that inspired "Hey Man Nice Shot," a really disturbing lipo-gone-wrong video, and plenty of things that make me think poorly of Japanese porn laws. If it's there, people will go see it. That's "why."

[Jazzy]

I'm not clicking the link, because I've already heard about this and don't particularly want to see; it isn't art and I've no idea how the person in question can justify it.

However:

Please move to Chit-Chat if Needed!

If you post another of these mod notes forcing us to mod your posts (out of curiosity, where did you actually put this?), I will reverse the decision to let you post topics again - this is what, one of the first topics you've posted since being unbanned and allowed to post topics again and you're already needing extra moderating?

[checkers]

However:

Please move to Chit-Chat if Needed!

If you post another of these mod notes forcing us to mod your posts (out of curiosity, where did you actually put this?), I will reverse the decision to let you post topics again - this is what, one of the first topics you've posted since being unbanned and allowed to post topics again and you're already needing extra moderating?

Well..I wasn't sure if this was to go in Art or Chit-Chat I put it in Art since it's ''Dead Dog Art'' but it obviously is in Chit-Chat then because it's discussing it, but then it's discussing art so that's what I got confused about...I was not at all moderating o_o I'd just prefer to try and avoid being told by a mod that it had to be moved from art to chit-chat because i wasn't sure but my gut told me Art because Chit-Chat doesn't seem to fit it. ¬¬' I don't think I'm in the wrong I wasn't modding. D=

[Jazzy]

You're in the wrong because you required moderation (see my original post: "forcing us [the moderators] to mod your [checkers'] posts"). You should not be causing us extra work; you are still essentially on probation. And while you are allowed to disagree with me, I would suggest you don't argue the point too far, because it does still say this in your user notes and this issue is clean-cut:

Any time:
- No arguments with ... a mod privately or publicly. You're not in a position to be causing trouble for us.

[danceu4ia]

I have no desire to click on that link, but others here did and have, and I have to wonder why.

I did, since I obviously already admitted it...wondering how someone could ever justify that as art. I clicked for the psychology, and retched at the facts.

And like Ty said, when it says "Don't click here", what do you do? More psychology.

[Slugawoo]

Anyone who knows me at all should know how I feel about this. Inhumane killing of animals pisses me off, but of canines even more so.

Even if it cost me the rest of my life in prison I'd be happy to brutally murder that bastard for doing this.

And no, it's not art. And as an artist I'm insulted that anyone would think of it as such.

[Officer 1BDI]

I did click on the link, and even after reading the article and catching a glimpse of those awful pictures I... I just don't see it. How the hell do you call starving a dog art?

I guess it could come down to what your definition of art is, but this certainly doesn't fit mine. What did he do beyond tying the dog up in a gallery and refuse to feed it? It's almost like he used art as a poorly formed excuse to torture the dog. If he wanted to make a statement, there were more creative and much less stupid and harmful avenues he could have gone down.

Also, the fact that something, let alone an innocent and helpless animal, had to die just so he could "make a point" is absolutely dispicable.

[Fjorab_Teke]

This just makes me ill to think about, and I didn't even click the link.

If one insists on making "starved dog art" there are countless numbers of ways to do so WITHOUT using an actually starved dog. You could draw/paint/sculpt one, and all you have to do is find an easily-accessed image of one for reference. There are (and have been for years and years) enough starved dogs out there already, the poor creatures. Why torture more for the sake of what you call "art"?

I could rip the "artist's" head off and impale it on some interesting things and call it art, too.

*ahem, goes back to meek self again, only to contemplate LJ-posting a long tirade against the contradictory stupidity of humanity*

[Madge]

Firstly: It is WRONG to starve a dog and all the rest of that. The poor dog looked absolutely distraught, and so on, and I can't fathom how anyone could do that to another living creature...

That said, reading the article, the artist DID have a very profound point that wouldn't have been *as* well received (not to say that it wouldn't be received) without using an actual starving dog: people don't care about things unless they are made aware of them. Stray dogs are starving to death every single day and no-one cares about them; put one dog in the spotlight, and suddenly everyone is concerned and wants the exhibit banned... but what is anyone doing about dogs and *people* who are starving to death every single day?

I mean, the general thrust of what the "art" was trying to say was that people don't care about things until it's shoved in their face, and I think that the reactions to the starved dog only go to further that.

I think that if he'd not used a live dog, he wouldn't have got his message exposed to as many people; there are of course ways to deliver his message that wouldn't have required that, but would it have got so much attention if he hadn't?

Again, it is wrong, and completely disgusting to allow something like this to happen to any living creature and there are other ways to get the message across (though to fewer people). I'm sure everyone knows I'm not a cold-hearted person who would think any differently; but if no-one gains any insight into human nature from this art work, then the poor dog died in vain.

[Usul_Princess]

Officer1BDI, you couldnt've said it better.

You know, this reminds me of something a girl in my AP art class said in the 11th grade 'Art is such bullshit'. I hadn't even digested what she said for 4 seconds before I agreed with her and knew exactly what she meant by that. The post modern era of art, or art nowadays is taking a sick turn into whatever anyone wants it to be. Normally I walk the fine line between Romanticism and Realism style themed art depending on the meaning and/or level of effort behind it. But I think that everyone draws the line somewhere, and I'm going with the Captain Obvious statement on this one. I've been to several art museums across the world, and I scratch my head at some of the crap that's considered so "deep" and made the institution cut in the first place. Because 'art' has never really once had a set definition, basically anything goes unfortunately. This dog starving thing is much closer to a freak show than it is 'art' hands down.