Urban Vancouver

So when Vargas leashes a starving dog, places a kettle of food across the room, and fills the room with apathetic people, I have to admit that this is quie a poignant image. And yes, I would call that art.
this whole thing is bull shit, what kind of sick bastard starvs an animal to death? how about we take him and tie him up with food across the way where he cant get to it and watch him die, would it be considered art as well?...people disgust me sometimes.

I agree that whole thing is bullshit. This is obviously a case of cruelty to animals, and that 'artist' needs some remedial therapy in yonder Funny Farm, folks...

What ever happened to drawing and painting and sculpture, i.e., actually creating something
rather than killing something that's beautiful... actually making something that creates impact and stirs emotions... this asshole should be locked up
Yes it does make a point, but had he used his head, he could have made this point in any number of equally arresting ways,
had he had any fucking talent or emotion or sympathy or anything
an artist should have ...
He's a heartless, pitiless, thoughtless bastard .... maybe that's what tomorrow's "artist" is gonna look like, who knows anymore

As a student majoring in philosophy, I've attended several ethics classes and written an unholy amount of papers regarding issues of morality and ethics in our society. When I read about this exhibit, I must admit I couldn't help but recognize the alarming message artist Guillermo Habacuc Vargas was attempting to communicate to the public. While the exhibit was immoral in that it was essentially the spectacle of the death of a defenseless creature, it successfully revealed the hypocrisies that remain widely ignored in today's society. People become enraged with the presentation of the death of a stray animal when it is disguised as art, yet it otherwise seems to go discredited.
Notice how the outrage has become an issue of banning the artist rather than creating more organizations dedicated to supplying these suffering animals with the necessary food and water they need to survive?
We all may proudly shake our fist at this man for making such a cruel exhibit of a starving creature's death, yet those same fists are often covered in clothing made by citizens of third-world countries who work for wages below the poverty level.
I remain neutral regarding this issue. However, I find it's necessary to add: we must choose our battles wisely. Otherwise, we become the exact people this artist has attempted to expose us as.

For "As a student majoring in",
I am also a student, and I just wanted to let you know that your post was the most condescending,
pretentious and obnoxious thing I am likely to ever read. Art can often be offensive or disturbing. Art is supposed to make you think, but when has art ever been about the suffering of an unwilling participant? Your post suggests that the ends justify the means, that the artist has gotten exactly what he had hoped for. I don't doubt that he has. I think he wanted recognition, and yes, he certainly got that. As for the "hypocrisies of today's society", I wonder what your own fist is covered in? The fact that you have access to education and a computer speaks volumes. We all are born into this world without asking to be. Some of us are rich, some of us are poor. I believe that most people have a general sense of good, and try to help others when they can. I personally couldn't care less what this "artist's" point was. The bottom line is, he tortured and killed an animal for shock value. Period.

Right on! There's a difference between shock value and art.
The two seem to have become confused in today's society.
Look at all the violence and senseless mayhem in movies these days, for example. Do we really need to ask ourselves where the ideas come from to support behavior that lets one half of the world condone the killing off of the other half in the name of 'entertainment' or political expediency?

We can't put an end to wars and similar acts of anti-social behavior on a global scale until we do it in our own homes and our own lives, naturally. I'm not going to preach at you, but let's face it - something's definitely wrong with the picture as it is at the moment. We need to fix it. I'm not going to say 'make love, not war' either - because 'making love' also has its problems, like the population explosion, for example. We can't continue our vast plans in a half-vast system that can't support the extravagance. It's just that simple. So why haven't we noticed this already?

"art is what you can get away with"
hopefully he won't get away with this

poor dog! i was sick to my stomach looking at the pictures, somebody should tie him to a leash and do the same to him! This is sick..

habacuc did NOT kill the dog. I know artist personally. He took care of dog and let it go. Dog did not suffer. Those lies are spread.

after being invited to a group to boycott this artist. i did what i know most people didn't. read up on the situation from numerous sources. not just a blog or what a petition said. i have read the artist teased the animal with food, kids were paid to catch him, he caught him, he had an inscence burner filled with marijuana, kids were paid to give him dirty water, he did it because rotweilers killed a guard (or criminals) etc. some conflicting, some i have only read by one source. what am i getting at? this seems more likely a show for the public than animal abuse.

first of all, what happened after hours? does anyone know? no. no one except the artist and the employees of institute.
second, there is so much hersay who can seperate fact from fiction?
third, i have read articles suggesting that it was a one day show, so he could have easily told people the dog died and released it.
fourth, if it wasn't, when it did it's business, was it cleaned up? cause in pictures i have seen i don't see any bodily functions on the floor.
fifth, what institute would let someone kill a dog in their place of business? would that not be bad for business? (the operations person has come out said no dog was killed)
sixth, and for the sake of brievity, remember the bonsia cats everyone raised a fuss about? people signed petitions and it was a hoax. who is to say he didn't deceive people by words to add to the reasoning that the dog died?

i personally found his art phenomenal because it shows the hypocrisy of people. people are so into jumping on a bandwagon when they see something atrocious in the limelight, but when they see it on the streets they think poor dog and do nothing. now these same people want this guy killed. hypocrites. and some of you speak of him being chained up and starved, i am sure if there was a message behind it, he would. i have even seen a man get beat everytime sign a petition against torture to let people understand his message. a majority of people will sign a petition, but will they give money to humane societies? no. they did their good deed today, it took a few mouse clicks. congratulations! welcome to reality: act shocked, write a message, sign a petition, and you are absolved from the rest of this issue.

This "possible urban legend of the dog's death" is UNDETERMINED at this time as of now from Snopes. You can read about it here:
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp

LOGIC people...logic.
If the dog was chained up without food or water in the condition it was in for several days it would have died long before then. You can only go without water for a very short period of time. That dog was already malnourished and dehydrated by the looks, so it wouldn't have lasted if they hadn't taken exquisite care of it in the exhibit (like supporters of the art have claimed the artist did). Again: supporters of this art have claimed the dog was watered and fed, and unchained for periods of time. Then it was released afterwards.

The artists did this so people would be aware of the problem of underfed, unowned dogs in that country. Not so that people would go all PETA on his ass specifically and sign worthless petitions to stop "animal cruelty" when there (most likely) wasn't any animal cruelty going on. The artists wanted to put a stop to animal cruelty himself...and show people that they should help, not just "observe". He is currently scoffing at the hypocrisy (as am I) of the people who are so "outraged" at this treatment of the dog...but who look past dogs on the streets without a second glance.

I have two little dogs and I treat them as I would my children (better, because I like animals more than kids). So this is not a matter of me 'not caring'. I simply don't think we should all bandwagon on this WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PROPER INFORMATION.

The sheer scope of this issue is incredible. Unfortunately 99% of the information about this topic comes from blogs on the almighty interweb, and I have been reading about this for prety much the whole day, and I am sorry to say, but based on the opinions of most people, I would say that at least 80% of the posts that I have read are simply in reaction to what people have been told by others, not based out of research. That said, I have formulated a few opposing thoughts on this.
I'll start by saying that I got teary-eyed when the tiger in doctor doolittle was operated on. I have a VERY sensitive spot for animals, having grown up with cats and dogs and chickens and mice and gerbals and horses and many others.
My 1st issue is about the art itself. I don't believe that any animal should be used in a cruel way, especialy for the purposes of artistic publicity.
The problem with this is that I know nothing about the situation. I have seen no proof that the dog was mistreated, I have seen no proof the he wasn't. I have seen no proof that he was even a stray dog. For all of "information" out there on this particular piece of art, there is nearly nothing of value. For all I know, the dog could have been the artist's pet, and did not actually die, or was not set free, or did not escape, but perhaps the artist felt bad for tormenting his dog that he simply took him home, or to a kennel because he was in a different country. Maybe he had a 2nd home in Nicaragua. Nobody KNOWS anything about this, they merely speculate. So to some this point up, If the animal was tortured for the sake of art, then Vardas should be put behind bars. I do not believe he did, however.
My 2nd issue is much more practical. Art encompases the realm of theatre. The reason that there is virtualy no information about this on the internet is because it was not meant for the world. This exhibit was meant for the people of Nicaragua. Just imagine, for a minute, that you are a floating pair of eyes, watching One human being from a bird's eye view. The only thing that you see is this human, and a 20 foot radius around him. You have not seen the exhibit of the dog yet. You watch this Human walking down the street, past dozens of stray, mangy, starving, dying dogs. He does not pay them any notice. He walks into the art gallery, sees the dog tied up, apparently starving to death, and you can see that his face is twisted with shock, appalled at the sight before him. What is the first thing that goes through your mind ( if you had one )? The idea of the exhibition being cruel? or do you think "this jerk just walked past 30 dying dogs and didn't even bat an eyelash, and now he's freaking out because he came to see art, and instead he sees a dying dog"?
So in conclusion, my mixed feelings are this: is it right to torment an animal (for I believe that this dog was tormented, if only a little, and not actually tortured) to prove a point? I do not believe that it is right to do so, however at the same time, I cannot deny the fact that it could raise awareness for stray dogs on a large scale. The suffering of one, to save many is a noble thing, but not if the one does not have a say in the matter.

Look the bottom point is, he basicly tortured the animal, and yes we don't know more than we have read... Although!
He did show pictures of people visiting and the animal itself, dying!
Dosn't this tell us that if he were a responsible man, he would have helped the dog at LEAST. But no he left it there as a way of art, and sooner or later this will be promoted into something much bigger, where stray dogs will be used as 'models', where in fact they could have been saved...
It isn't fair on the animal as it has no say in all this, but as a matter of fact we are their voices and I don't think starving, 'teasing' an animal is anyway of art no matter the case. Even if he experienced 1 dog do something bad does it make them all bad? If a man murdered his friend, would he try torture all men. NO!
I may not know much about this topic but all I know is the dog was helpless and defenceless, and if taken care of sooner he may have been helped and who knows even rehomed to a family who respects animals...

I have read on other sites that this is purely a hoax - that the dog was not starved beyond how it was before the artist found it and was released again after the art exhibition.

They say the artist did it to highlight the problem of starving dogs - it showed up how when you take the dog from the street and bring it into a different place people notice it and don't like what they see. Unfortunately back on the streets no one takes any notice of the dog dying at the side of the pavement - we block our eyes and say "it's not my problem" and get on with our busy lifes. The photos are shocking and angered many 1000s of people, but in the end we will all have to wait and see if it really changes our attitudes and do something about the problem of starving dogs around our city streets.

You just don’t get it do you? This isn’t about the DOG and it never was.

He chose a dog as his subject because he knew the uproar from the nations of the world where dogs are pets would draw attention to this exhibit. This was a clever move on his part, to choose such an emotional driver.

If we make this about the dog and flay the world with our moral outrage, then we don’t have to admit that we have kept walking when a homeless person approached us to ask for loose change, looking past them so we could pretend we just didn’t see them there. Never mind that we’ve ignored countless other unpleasant encounters and it is likely we will continue to do so.

If we make this about the dog, we’re not bastards anymore. We cry out for justice. We care. But we don’t, not really. Not in a way that helps anyone but ourselves. And even then we rationalize. The “Oh, if I had only known you needed help, I would have tossed a dollar or two your way.” helps us to sleep at night.

In reality, this display was about that old cliché, “ignorance is bliss”. If we don’t see the horror, it doesn’t exist, right? If we consign it to the corner of our eye, it won’t have to be in the center of our thoughts.

The artist made his point…we see what we want to see and ignore everything else.

Please don't lump everyone into one category. There are many of us who do stop to help strays, give money to the Humane Society and buy sandwiches and work at the soup kitchen to help the homeless. I adopted two "mutts" who where strays from the pound and I signed the petition because I was outraged at this being called "Art".

First of all, it really doesn't matter that the artist supposedly didn't kill the dog through neglect. He didn't exactly take the money he made from duping people by attempting to make them "think" to help the dog and take it for medical care nor did he consider adopting the animal to set an example for all the "hypocrites" he so easily labels everyone else. He could have easily set up a fund to help the strays in the area or used his message to support a spay and neuter program to prevent further stray dog problems. BUT THAT APPARENTLY WAS NOT HIS MESSAGE.

Second, there are many actions that generate shock and allow people to "think" about things. It does not mean people have the right to do horrible things and call it art. The VA Tech shooter and the Colombine Shooters attained notoriety from their abhorrent actions and caused many people to rage over blogs about campus security, mental health record privacy and finally bullying and how it effects outcasts at school. It made us think, it made us cry and it made us blog heavily in the attempt to try and find answers and understand the tragedy of it all. This is not art people- no matter how you flip the words "truth" and "ills of society" around. Don't assume that because you upset a lot of people and they wrote about you this automatically equals success.

He did not do it to make a social statement or he would have cared for the dog for life. He did it to make money and get attention in a pathetic attempt to be recognized as an authentic artist. So, so sad.

nvksnrw

This sick bastard essentially murdered this animal by denying it food. I'd like to starve and torture this man myself and see what he thinks of my "art". People who abuse animals are scum and deserve to die.

habacuc is a monster