DYING DOG AS ART

[magickmumu]

:evil:

 

[Dantediv86]

I know what it is and have no intention to watch it or Hulk break puny human's property :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

 

[JustinNed]

I saw this before but never watched it. I think he should be starved to death in the name of art too.

 

[silv]

Out of thousands of people no one even cared enough to ask about the dogs condition, that should get you thinking. So in that context it is art, then should we say it's ok to let animals suffer for art? I don't, I think it's a horrible act but it does make something clear about our individualistic society.

 

[HeartCore]

removed the troll food

 

[ararat]

it seems you have to take very drastic actions to get people to think. even nitsche still is provoking some people, after 30 years of blood spilling.

art is about controversy, it always was. many people were laughing or got choleric fits too when the first impressionistic/expressionistic/dadaistic paintings (doesn't matter which, it seemed to happen all the time) were presented.

for me, art is the mirror of (our) time, just as music is. this piece showcased what is going on in our world, or isn't it? tell me with a straight face that you can't build up an analogy to our current world. thousands of people are starving and we keep buying ipods.


for me, this IS art. say what you want. it spawns discussions, it spawns controversy.
don't get me wrong, I'm vegetarian (and I'm thinking about becoming vegan), and I like it that way. this whole thing is a rather ethic question.

 

[magickmumu]

This is not art. This is animal torture.
Starving a dog is just cruel. It's not shocking me, it's making me mad.
Why would you need a starving dog as mirror? Why would people want to see this?
What's next they want to see blood???

If a farmer starves his dog, it's animal torture. If it's a artist with a degree does the same it's art. BULLSHIT. Where is the Aesthetics in that?

Modern Art died with Dadaism.
Where is the love and the skill.
Art is all about ideas nowadays.
What we end up with is a dead dog.
How sad.

 

[Peyote&Syrup]

The dog was fed. The artist used the dog as sybmbolism. It wasn't abused. Once again shock and awe was raised without anyone asking why or digging any deeper then their eyes.

http://www.dabbler.ca/news/parliament-o ... -20080411/

The dog was sick when it was found. It was shown as art to open peoples eyes to the countless numbers of animals which die everyday. Then it was taken care of.

Had it been a baby goat or piglet, nobody would've given a damn except for a dozen animal rights activists, who'd then be called freaks. Had it been a baby cow it would've been turned into veal.

It certainly raises important points for our culture to address.

 

[random]

"Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas."

I don't like the idea of a dog starving and thirsting do death in a room, it makes me sad and touches me.

But, without a shadow of a doubt, according to the general definition of Art(wiki), this product of the human activity, definitely, stimulated our senses and our mind, aswell as our emotions and ideias, as we can see all around the internet, including this forum. Though, I don't consider this Art.

This is, anyway, a very sad, but effective, way to shake peoples minds and egos, to start to feel sensible for what is going on around the world. Maybe that dog thing, is kind of a "shadow" of what is happening in the world, specially in third world countries. Or even dogs that die every day, of starving and thirst, in the streets of every city, without anyone caring about them.
For them it's just another Bum, or Bumdog. And even bum people. People don't care.

They had to put one of these dogs, wich there are thounsads of them running aroud in the streets of every city, in a art gallery so people feel touched. And feel their Big Ego's offended, because some "maniac" decided to show them something they already "see" everyday, and don't give a shit while they go by with their "busy" lives.

If this shits would care about anything, they would pick those dogs and/or homeless people, that are suffering, hungry, thirsty and probably dying in this precise moment, and take them to their oh-so-cosy homes and feed them and give them love and caring. If they don't, well I would suggest them to shut their fucking mouth and, as god says, stop masturbating their egos.

Anyway, I'm not agaisnt this kind of controversy or truth, but I'm also not in favor of.

I wouldn't be surprised if the next "piece" would be a bum (person) starving and thirsting to death in a art gallery. Or someone suffering from cancer, with words written with pot on the wall. What do you think?
If it would be me, I would throw my last drops of piss and titbits of shit over the faces of people who would look at me and laugh or be disgusted.

Love

 

[random]

Had it been a baby cow it would've been turned into veal.

99,9% of the people who eat meat, don't have the guts to kill a cow to eat.
Maybe if they put those people all starving to death and then release them, they would even eat the dogs in the streets, if there would be no food around. And even the bums.

 

[Peyote&Syrup]

Had it been a baby cow it would've been turned into veal.

99,9% of the people who eat meat, don't have the guts to kill a cow to eat.
Maybe if they put those people all starving to death and then release them, they would even eat the dogs in the streets, if there would be no food around. And even the bums.

I have to disagree on the percentage, I would say it's closer to 40%, though I certainly don't like making up stats on the spot, as I don't want to put Bill O'Reily out of work. As a vegetarian myself I think this "Dying Dog as Art" fiasco raises points about what it means to eat animals in a society that doesn't want to see a dog hurt in the slightest of ways. I also want to make note that the animal wasn't harmed, despite the outcries of dozens of Facebook groups. I think the message has been lost amongst the majority of the public. Then again, this is true for all art.

 

[magickmumu]

Hey Peyote&Syrup
Thanx for that information. I am glad the dog wasn't harmed.
Question everything.

There are thousands of dogs and other animals being mistreated everyday. There is nothing artistic about chaining a dog.

I've got to make a piece of art, but I am lazy and I don't have inspiration or talent.
You know what: I pick a dog of the street and call it art.
You see how easy this is. No artistic skill required.
And a lot of publicity.

And to make things worse, he's asked to do it again.
So now it's not even original anymore. Just a freak show or a circus where animals do tricks.

We already had the fish in the blender a couple of years ago.
Do we really need a starving dog to shake peoples minds?

 

[Dantediv86]

nietzsche caused controversies with writing
Van Gough did it with paintings
Picasso too
and John Lennon with music

couldn't he save the poor dog instead of leaving him in an art gallery to show?

"Merde d'artiste" is far more artistic and controvertial than that

exploiting a living organism by harming it (because leaving it for days in a gallery to show how a dog starves and nearly dies is harming a living organism PUNCTUM!) to get people thinking is not art is turture. again it didn't seem to have an effect on a larger picture. because people focused on the poor dying dog and are still forgetting about the babies in afric dying of starvation or in brazil dying of a thousand poisons and or bullets...what happened to new orleans by the way? or the people in sumatra who are building even more mosques instead of houses and there are thousands of homless people...or all the animals in the laboratories or in the "fur farms" around the world???

i think we are the first to actually question the message this guy wanted to bring forward

still his ways are questionable

 

[Guest]

The dog was fed. The artist used the dog as sybmbolism. It wasn't abused. Once again shock and awe was raised without anyone asking why or digging any deeper then their eyes.

http://www.dabbler.ca/news/parliament-o ... -20080411/

The dog was sick when it was found. It was shown as art to open peoples eyes to the countless numbers of animals which die everyday. Then it was taken care of.

Had it been a baby goat or piglet, nobody would've given a damn except for a dozen animal rights activists, who'd then be called freaks. Had it been a baby cow it would've been turned into veal.

It certainly raises important points for our culture to address.

QFT rayer:

Thanks!

 

[JustinNed]

Maybe I'm missing something, QFT?

 

[Guest]

Maybe I'm missing something, QFT?

Quoted for truth

 

[silv]

Out of thousands of people no one even cared enough to ask about the dogs condition, that should get you thinking. So in that context it is art, then should we say it's ok to let animals suffer for art? I don't, I think it's a horrible act but it does make something clear about our individualistic society.

I think you are right and I also think that part of the issue is that most of us seem to be completely ok with having animals suffer just because we think we have an appetite for it.

Nice pointing that out and making me realise I'm a politically correct hypocrit saying i think it's a horrible act while I do certainly like my steaks and stuff.

 

[Dantediv86]

if i were to post something like that would i be expelled?

"i eat meat and hate to see cute hamsters closed in microwaves alive!
the only meat i eat is the one from fish
at least they don't scream like that pig i slaughtered the other day, gee thinking about it still gives me the creeps. but that poor dog was a victim of our society and it was unjust to treat it like that they should have fed him with negroe meat., fulla proteins!
Fuck political correctness!!"

'cause it kinda went through my mind...