Animals as an Art Movement
Check out this website. There is this crazy man that used a dog and let him starve to death as his art exhibit. My friend at Savannah College of Art and Design was telling me all about it. Also a student there had bought a parrot at Pet Smart and snapped its neck and made a bracelet for his fibers class. The bracelet had blood still on it and all that gross stuff and got kicked out of class for the day.
The college really can’t do much about it like academic probation or anything since it is an Art Movement and will have to make changes in the school policies, rules.
I just thought you would like to hear something new and strange and not support what what is happening. There are so many places to go out and buy art supplies that you don’t have to kill an animal in an inhuman way.
by Erica Turchin | 04.30.08 | Uncategorized |
ugh. I heard about this a while ago. I can’t believe this is even allowed and art movement or not there should be policies in place. People have their heads so far up their ass that if someone calls it art they immediately buy into it as being posh or cutting edge instead of thinking for themselves. Wake up people! Seriously. I hate that people use “but it’s art!” as an excuse for anything including doing something so awful. I get the whole shock value thing but that is just way too far.
I heard about this a few weeks back myself. I signed a petition against his work. It’s not art, it’s abuse.
Thanks for bringing attention to this as well as the link:) There are a lot of conflicting stories ou there about it but they all basically boil down to the fat that the artist is an ass and the gallery is a bunch of publicity whores. Please sign the petition. I guess it’s all anyone can really do.
I think it’s even more infuriating that all those people came through the gallery and didn’t think to say anything about the starving dog…
It is perplexing that 1. the gallery let this happen, 2. no one stopped it, 3. the artist thought his intentions were worthwhile pursuing.
What we call art often is a straddles a thin line sometimes. Was Chris Burden’s being shot in the arm really art? or was it just spectacle. Art likes the spectacle, it draws people in, we are amazed by it, we question the validity of it. But in most of these spectacles the participants are willing participants, either the artist themselves or people who willing sign on to participate. I have heard of artists fasting, being stuffed in lockers (Chris Burden again), etc. There is something to be said about the level of determination and will power it takes to preform these feats, but as I have always seen this they are doing it to themselves. Taking an animal and starving it to death is just cruelty. We have laws in the US that prevent this from happening.
There are several stories circulating about whether or not this story is publicity or 100% true. Some claim that the presentation of the dog as being starved was staged and that the dog was well kept during off hours. All of this however remains undetermined as to what percentage of truth is in all of it.
The intention of the artist is interesting, take something from the streets which normally one would ignore or run away from and force people to face it. It achieved that goal. Would it have the effect if it was a homeless man or woman tied to a gallery wall? who knows.
I think Ryan has a good point (”the intention of the art is interesting, take something from the streets which normally one would ignore or run away from and force people to face it. It achieved that goal.”) Yes, it did achieve that goal, but at a very cruel cost. If the artist were to have stayed purely observational following around this stray and photographed it to display at a gallery and bring attention to this, it would have been one thing, But intentionally putting an animal that was barely getting by as a stray on display and prohibiting it from wandering and finding food on its own has now made that artist an accomplice (solely, or not) in an act of animal cruelty.
Yes, there are artist who’s art seems more spectacle than anything, but as it was stated, those artist were doing it to themselves and were willing participants. This dog had no way to willingly participate in anything, nor a way to object. I personally work with an animal rescue and have seen 8 lb dogs that should weigh about 25 lbs. Its sick and it changes your point of view, but having seen it in person, I don’t think its something everyone needs to see in action to understand.
If the gallery story is 100% true, it is just intolerable. If they state that the dog was well kept during off hours, though, I find it hard to believe. There’s no way for an emaciated animal to be “well kept”. Especially not if that animal dies after some time because of it. “Off hours” gets to me to, it means to me that the dog was kept from food or water for the “on hours” of a museum, which is probably close or over 10-12 hours of the day. Thats a little excessive for a supposedly cared-for animal.
I try to keep a very open mind about art. Just because I may not understand its meaning or goal or reasoning, doesn’t mean I hate it or that I don’t call it art, just that it might not be a type of art I enjoy to view. I can even see a representation of death as being artistic, but not the journey and destination of it happening in a building with onlookers to a creature that has no a way to leave or a voice of its own.
dumb. reeks of kitty genovese.
ok… but, using the argument that it forces people to address something… you’re forcing people to address a dog that’s chained to the floor and dying. A stray dog or cat has the ability to rely on their survival instincts to find food in the wild, so even though they have less of a chance to survive as a stray, or a shortened life-span, they still have a chance.
I guess you could argue that the artist would be forcing you to address mortality or the idea of starvation, but the equation is completely changed when you’re killing something…
wow, I didn’t think that I would have gotten the responses that I did. I think most of us have just about the same view on this issue which it is plan cruel. And like Nick said at least a dog in the wild has a chance and mother nature takes the course of the animals life and not man. It did make a statement since we are hearing and talking about it. Art can have negative or positive statements which is fine but this issue was negative and more.
On another note I really like this blogging thing now that it’s not a grade:) Thanks for all the great feedback
PETA had an article about it and they said the dog ran away after a day or two, no starving going on, and I think the artist had a good point with the project (AS LONG AS THE DOG WASN’T HARMED), look for the article online, says that he wanted to show how our society gives a sh** about starving animals. So I don’t think it was too bad, as long as the dog didn’t die.
The dog didn’t die; the dog was released. This is the sensationalist media at work along side the uninformed masses. Online petitions have never done anything, just like how “bring home our troops” stickers don’t bring them home. It was just art for the sake of creating outrage, which it did, much like the Yale abortion art piece).
For some reason people go crazy nuts when they hear about animal suffering but don’t usually give a crap unless it’s put in front of their faces. Also, it’s funny to think that more passionate outrage comes from people about animals than you’ll ever see in cases where civilians are hurt in war.