Dark Half Undine

Is This Art? Or Animal Abuse? Animal And Dog Lovers Be Warned… | The GinBlog | Funny Pics & Video, Health & Fitness, Photography, Tips, And Other Cool Stuff!



I put this up to start a discussion about art. How far is too far? What about Vargas' argument that he was just trying to show atrocities by committing one? Does that make it justifiable?


Personally I think this is absolutely horrific, if it unfolded the way it did. And what is more horrific is that he got the reaction that he expected: people being apathetic.

How far is too far in art isn't just a discussion for this piece, but for all art.

When should the line be drawn?

sum1

Starving a dog to show that dogs are starving strikes me as hypocritical. If you're so concerned about dogs starving then why starve a dog? And there's nothing remotely of art in it. I wish people would quit tagging the name "art" onto things that aren't art. Just because something is personal expression or makes a statement doesn't mean it's art. An unmade bed is not art, nor is a chopped up animal. And when people start engaging in cruelty to animals for this so-called art then the perversion is taken to a whole new level. To the insufferable empty pretention of the false art is added vicious inhumanity. It's both bullcrap and bent. I heard of one guy who beat six animals to death on film and it was called art. How the is that art?

We've got to stop calling stuff art that isn't art and people need to understand that striking poses doesn't justify torturing animals.

You know they've got laws in some American states that allow them to shoot stray cats. Cruelty to animals gets a surprising amount of acceptance. In Britain people are encouraged to kill grey squirrels when they find them. Grey squirrels are seen as an alien species (they're not native to Britain) and as rivals to the British red squirrel, so in comes the killing. Poor damn squirrels get murdered.

JBOO46

Yeah this stuff is sick, and anyone who thinks it's art obviously has no idea what true art is. And this one is bad too - here's a LINK.
The good news is, the art institute is finally canceling this exhibit. The bad news is this jerk thinks bludgeoning animals to death on camera is art So these people are allowed to get away with animal cruelty as long as they proclaim it to be "art"? How does that make sense? It's disgusting. And I always thought art was suppose to be about talent. Any disgusting idiot with a hammer can beat an animal, just like any sick freak could tie up an animal and starve it to death. So people are getting away with "art" that is not only cruel and disgusting, but also talentless. What has the world of art come to when these people are not only NOT arrested for animal cruelty, but their so called "art" is actually on display in institutes?

TheAngel

If he wanted to make a point, why didn't he go take pictures of the starving dogs that were living in San Jose, which could then be reproduced and distributed and have a broader impact than this one exhibition. I really don't understand this whole "art" thing. At my school's art museum we have some Dada on exhibition which is basically a grouping of normal household objects with specific names. There's a urinal called "The Fountain" and a shovel and a bike rim and other things. I just don't understand it. I look at the renaissance classics, da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Botticelli, and I think how terrible modern art is compared with those beautiful paintings. It's disgusting that anyone would see harming an innocent animal as artistic.

JBOO46

I agree. A lot of modern art (animal abuse aside) is just plain crap. It takes no talent whatsoever. Michaelangelo and DaVinci - now THOSE were real artists with real talent, not these goons churning out this utter crap today.

Dark Half Undine

i hesitate to call declare something as "not art" because that is a very objective subject. Modern art is a reaction to the world around it, and the world is a very strange place.

However, that doesn't mean you have to like it. I'm very vocal about things that I think are bull**** and talentless pieces of crap.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not going to say that what these artist are doing isn't "art" but the point is that it is WRONG and exploitative.

Art is at many times provocative, but it seems to me that an artist who cannot find a less degrading and sadistic way to express his violent feelings about being alive isn't much of an artist at all.

It's how I feel about these movies that are beginning to present real sex acts and call them "authenticity". The point of film is illusion as truth, truth as illusion, showing someone giving a blowjob is just plain laziness to me. It's almost like you've run out of ideas and need to shock for the sake of shock. There's a better way, in my opinion.

And another thing is, if an artist wants to be violent, degrading and cruel, while I think they are disgusting and think they should be stopped, if they succeed I think we should then punish them as we would any other criminal. Being an artist does not make you above the law.

Art is truth. And the truth is some people are ****ed up and shouldn't be given an audience.

sum1

Some stuff is very clearly not art. It's only because of fashionable pretention that it gets called art. It's an insult to real artists that stuff like that gets so much attention while so much great art gets ignored.

SMG_fan

I couldn't agree more with everything you said.

Starving a dog is in no way art, stupid people.




Belinda

Lain

Ugh! There's nothing artistic about starving any animal. That's just horrible right there.

Dark Half Undine

Great art gets ignored all the time, but who gets to judge what is great art, or art at all? That's why it is objective. I don't think there is an easy answer to who should decide what is art, and any time you put a few in charge of being the final say in what art is and what it is not, it is going to create controversy. And if you leave up to the masses, or rather a democratic decision, then almost anything can become art because everyone has a differing opinion.

If you think there is an easy answer as to what constitutes art and what doesn't then awesome, but I think it's a big more complicated than that.

That doesn't mean I accept, agree, or support art that is exploitative and abusive. This guy should be stopped. He has problems.

notthatfarapart

Exactly. It brings up the question: what is art and how people define it? But there is nothing artistic about animal abuse/or starving a dog to its death. Frankly, I think the laws regarding to animal abuse should be more strict so this doesn't keep happening.

sum1

You mean "subjective" not "objective" and sometimes calling something "subjective" is a way of avoiding confronting it. Some things aren't all that subjective. Some stuff is very obviously not art because no artistic talent is required to make it. Anybody can put a cross in a bottle of piss and call it "Piss Christ", it doesn't require artistic talent. It's not art. Same for starving a dog. This sort of posing is not art. And we need to confront it and reject it so that people stop wasting attention and money on false art when all that attention and money could instead be spent on real art. You say great art gets ignored all the time. Well maybe there'd be a little less great art being ignored if people didn't waste their attention on false art and instead focused their attention on real art. It's a crime when false art gets celebrated and real art gets ignored.

I'm not talking about putting a few people in charge of deciding what's art, I'm talking about looking for artistic talent in art and not calling something art if if no real artistic talent is required to make it. As for leaving it up to the masses, it's not being left up to the masses, the decision is being left up to some posers who think they're clever and a lot of other people are accepting their view. And "almost anything" cannot become art because "almost anything" doesn't require artistic talent or artistic effort to create it. There is no art in putting a cross in a bottle of piss.

If you want art here's art:

Image:REPIN Ivan Terrible&Ivan.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Ivan the Terrible after he killed his son, painting by Ilya Repin (Tsar Ivan was nutso and killed his son in a wild rage, this painting shows how he felt after). You hear more about Damien Hirst's chopped animals or Tracey Emin's bed than you hear about Repin's masterpieces.

TheAngel

That's a very interesting painting. I agree with you. I believe art has to involve talent to at least some extent. I remember talking with a professor about a painter who painted a black square so it wouldn't mean anything. In other words, it's not symbolic, not representative of some inner turmoil or greater darkness or some such, it's simply a black square. That's not art and it's a cop out that someone gets to do something like that and label themselves an artist. I'd label them lazy, perhaps untalented though they may be capable of doing something more. For example, Duchamp's The Fountain, not art, but Munch's The Scream, art. I'm tired of people pulling the steering wheel out of a car or drawing a line on a piece of white canvas and labeling it art.

sunnykerr

In this specific case, we're clearly not talking about art. Starving a dog is animal cruelty, pure and simple. If you want to make a point about the prevalence of starving dogs, pick one of those up.

But, in the larger scheme of things, I do think that art is subjective to the point where deciding whether any given artist has talent is impossible. I heard of an artist who used her body as art to show how modern culture objectifies the female form. This woman would literally have experimental plastic surgery done on her as a form of performance art. You know, have stuff implanted where it doesn't belong and have stuff removed that you needn't have removed...

I don't call that art. To be that's just self-mutilation for profit.

But then you have a whole world of contemporary art that I just don't get. Paintings that, from my limited perspective, could have been done by two-year-olds. And, according to people who know way more about this stuff than me, that's art.

Now, just because a critic says it's art doesn't mean it is. Just because a professor calls it art doesn't make it so either.

But I do know that my definition of art, let alone art that I find to be the result of talent, is clearly limited even within the scope of what is generally accepted as art.

So I wouldn't want to be the one to decide for anyone else, you know?