Dying Dog? A work of Art?

Vincent Van Gogh cut off his ear for a girl he really liked. He was kind of not one who was very adept at social situations and what people would call an 'oddball'.

Also, self-mutilation is one thing. I do not believe Vincent van Gogh ever harmed animals or other people. He was a nut but not cruel apparently. You are right that a good group of people like gory art, but at the same time most art isn't created by making something forcibly suffer and then it dies the next day in a cruel way because the thing has no more use. There is a ton of morbid artwork out there but most of the time if it is 'real' people either came upon some gory scene that stuck in their minds to paint it etc.

This is just a 'picture'. I'm not seeing how it even qualifies as art. I could go take a picture of some starving bum and I'd still say it's a picture; not artwork in any sense. Now, some photography I can call art because some photographers really go out of their way to get the best shots of scenes, items etc..., but this...not really. It's an emaciated dog that someone decided to put that way and have in a crappy scene that probably the dog was stuck living in as it was. In the end also, it doesn't stir much but revulsion or pity for the dog. Considering that the dog never had to suffer in the first place, the revulsion in many people is going to be superior to the pity and thus it makes this not a piece of artwork. Had some photographer captured a picture of a dying dog and not been responsible for putting it that way, sure, the picture then would invoke pity and a hope the dog could have been helped and if it could not, at least the dog had some understanding after his death and it would be remembered. -That- is art, if I care to actually acknowledge such a crummy picture anyone could take as art. It gives a message that this guy was trying to give by doing the mistreatments himself. Instead he fails and earns petitions and loathing. It was not about the dog. It was about making money, pure and simple in this guy's mind and he didn't care about the thing he was doing but to make money. To others who look at the picture, it will be about the dog. To an artist, it would be about the dog and capturing how bad the situation is so others draw some emotional reaction about it and take something from it. So, see the difference?

 

His intent doesn't much matter if the effect remains, but there is no reason to preform it again. Though all being said and done we have the same veiw from where we currently stand, it doesn't much matter what we did to get here.

 

What?Its an animal that can't do anything to protect itself.Killing is a sin.How can you think killing an inecent animal is ok?Its wrong.Its animal cruelty.People that treat animals like that should be put in jail.Like that football player Michael Vick.I actually think people like him should be put in jail for life.

 

Holy hell, what is wrong with you people?

Do you even know the whole story? How do you know that the dog didn't have a disease, that it wasn't already dying? How do you know that this won't go towards a good cause? What were these pictures used for? I think Mixt said it ont he first page, what if the pcitures were used as a way to improve animal cruelty awareness? Hm?

Art is an expression of feeling, yes, animal cruelty is wrong but there are a lot of wrong things in this world. There are martyrs of every kind who die for good causes. It was a stray dog with no family and no home, it spent it's life dying. And it's end was glorious. It's been immortalized in an art piece. I'm sure you would say that it wanted to live, well tough luck for the dog I suppose. People and dogs die every day, "The dreams of mice and men often go astray". Blademaster Mikail also said it, albeit a little bluntly. But there are billions of dogs, and I personally view any form of artistic expression as a noble endeavor. If I were the dog, I'd probably be proud. It's sad, yes, but do not call the man a criminal, do not say he should be put in jail, when you don't even know what really happened.

I personally demand a FULL story on this before I say my final verdict.

(Keep in mind that I believe every life has meaning and every life has purpose. But tell me what purpose in life did this dog have before these pictures were taken?)

 

On the topic of art, I am completely floored by all the "that isn't art at all" comments. First of all, art is anything. You can make ANYTHING art. It does *not* mean something isn't art completely because it is cruel, sick, twisted, disgusting, mean, etc..

Now, I do agree this is a bad thing to do. Art can be expressed in many ways, and I really think that being an artist myself; however, mistreating an animal for the sake of such is something I find very wrong. Is it art? Sure, of course it is. The PRINCIPAL of the thing is not cruelty, it is art. I completely disagree with hurting animals for it, again, but art can be anything as I've stated.

I will probably look more into this, though.

 

Well. I'm sure if it was to help stop animal cruelty, he wouldn't tie the animal to a short rope without any food or water for days on end. I know People and dogs and other animals die every day, the point it that he's contributing to animal cruelty. I'm sure he didn't have to starve and dehydrate this animal. Wouldn't it be easier to catch random snap shots of animals on the street?

http://www.publico.es/resources/archivos/2007/12/8/119712443958320071208-806379dn.jpg He's also contributed to this art piece as well.

If the dog lived I'm sure people wouldn't make such a deal of it.

http://elperritovive.blogspot.com/
​

 

Actually that picture isn't half bad. By showing the people like animals it forces the veiwer to picture animals as people. But the point remains that the dog died and the people were probably in their for a day or two and released (don't take my word on that, i didn't do added research on it).

 

I don't believe that you can compare a human to a dog. They both qualify as life, bu that's where it ends. Human are a class above the rest; different, powerful. Created in the image of God, INFUSED with a part of God. I'm not saying God didn't create dogs, but I don't believe he gave them souls.

And besides, you guys are seeing this from a purely Christian standpoint. I mean, I pity the dog as an animal, but not as a person.

 

If you want to go relegious with this. God gave man dominion over the Earth so we could subdue it, guide it, and make it prosper. By killing animals we are going directly against that and it is therefore a sin.

 

Hey, ya know, he also gave us this wonderful gift that we abuse so frequently these days. Know what it is?

It's called CHOICE.

We MAKE the choice to start the wars, we MAKE the choice to sin, and yes, we MAKE the choice to kill the dogs as a form of expression. If people want to sin and kill an innocent animal, then let them. It's not your place to stop them if they can't stop themselves. If you don't want people to be able to make that choice, then you don't want people to be human.

 

I want them to be ABLE to make that choice. But that doesn't mean I don't want to influence what that choice is. So what's your mindset here? "I'm safe so who cares what happens to the rest of them?" Christ said himself that it is equally important to love others as it is to love him.

 

You should love them for doing what they want to. Let them follow their hearts. I just don't believe that you should interfere with people's lives if they're going to take it negatively (which this artist may).

I'm driving myself into a hole here. Goodnight, ye quibblers.

 

Love isn't afraid to be harsh. What kind of love is it if you're letting them skrew their lives up and probably their afterlives too. Having someone else pay the price for your lazyness doesn't sound very loving to me.

 

/owned

XD

 

Huh. That was indeed interesting. I was'nt 'horrified', really. Dying animals being a form of art is indeed cruel and strange, which makes me very interested in reading about these people. Homicidal maniacs make life interesting.

 

The point is that the dog was -intentionally- starved to death and died. Art would have been if the guy found the dog, took a picture of it to show others and raised some opinion etc. If the man caught the dog, starved it to death intentionally etc, that is indeed animal cruelty. I am not sure why people don't see that. So in the end, we need to know whether he starved the animal intentionally or not. Because that is what in effect makes it not art at all but a set up animal morbidity to satisfy himself and his pocket book off a dog he made suffer. The articles I have been reading all seem to say he did in fact starve the dog intentionally. Thus, the dog would have lived longer without his interference.

And I'm not going to even bother going into the religious aspect of this since the Bible says that humans own all animals etc which has been used as an excuse for years to mistreat them. St. Francis made a change with this stance saying people should take care of them but the Bible is wrought full of animal sacrifices etc and labeling which animals are good and bad and which ones can be eaten and can't. It's not a good source to go off of.

 

Yeah, when there's no other excuse for treating other life forms like crap, let's turn to religion. I'm not a religious person, but I have nothing against people who are, but if there's one thing I dislike about religion it's when people use it to justify deeds that clearly follow no moral. The only thing that truly makes us different from other animals is that our brains are better developed and in the way that our actions are currently wrecking countless ecosystems around the world. We don't live to maintain the balance in nature, we are just selfish creatures who care about nothing but ourselves and although not everyone may realize it, most of us do in fact act upon primitive instincts rather than acting logically.

Animals can feel pain just like we can. Some animals are even able to feel all the emotions we humans can. Whales, for example, have a very well developed section in their brain that is very similar to the section in the human brain that handles feelings such as compassion and love which means that technically, whales can feel the same kind of affection towards another specimen of their species we can. So tell me, if other life forms can feel the same things we can, how are we really different from them? The concept of a soul is so incredibly abstract that I'd like a proper definition for what a soul is and why only humans would have one. And either way, animals would still be a work of God and in that case, shouldn't he be the one to decide when to end the life he created? Why would we humans have a right to kill something God created?

 

Let's change some words, shall we?

"That is an outstanding piece of art. I'm glad to see that artists are branching out from traditional mediums and experimenting like this.

Guys, it's just a person. There are 6 billions of them all over the world. And if he does this again, it's just one OTHER person. If the guy wanted to express something, it's art. Accept that and move on."

Sicko.

While I'm all in favor of the abolishment of animal cruelty, I'm not a tree hugger, and I believe in euthanasia (terminal and incurable illness and injuries only. If you must die, it should at least be quick and painless rather than long and gruesome). But, that's besides the point. This is not "art." Yes, art can be about the pain and suffering of others, but the artist should not cause the suffering.

People like this make me hope there is a Hell.

BTW, Repliku, Christmas is "Navidad." Close, but no cigar.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this insightful post.
By the way, I won't be the least bit suprised if this turns into a religious debate.
If stuff like this shocks and offends you each and every time, you are'nt ready for the real world. (Not pointing at anyone).