Dying Dog? A work of Art?

Well, you guys all know me, and I'm a very agressive person [xD] but y'know, deep down inside I'm a very sweet person. Animals... are like, my life. I always cry whenever I see those commercials asking to HELP animal abuse. We should be at the point where there is NONE. I don't see what you get out of it...

But the thing that angers me is that it's TERRIBLE. Who'd do that? What kind of sick minded human being would really do that? Not only is that inhumane, but it's wrong on soooo many levels. And if you've ever heard of the ripple effect [we used it in second grade :)] you would know that something like this'll pass on. Somewhere out there, someone is going to agree enough with this, where they'll go out and do it to a cat maybe! Or something else, worse yet. I would go.... out of my WAY to prevent this from happening if I could.... But sadly that's a no can-do. Any Petition you give me for this, I will sign it.

Oh and by the way, WHERE THE HELL ARE HUMANE SOCIETIES AND THE ASPCA? Is it that nobody cares?

 

Yeah, well, you're overblowing it. As I said before, there is a difference betwen a dog and a person. Maybe if you actually read what I had said and didn't just distort my words you'd understand that.
And I'm sorry, but I really don't feel that much sympathy for animals. I really don't. That's just how I am. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you are to yours.

 

I've looked into the story a bit, and I've changed my opinion slightly.

Animal cruelty is wrong, despite the context, and it said in every source I went to that he DID intentionally let the dog die. So I agree with many of you that he deserves some form of punishment, but the fact is that laws and morality are often exempt from the artistic world. Artists can do basically whatever they want in public if they get permission and the proper authority. Who knows, maybe the guy got permission fromt he local government to kill the dog, I don't know.

But I stand by the fact that the dog died immortalized in an art piecem something most dogs can't say.

And because this one dog died and made such a stir, it's god all of you people attacking the guy, animal cruelty awareness HAS increaed, would you look at that? Because this one dog died, no other dogs will be killed by similar means.

The first dog died nobely. Any other deaths caused by this should not go overlooked however.

 

I just plain don't care. This is just a minor controversy when there are many worse things happening to human beings. Animals are, important yes. But, not as important as human beings and this is ONE dog. There are many other dogs. Whereas humans are being killed by the thousands, collectively, in places like Darfur, Arab nations, etc. for various reasons.

 

Yes, but I'm also entitled to an opinion to your opinion.

You used the Bible as a source to justify it. The Bible, and religion in general, has been used to justify countless atrocities.

Yes, there is a difference in us, Homo sapiens sapiens, and other animals, not by divine decree, but DNA and brain functions. Another reason why this story is causing such a stir, is that it was a dog, "man's best friend." It is an animal that most of us can show sympathy for, because many of us have pets and would be horrified to no end if it happened to their's.

EDIT: Saki, that's besides the point. Yes, I am a mere human, and as such, I put the life of other humans above those of less intelligent animals. However, I am also a animal lover (to an extent), so I cannot ignore treatment of animals like this.

Yes, there are atrocities being done to humans far worse than this, no one is denying that. I will not, however, ignore "man's best friend." I'll deal with the human atrocities first, though, as I see that as more important.

 

I feel so bad for that dog! I can't believe anyone could do that to an animal! *breaks into tears* thats just so aweful and heartless!

 

That is basically my point. After researching it and finding that the guy in fact starved the dog to get his emaciated picture, that is where I draw the line that it cannot be labeled real art. Had he found the dog that way, sure, it would bring awareness of the emaciated dogs around and promote a sympathy sort of feeling etc. Having done what he did, it stirs instead an anger because that dog would have been fine if he had not done that. So the meaning kind of gets lost in art interpretation when you know how it originated.

Having said that, the picture is over with and the dog is already dead. There's nothing to do about it. However, since his 'artwork' did inspire things probably not how he intended once people knew the truth and instead causes rage and now a petition against it, well, good. The dog won't just be forgotten for the crime done against it and it is a fact that dogs do get abused like this. So the 'art' stands to show that there are just some crappy people out there and though this guy made some money off of it, the awareness of the deed he has done is causing a reaction that he probably did not expect but at the same time is good. You are right that the dog now will not be forgotten so easily and it opens eyes to this while other dogs go on getting this treatment or worse.

If people are so against it, I'd suggest doing things like joining the Humane Society. I don't really advocate PETA though because they are ultimate extremists that just go too far. Also, we can always do our parts to be aware by taking care of our own animals or taking in a pet from an adoption center. There will always be people that treat animals poorly. There will also be always people that do not.

 

Oh, I remember something like this from the 1995 movie -SEVEN-. The suspect had done the same thing to a human being: Tied him up on his bed, for an entire YEAR, and took pictures of him each day as he rotted in his bed, becoming crazed from immobilization and hunger. Anyone who's seen the movie should know what I'm talking about, he was dubbed -SLOTH-.

ON TOPIC, however, this is plainly some cruel person. This was an act of heartlessness and inhumanity. He had no right to do that to a living creature. It doesn't matter if it was a merely a dog or not... the fact that it was well and alive, made it just as part of this world as we are. Even if the man -did- indeed get permission from the government to do this to the poor animal, this yet CANNOT be considered as art. I definitely sign the petition in hope that he is charged with Animal Cruelty. This is indeed sad.

Idk, but the 1st particular sentence almost implies that all people starve their dogs. Sure, due to the artist's oh so -creative- "art", it did in fact increase animal cruelty awareness, but he needn't do this by starving a dog to death. There are plenty of dying/dead dogs on the streets— hell, I've seen MORE than just (starved) dead -dogs- in the streets back in my country [I digress]— and one of the dying animals would've made a much better specimen rather a healthy dog that was killed by cruelty as a tool/means of awareness.





But there is something that makes me wonder... Answer if you can/want
Was this "art" just an ~ART~? Or, was he just showing the curelty we, as humans, commit to the neighboring animals around us? Or PERHAPS... was it a message to us, as an act of awareness, of all the starving and dying ----HUMANS---- all around the world? (this still in no means justifis his cruel actions)

 

That is just sick, that is no way art.

 

I've come to a conclusion.

The first murder was art. The artist should not be punished for the first time.

The second time, however, is wrong. And it's not the artist's fault, either. It's the local government's for wanting him to do it again, and not knowing what murder is.

 

This is an abomination. I can't even begin to explain how much this sickens me.

 

I heard about this last week.
I got so....UH! So mad.
For no money, I would find that guy, tie him up, and starve him too. I would tease him and yell at him for doing what he did. What a little...

 

Painting a dieing dog would be art, but making a dog die for his own fortune is being a criminal. He needs to be charged for this.

 

Art is to be considered a thing a of beauty, taking a stray animal off the street and not caring for it is no thing of beauty. It is a thing of cruelty. That dog probably though it was being taken to a good home, and instead it gets starved to death! He needs to pay for the crime, especially since he did it with prior intent.

 

This article said the dog was starving and emaciated when it was brought in. It also said that it was fed regularly and escaped after 3 hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Vargas

Ah, take a look at this too.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp
http://www.euroweeklynews.com/news/6831.html

 

In My Opinion you should treat animals like you treat other people.they aren't any different really.people shouldnt take advantage of something that they shouldn't,

i really hope animals [ such as a dog or cat ] kills an abuser one day to tell the world to open it's eyes on animal cruelty.

 

if you went and did this with a human would it still be art, causing something to die, slowly and painfully, in the name of art. it doesnt even sound like art it sounds like the person who did this is mentaly ill.

an artist so desparate to get people to notice his work he has to destroy another life.......dosnt sound very impressive.

 

that is just sick do people just think that they can abuse animals because they aren't humans well they hve feelings just like humans do!!