A friend sent me this link today, and I was blown away. No matter how many times I see people being cruel, how many times I think there's no way in hell something can surprise me, someone does something stupid like KILL a dog for an art installation. Yeah, you heard me. Some out-of-his-fucking-mind 'artist' woke up one morning and thought - today? Today I think I'll tie up a dog and not feed it, charge admission and CALL IT ART instead of shooting myself in my worthless head. This is not art, unless we changed the definition of art to murder and I didn't get the memo.
What is it about the death of an animal we find so aesthetic? There is nothing beautiful about the torturous, slow, agonizing death of starving, just like there is nothing beautiful about the brutal murder that goes into the 'production' of fur. Perhaps there is a haunting beauty in a natural death, but there is nothing attractive, nothing beautiful, nothing worthwhile about senseless, pointless, useless murder. Perhaps art isn't meant to be beautiful. In many cases, it could be argued that art should cause discomfort - to the VIEWER. Provocative though this might be, to walk through this 'gallery' and see a dog look at you, suffering, and to do nothing more than sip your champagne and talk industry is nothing short of purely callous. It is an example of all that is wrong with out treatment of animals, how we treat them as nothing more than pieces of art to be disposed of as suits the artists' fickle pleasures. It doesn't matter that he's a dog - if he were a pig, a duck, a freakin' giraffe, it would remain inexcusable.
Photo from El Perrito Vive.
This dog died starving slowly on a concrete floor while people walked back and forth in front of him, carrying drinks and probably food. They were within feet of him, watched him die in abject misery. And they did nothing. That he is a dog does not matter. He was a sentient being, and he felt every minute of this.
Note: There are various rumors throughout the art world about what may be actually occurring here: one rumor is that the artist found the dog on the street, tethered him up for three hours to "make a point about human cruelty to non-human animals," and then took him home as a companion animal; another rumor being circulated is that the dog was already dying, so this man simply tied him up and allowed him to die in the museum.
The former rumor make's an excellent point, however, the means to the end of making this point is an example of cruel animal exploitation, which is precisely the point the artist was allegedly attempting to make. So, where does he stand on the issue? Perhaps he could have taken several photographs of homeless and hapless dogs, and exhibited them to make his point. What if he were to have tethered a sickly African to a corner of that museum to make a point about the plight being suffered by millions of individuals throughout the African continent?
If the latter rumor is substantiated, then he ought to be petitioned because this is a tragedy. Who could claim otherwise?
Look at the picture(s). This is sanctified cruelty, regardless of the morality of the point he is attempting to make.
There's a petition here to stop this 'artist' from putting on another 'art installation' in 2008. Please, sign it.
