Guillermo Habacuc has the world in a frenzy over the inhumane treatment of stray dogs in his latest series of art exhibits. I have seen this forward/bulletin/post/internet fodder in a number of places, all decrying that my outrage is imminent and my signing of their petition is inevitable. Cruelty to animals is horrid, don't get me wrong. One of the reasons I eat a vegan diet is because of factory farming. The problem is that art is challenging. Andres Serrano received a lot of flack for "Piss Christ;" partially for the anti-Christian metaphors and in part because he received NEA grant money to do it. The sensitivity of the issue has eased up a bit, partly because people are starting to realize that Christianity is in dire need of a challenge. In that sense I find an insatiable compulsion to question this so-called "art" in a way. What is the artist trying to convey? Is he trying to deliver a message about the inhumane treatment of animals? Is he trying to solicit emotional reactions from people? Is he forcing people to face the reality of the world they live in? Is he simply trying to make a buck? In a sense I can see this as art (although I'm not certain it's good art). That doesn't necessarily mean i like it or condone it.
Here I have posted the forward as it is being spread around the internet:
In 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took
a dog from the street,
tied him to a rope in an art gallery, and starved
him to death.
For several days, the 'artist' and the visitors of
the exhibition have
watched emotionless the shameful 'masterpiece' based
on the dog's agony,
until eventually he died.
Does it look like art to you?
But this is not all... the prestigious Visual Arts
Biennial of the Central
American decided that the 'installation' was
actually art, so that
Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat
his cruel action for the
biennial of 2008
It takes a second to help put a stop to animal abuse.
sign the petetion to stop this asshole by going to
http://www. msplinks. com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LnBldGl0aW9ub25saW5lLmNvbS9lYTZnay9wZXRpdGlvbi5odG1s
Until Every cage is empty.
Please, tell me your opinions on the subject.
3 comments:
If the artist were to tie up and starve himself for the sake of personal expression, this I feel would have more artistic value than treating a living thing cruelly. To me the great picture frame that differentiates art from reality has to do with intentionality - even John Cage's random works had the intention of being random. In this instance, I have to agree with the protesters: it is not art to hold a dog against its will in a museum - it's just plain abuse. The dog does not intend to sit there as audiences parade past its suffering. Now, if Messr. Habacuc starved himself and sat there naked tied to the wall, THIS might have some artistic merit.
Have you seen the movie Cidad De Deus (featuring the exquisite talents of Seu Jorge)? It's very striking how in the opening scene you're treated to the pursuit, capture, and slaughter of a chicken. There's also a similar scene in the movie Babel. Both of these were quite shocking to me, yet at the same time were simply portraying life in other cultures. This is not a qualitative analysis, but I believe we have, in our culture, developed a hyper-sensitivity to animals, especially with our anthropocentric treatment of them. We no longer raise, capture, kill, clean, and present our own food. There are people in the low-end sector who do that for us. We simply buy the "Better Homes & Gardens" version at the grocery store. I think it bears mentioning the differences in our cultures. Perhaps, all things considered, the statement he's making is quite profound and awakening to his audiences. I can't help but consider that life is different in Latin America. I don't imagine that there aren't dogs starving in the streets. Or people for that matter. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the intent being paramount to the status of art. I can't say that there's anything artistic about the act of starving a creature. I can say that the audience's reaction could very well be artistic.
To me it's the same as making art photography out of pictures of Vietnam or Cambodia. I remember seeing a book of scandalous art photography when I was in high school and one of the shots was of a protester trying to climb a fence. He slipped an impaled himself on a spiked pole. The pole went in through his lower jaw and out his mouth, and the picture centered on the look in his eyes. He had that defeated, helpless look. I've seen that look in deer that have just been hit by a car, I've seen that look in the eyes of my dog whose jaw I was trying to hold together after an accident with a backloader, and I've seen it in the eyes of people. That look of utter consent, consent to the prospect of mortality as well as consent to total defeat and the need of a saving hand. That look is profound and as a moment captured in time is beautiful, even though the circumstances are not. What separates that event from this one, however, is the fact that the moment happened to the guy on the fence, the moment was being forced on the dog. I hope that those audiences gather a better understanding and appreciation of suffering, otherwise this whole thing is in vain. Frankly, I don't think a bunch of Americans with their petitions and their facebook are going to stop it from happening. I just hope that, if it is staged again, that there is a greater outcome than just some artist trying to make a name at the expense of an organic creature.
I disagree. I believe that this is a very exquisite form of art that has an amazing value. It take a lot of talent and hard work to be able to create such a masterpiece. I can only wish to be as talented as this man.
Post a Comment