Is this art?

[Forkboy]

It actually appears to be another hoax as art statement, similar to the Yale student who used abortions as art..

I remember reading that the Humane Society couldn't find any evidence to support the dogs death and that those involved said that it was released after a few hours in the studio..

Appers to be quite the vogue currently to supposedly produce a piece of highly controversial art and then admit it was a hoax... but how long before someone actually does produce something of this kind?

 

[bluestreak]

of course it's art.

not very good art IMO, and unutterably cruel, but art nonetheless.

i've never beaten up an artist before, but if i'm going to make a start i think that fella is a good place.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

As said, there was nothing to support the claim the dog died.

The art itself is that unless someone highlights something such as the suffering of this dog (and it was suffering before it became art) nothing would had been done about it and it would have happened regardless.

It has provoked a reaction in many (there is a large facebook group oppposed to it, in addition to the petition - both of which as utterly pointless as the piece itself. What ya going to do, petition them to bring the dog back to life?) including some on here. Therefore the answer to your question is - it's art.

 

[teqniq]

Ok so it's a hoax (I did try looking around a bit but obviously not thoroughly enough). When all's said and done though as a hoax it's in exceedingly poor taste and still imo not art.

Also the petition is not claiming to bring a dog back to life, rather it's intention seems to be to exclude the 'artist' from an event in the Honduras.

 

[suburbia]

if she had just taken photos of dogs dying in the streets of hunger then it's clearly not her responsibility to care for them

Kevin Carter

In March 1993 Carter made a trip to southern Sudan. The sound of soft, high-pitched whimpering near the village of Ayod attracted Carter to a young emaciated Sudanese toddler. The girl had stopped to rest while struggling to a feeding center, wherein a vulture had landed nearby. He said that he waited about 20 minutes, hoping that the vulture would spread its wings. It didn't. Carter snapped the haunting photograph and chased the vulture away. However, he also came under heavy criticism for just photographing — and not helping — the little girl:

"The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of her suffering might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene." [2]

The photograph was sold to The New York Times where it appeared for the first time on March 26, 1993. Practically overnight hundreds of people contacted the newspaper to ask whether the child had survived, leading the newspaper to run a special editor's note saying the girl had enough strength to walk away from the vulture, but that her ultimate fate was unknown.

 

[fuzzy felt]

if you google, there is an alleged statement from the artist which i've posted here:

' Recently, I have been critisized for my work titled "Eres lo que lees", which features a dog named Nativity. The purpose of the work was not to cause any type of infliction on the poor, innocent creature, but rather to illustrate a point. In my home city of San Jose, Costa Rica, tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the streets and no one pays them a second thought.

Now, if you publicly display one of these starving creatures, such as the case with Nativity, it creates a backlash that brings out a big of hypocrisy in all of us. Nativity was a very sick creature and would have died in the streets anyway.'

As many of you have already said, why did no one at the gallery intervene and feed the dog or set it free?

hoax or not, i applaud the artist. i think he made some really good points. i also think this was a really good exercise in remembering to question everything you read in the media. something most of us (including me, and i'm a bloody journalist!!) forget to do a lot of the time!

 

[8ball]

Hmmm - fuzzy felt makes some good points.

BURN HIM!!!!

 

[editor]

If I'd gone to see his 'art' I would have brought in a big tin on Winalot for the mutt.
And then tied up the 'artist' and released the dawg.

All in the name of art, natch.

 

[fuzzy felt]

i still think his point about people's hypocrisy is really important.

i work with a load of tory fuckers, who say some shocking things about homeless people for example. this week in fact, one person said 'i can't understand people who chose to become alcoholics and live in the streets'.

these are the kind of people who would never, ever give money to a homeless person. in fact, they'd probably cross the street to avoid one. but if i were to chain a homeless person up in a gallery for an hour in the name of 'art', i bet you any money they'd be the ones squealing the loudest about what an outrage it was, and how modern standards have dropped etc.

just a thought.