Plain cruel, please sign

cleanbluesky said:
I think this is a perfect example of art becasue it forces us to examine something that we would rather not. I find it disgusting, yet I think there is far more value in allowing it to happen again.

The first dog could have quite easily been saved by any of the visitors.
Click to expand...


Just what has this got to do with art? Maybe you should volunteer to take the dogs place then if you so value it happening again. All in the name of art of course.........
 
These...
Gilly said:
What is worse, the artist for doing it or the apathy of the visitors?

I'd put them on a par.
Click to expand...
JBuk said:
its seems a cruel act but some countries dont value animals the same way we do
Click to expand...
cleanbluesky said:
But I think the artwork perfectly illustrates what it set out to do - the idea that people would rather have STRONG OPINIONS and do nothing, that people would rather have something that they dislike taken away by the authorities than examine just WHAT they're looking at...
Click to expand...

Seem like the most salient points here. Is this considered cruel in that country, and if so, who is guilty of the cruelty - the artist, the curator, the visitors, or all of the above?
 
If the artist is truly honest in his motive behind this piece, then it is indeed a very powerful statement and on one level I respect it.

However at the same time I find the piece disturbing and unnecessary, there is other ways to portray this message. Would they be as powerfull however....probably not.
 
Guy deserves to be in another Saw movie. In fact, let's organize one for him, in the name of art. To prove the point, he was trying to prove. Just better.
 
lol, fantastic reactions in this thread rly. If only everyone thought like you guys eh!, there would be no starving animals, no homeless kittens etc. Fabulous!.
 
cruelty to animals is a classic sign of a sociopath I think he should be locked up.
 
Sick and twisted, only done for shock value and had absoloutly nothing to do with art. We should tie the artist up starve him and burn him with cigorettes to show him how it feels to be "a piece of art".
SCUM!!!!

The people looking art the display are just as bad and i dont for one second believe that if this was condoned and done over hear no one would have cut the poor thing free.
 
Last edited:
benneh said:
lol, fantastic reactions in this thread rly. If only everyone thought like you guys eh!, there would be no starving animals, no homeless kittens etc. Fabulous!.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, good way to pass it off. Or not. I think peoples moral objection isn't that there are starving animals in the World, there are, that much is patently obvious and tragic. What the objection is about is the fact that this artist (and I'm using the term loosely) has profited from leaving a dog tied up to starve to death and that none of the visitors to the exhibit even seem to have questioned this.

gord said:
"In the name of Art"

A resounding euphemism for "Legitimising whatever I want"
Click to expand...

Never heard it put like that before but it does have a nice ring to it. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom