For gods sake, did you read the thread? The dog survived. it was faked to make a point.
yeah i read that, the director claimed it was being fed, not the artist himself.
why would the artist not reveal anything himself? to keep the controversy and publicity figures high?
Hmm I read reports somewhere that the dog was found in a starving state, fed but then placed on exhibition in it's still terrible state. Then fed again etc.
I cannot find such sources now other than the wikipedia link which goes on statements from the gallery displaying the 'work'.
Either way I disagree with the work whether the dog is dying or not- it is clearly in need of help and theyre abusing it. Poor little thing.
I know it is different but I even disagreed with Damien Hirst's 'preservation of sheep' on display etc. Sure the animal isn't suffering in the same respect as these dogs are, but who on earth gives an artist the right to take the life of an animal for they're 'work'?
Will we see the homeless starved in some form of reality tv exhibit soon?
You get that he's not doing it for the controversy, he's doing it to make a statement about society?
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.
You should be castrated
Do you live in a cave?That is one of the worst things I have ever seen in my life.