Plain cruel, please sign

I think that this was an awesome piece of art. An artist puts a dog in a room for a couple of hours, says that it has not been fed and has been left to die while in reality it was regularly fed and removed after a while . And what is the result? Lots and lots of gullible people (including many on here) jump to take it at face value without questioning the truth and start making vigilante style threats to the artist. I think that was exactly the intended reaction.

To the angry posters who started making threats against the artist: just how big a gap is there between reading this bit of uncorroborated evidence on the internet and making threats of violence to acting on that uncorroborated evidence?
 
hang on, so was this fake or not? ive quickly browsed the thread yes, didnt see any evidence of it being fake though?
 
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?
 
fonzee said:
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?
Click to expand...


no because if he admits it's all faked, it means the exhibition can't really be repeated at another venue. Sure the director saying so doesn't help in that regard of course.

You get that he's not doing it for the controversy, he's doing it to make a statement about society?
 
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?
 
trickyj said:
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?
Click to expand...

A bit different, I like this piece of work as it makes an interesting point about society (and does it with imagination) but I've little time for Damien Hirst's work, I don't see the point of a lot of it.

People criticise modern art and installations as a single entity, whereas the truth is, as with all art, some of it is good and some bad.
 
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...

You should be castrated
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom