Dog starves to death in Costa Rican museum

Lifted from another forum:

Here's the short version of the story: In August, Costa Rican artist Habacuc captured a stray dog in the streets of a poor Nicaraguan neighborhood, then tied it in a corner of a museum as an exhibit. The dog slowly starved to death.

Habacuc defended his art, saying, "The important thing for me was the hypocrisy of people: an animal becomes the focus of attention when you put in a place where white people go to see art, but not when it is on the street dying of hunger."

Original Story from Costa Rican Newspaper, La Nacion
Artista tico envuelto en polémica por muerte de perro en obra - ALDEA GLOBAL - nacion.com


Google Translate


I don't think the question is whether or not this is art, I think the question is how far is an artist allowed to go to make a point. The dog was obviously starving in the first place, does tying it inside of a building where it has no chance of survival constitute as animal cruelty? Is its statement justified? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter.

I think they should do the same with the mentioned artist, and put a plaque over him, with the sayings:
"A people becomes the focus of attention when you put in a place where white people go to see art, but not when it is on the street dying of hunger."

And then, let him starve to death, as happens with lots of poor people in the streets.
If he had any luck, the remains of the dog would be near him, so he would live some more days off dog's meat...

Nothing justifies letting an animal starve to death. Not calling it art. Not making a point about the setting in which it's noticed or not. That's unconscionable.

I see his point but he could have done it differently. He should have had it tied up but fed it. I mean seriously a scraggly half starved dog in a art museum will bring enough attention to itself to get his point across without starving it to death.

The original article states that the dog died within a day at the museum. I think it's safe to assume the dog was at the brink of death in the museum. The artist was obviously psychotic, but he's now forcing people to see this starving dog, which is apparently a commonplace sight in Costa Rica, which might lead to a change in Costa Rican animal rights.

Of course, this isn't about animal rights, it's about poverty and how starving people will always come before starving dogs.

that was pretty heavy,

i as well see the artist's point... but it's the same as peta...to me anyway.

people should realise this is going on!

humans...dogs.....boths are animals...
is it right to TIE either up to get a point across? dying or not!

[quote=birdgirl73]Nothing justifies letting an animal starve to death.QUOTE]

according to his logic, i could kill a baby by slowly poisoning it and call it art, get away with it.

this makes me so mad I won't even get into it. no life is expendable, even if it had four legs

fucked up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BizzleLuvin

according to his logic, i could kill a baby by slowly poisoning it and call it art, get away with it.

this makes me so mad I won't even get into it. no life is expendable, even if it had four legs

---

The article states that the dog died within a day of being at the museum, meaning it must have already been starved to death. Do you truly believe putting this practically dead dog in a museum is the same as slowly poisoning a baby or were you being hyperbolic? I just don't see how slowly poisoning a baby makes any point. Of course, you could argue that a 400 page manual isn't art even though it makes a point.

While I'm not advocating this, and if you read the article the man is clearly insane, but I think there are a few points that aren't being thought out. A starving dog is a common sight in Costa Rica, this dog would have spent its last moments lying next to a dumpster being eaten alive by other hungry dogs. The artist in question did no more harm to the dog than any
other person in Costa Rica, he simply moved it. That being said, he did absolutely nothing to help the cause either. But have you?

Birdgirl, I hate to tell you this, but there are starving animals very close to you, even if you don't see them in some museum. Even more, there are starving people. How unconscionable is that?

Throughout history art or so called art has a lot to answer the artist should be starved to death also in the name of art, well maybe not but at the least severely punished.

Abeona