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

This is really hard to hear. How can man do this to his best friend? I just wish I could find this guy and shoot him.:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graph

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?

---

That's unconscionable, too. No disagreement from me on that. The starving animals near where I live, however, have an advantage, which is the SPCA and local animal rescue groups. This community is vigilant about their care. And hungry people (most indications are that in America the problem is hunger rather than starvation) have a number of agencies ready to help, too, from food banks to our food stamp programs. I donate time and money to both causes.

I read the article. I still don't believe anything justifies the artist's actions. There were other more constructive ways to draw attention to the problem of starvation, both animal and human, in his county. I feel like you somehow wanted some of us to draw a different conclusion from the story.

Yeah I seen this on snopes.com and peta.com. This isn't art. It's animal abuse. And the guy should be punished. The exact same way he treated the dog.

I say we tie his loony ass up and starve him for a week or two. Then put him up for display in the Louve.

I'd pay to see it.

I'm sorry, and this may sound harse, but if I ever saw that ALLEGED ARTIST, I'd punch his face in, and I am NOT a violent type person - never have been.

ANYONE, artist, football player, I don't care who, who abuses an animal, should be shot dead on sight. That has to be the lowest of the lows...

I LOVE my dogs. Woe be it to anyone to ever hurt them.

Hey Rebgirl, let's just put him in a LOCKED cage with a few Pit Bulls...

The Animals Revenge....

Oh and check out this shot of our local ATL footbal hero at full gallop -

[attachment=o162021]

RUN MICHAEL RUN ! BUT NOT TOO FAST !

HAHAHA

This man knows what I like!:thumbsup:

Don't worry.....there will be something done about it before long. I LOVE the way the world is changing in this respect for the better.

When I was a child this kind of thing was shrugged over. Not any more. Follow this story you guys and wait for the end. It will definitely be better than what you are seeing now.

These kind of things used to really kill me. Now they don't because I know that they cause REAL changes.

I have to chime in.

I GUARANTEE, NO PERSON ON THIS SITE LOVES ANIMALS ESPECIALLY DOGS MORE THAN I DO.
...with that said, I'm speechless. I honestly CAN see value and honor in the death of this dog. Who knows? Maybe some ignorant fuck decides to read THIS VERY THREAD, and realize how many critical situations are being ignored in their own lives. If even 2 dogs lives were picked up and saved because of the recognition of this incident, the result would be 2 happy dogs and one dead. Whereas if it had not brought any attention, it COULD equal 3 miserable dogs, maybe wishing they were dead, but having enough instinct to force survival.

I know what I'm saying here may seem controversial, and be hard to understand, but I would atleast like to think this dog who has suffered greatly will be honored. I would also like to think that in sacrificing this dogs life, this man has brought the right attention, to a problem that has been overlooked by many for too long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weedhound

These kind of things used to really kill me. Now they don't because I know that they cause REAL changes.

---

...That's EXACTLY what I'm talkin' about!:thumbsup:

That dog should've ran to Panama. Well, before this all happened.

Think about all those pet murderers who allowed this to happen. All those white people, going into museums.

To even run this story, in the paper, can only glorify it for dog-killers. It makes everyone else sick.

This is a lose-lose-lose article. Those Costa Rican editors need their heads screwed back on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs

That dog should've ran to Panama. Well, before this all happened.

Think about all those pet murderers who allowed this to happen. All those white people, going into museums.

To even run this story, in the paper, can only glorify it for dog-killers. It makes everyone else sick.

This is a lose-lose-lose article. Those Costa Rican editors need their heads screwed back on.

---

...alot of people probably never saw themselves as the murderers, until this was exposed, now they ALL feel responsible (hopefully)

I think this should be publicized as much as possible. I believe the more attn. and recognition, the more changes are made for the better.

Lose lose lose, would be dog dies, guy gos free, nobody learns a THING.


Dare I say the ends justify the means?....It is POSSIBLE.


I want you all to keep in mind that I have "dog" tattood on my forearm in chinese, and that I'd have a much easier time takin' out a human, than an aminal;)

Beachguy...I agree with that....everyone who walked by and did nothing. But I have a feeling none of those people had a clue some FUCKHEAD for WHATEVER REASON decided to starve an animal to death in front of them and I seriously doubt the thought every occured to anyone......although it cetainly should have.

Chron....I see what you are saying. In some ways I am saying the same thing. THAT being said.....Kill the artist. Humanely....but do it. Anyone ....ANYONE....who commits a cruel act like that.....and I don't care what their reason is.....there simply isn't one imo...needs to be gone.

The bottom line with that man's art is and what he is trying to say it......"He started it"
But what's forgotten in my opinion is this......it's not about what you say.....it's about what you do. And what he did speaks for itself.

Chron....it never justifies.....never. The moment you stop believing that you become them. And that''s the worst you can possibly be.

I think it was Ghandi that said "you can tell how enlightened a society is by how they treat their animals". This guy just brought his society's image down a few points:wtf:. What a cruel asshole, I hope some bad karma goes his way. So enraveled in his artistic pretentiousness he can't see blatant cruelty past the "brilliance" percieved by his mental illness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weedhound

Chron....it never justifies.....never. The moment you stop believing that you become them. And that''s the worst you can possibly be.

---

I know, I know;)
I'm just trying to present a side of this that could actually be 'good'. I think it's important, that people focus on the potential benefits of such questionable situations.

Like I said; Honor the dog, and help one out the next oppurtunity you get, so this dog didnt die for NOTHIN"!

Well I FIRMLY believe you will see a big wave from this. Gandalf has the right idea with the statement about Ghandi. Yes....it is OUR job to make things better for the animals. I heard one story.....can't remember it now....but I very clearly remember it being the start of huge changes. "People" like Mike Vick aside we've come forward a long way I think. And even with Vick I find victory in parts of of the story....which of course in NO way mitigates treating an animal badly....ever.

There will ALWAYS be cruelty around

Dogs are family. Every living thing is trying to survive and evolve, just as human beings were when we were "as stupid as dogs". We'll just have to evolve into a super-species, before this guy does, so we can chain him up.

We do all have to learn from our mistakes. Yes, Chron, for that reason, it should be made public. I just don't think that so many people have to learn from this guy's mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

That's unconscionable, too. No disagreement from me on that. The starving animals near where I live, however, have an advantage, which is the SPCA and local animal rescue groups. This community is vigilant about their care. And hungry people (most indications are that in America the problem is hunger rather than starvation) have a number of agencies ready to help, too, from food banks to our food stamp programs. I donate time and money to both causes.

I read the article. I still don't believe anything justifies the artist's actions. There were other more constructive ways to draw attention to the problem of starvation, both animal and human, in his county. I feel like you somehow wanted some of us to draw a different conclusion from the story.

---

I am expressing my point of view. I'm sorry that I don't see this as truly abhorrent. He did not kill something, he let something die. Just like every person who saw the exhibit and did nothing to help. Just like we do every day when people die of starvation in all parts of the world. The only thing that made him so crazy is that if we were to see a dog dying in the streets of Costa Rica, we probably wouldn't touch it.

What would have been the alternative? Should he have left the dog in the street to be eaten half-alive by hungry dogs? Or should he have given it a tin of food to prolong its inevitable suffering? Or maybe adopted the dog and taken it to the vet and gave it a bath so the dog could live 7 more years? Or put this dog in a museum where the patrons will be forced to see the atrocity they've ignored in their streets, where his death might mean something?

When was the last time you thought about the starving dogs in Costa Rica before this exhibit?

hello from Costa Rica,
I must say as the proud owner of 2 wonderfull and spoiled pitbulls I agree with much of what has been said on this thread, and I do not agree that this "art" should have been permitted.
allow me to shed some insight on life here in Central America: starving, dying, diseased, and seriously fucked up dogs are sadly a part of life here. which is why I dont think showing this "art" to people made much of an impact. this is not the USA, although we have a few shelters, there are no dog catchers who get a govt paycheck to roll around, scoop up the dogs and put them "humanely" down. Hopefully one day the gov't will back an SPCA, but that would mean first they have to eliminate children starving, 8 yr old crack fiends roaming the streets, people living in shacks with mud floors, clean drinking water for all etc, etc.

Thank you Costa Rica...from someone who is right in the middle of it. Graph....if you truly do not see the difference....I pity you. Strongly. I'm sorry, but that is the absolute truth.

There is a ALWAYS a price for what you do. ALWAYS. The "artist" will get his. He just doesn't know it yet. ;)

What's that old saying....if you aren't part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weedhound

Thank you Costa Rica...from someone who is right in the middle of it. Graph....if you truly do not see the difference....I pity you. Strongly. I'm sorry, but that is the absolute truth.

There is a ALWAYS a price for what you do. ALWAYS. The "artist" will get his. He just doesn't know it yet. ;)

---

What exactly did he do? He didn't starve a dog, the dog died within a day of being at the museum. What was he supposed to do when he saw it dying in the street? He did absolutely no harm to an animal that was at the brink of death anyways.

Thanks for your pity. I would rather have had a more well thought-out post. What have you done to help the situation? YOU are just as much the problem as I am, and as he was.

Yes, he did. Graph....you are talking to a veterinary tech. In my view people are ALWAYS responsible for animals....it is what comes from being able to make the kind of choices that an animal cannot. We are responsible. He ignored that.....and saying the dog was going to die anyway doesn't mean a damn thing. I'm going to die anyway.....so letting me die when you could do something about it is ok? Sorry....doesn't fly in my book and I think you will find that that will be the overwhelming public viewpoint as well.

The HUMAN had the choices. The animal had none. The one the haman made was cruel and if affected an innocent animal in a very cruel way. That makes him a cruel person period. Anyone who says they can justify cruelty is simply trying to rationalize their own poor behavior instead of doing the work involved in keeping your morals up to standard. It really IS as simple as that.

And if he was so hot on the plight of animals.....why didn't he starve himself instead of the dog? That would have made some news as well.

If he goes to jail for a few years; comes out and says it was worth the price I may reconsider....IF he's willing to suffer the same way he lets his "art" do.

Did you think about his alternatives mr vet tech? Sorry you've been privileged enough to not come from a part of the world where dying, disease-ridden animals is a common sight. Even if he gave this dog a tin of food so it could live for a measly few more days, what about the others? What difference would it have made if he had done nothing like every one else on the street that day? The difference is he would still be a monster, just as much as you or me, but he wouldn't have an internet article about him. There was nothing he could do for the dog that would have led to it living longer than a few months, at most.

He did it for the shock value, no doubt, but the truth is you and I are letting these dogs die in the streets just as much as he did. He simply changed its location.

Thank you for this post. It means so much more to me than your pity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graph

What have you done to help the situation? YOU are just as much the problem as I am, and as he was.

---

This part is true I'm afraid.....but I CAN honestly say I've never turned my back on a dying animal and left it there.

This will be my last post on the subject because now you are spouting things that you know nothing about.

Do you really think as a vet tech I've not seen enough cruelty and neglect to make me want to die? And not over there....HERE! Right in the US. Look at Michael Vick. You must be JOKING to think our aniimals are "privleged" Wake up for god sake and take a
cruise through ANY animal shelter.

The problem isn't that you haven't done anything about it. You haven't done anything about it because cruelty is ok in your book.....as long as there seems to be a good reason and this is one in your opinion.

There is always a price......always.

I am done. Good Day


I

No, I have never walked outside and seen dogs with skin half-festering, dead rat in their mouth, dragging themselves through the streets looking for anything to stay alive. Sorry, I don't think most Americans have either. We are privileged enough to have animal shelters, think about the places that don't.

You're assuming this is cruelty. Is it cruel to pull someone's plug if they are in a vegetative state? I mean, SOMETHING could have been done to save them, right? Is letting something die truly the same as killing it?

You still didn't answer my question. What was the alternative? What could he have possibly done to keep the animal alive for more than a few months? What about all the other dogs? Could maybe changing the place where this one dies change the way the world sees this atrocity?

Again, when was the last time you thought about the plight of dogs in Costa Rica, or even the poverty and the plight of the people in Costa Rica? This one act has opened so many eyes, I can't believe it was entirely evil and bad and ugly, no matter how terrible the actual act was.

This is why it's called the Third World, and not the Second.

Graph: I have to say, we are percieving this in a SIMILAR light. Bottom line, hopefully the dogs death can be something beneficial, regardless of the cruel acts involved, that we can not change. HOWEVER, Weedhound is not only my buddy, but a very intelligent, warm hearted woman, to whom I think you owe some respect. Despite how ANYONE 'feels' about this issue, there is IMO no judge but ONE:D

If I could do that exhibit, it would go like this:

1. Find starving bony dog on street.
2. Take "before" picture.
3. Feed starving dog, take it to the vet, pay its vet bills.
4. Take "after" picture.
5. Hang "before" and "after" pictures in museum next to donation box for local animal shelter.

6. Repeat process with starving human.