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?
graph Reviewed by graph on . 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 Rating: 5