So forgive me if I'm a little bit skeptical about this

[Ron_Tomkins]

So today I open my e-mail and I receive this foward about this guy who's some artist. And this guy supposedly took a street dog and tied him up so that he starved and that was his "art" gallery. So then they send you a link to sign a petition to keep this guy from killing some more animals and trying to make "art" out of it. ( http://www.petitiononline.com/13031953/petition.html )

So I'm like "wait a minute wait a minute", you know? Cause this is the kind of things that make me skeptical. I mean, according to the foward I was sent, he wasn't criticized for what he did and now it seems like he might "do it again" (By "do it again" we obviously mean "find another starving creature and tie him up so that we can watch him die and so we can reflect upon the decaying of society, blablabla"). So I'm sorry, but I'm a little bit skeptical about this being actually real (The Boonsai Kitten issue comes to my mind as well).

So I google his name but as usual, it isn't easy to find something new. Just the same basic information repeated all over again. I do find a blogspot (but hey, how reliable can a blogspot be? I could open a blogspot and say that I'm Michael Jackson and I never went to bed with those kids). The blogspot reads

"Here is a part of his original [most recent] statement:"Hello everyone. My name is Guillermo Habacuc Vargas. I am 50 years old and an artist. Recently, I have been critisized for my work titled "Eres lo que lees", which features a dog named Nativity. The purpose of the work was not to cause any type of infliction on the poor, innocent creature, but rather to illustrate a point. In my home city of San Jose, Costa Rica, tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the streets and no one pays them a second thought.

Now, if you publicly display one of these starving creatures, such as the case with Nativity, it creates a backlash that brings out a big of hypocrisy in all of us. Nativity was a very sick creature and would have died in the streets anyway."

Then again, on top of that statement there is a link entitled: "Guillermo Habacuc Vargas admits on his new created MySpace page, that he indeed killed the dog!"

Huh?

So you click on it and it doesn't lead you to a myspace page. Just a regular website. The first paragraph reads:

""Hello everyone. My name is Guillermo Habacuc Vargas. I am 50 years old [Remark: The "artist" is in fact about 30 years old, more real data about him over here] and an artist. Recently, I have been criticized for my work titled "Eres lo que lees", which features a dog named Nativity. (...) [I deleted here the further blah of the "artist".] (...) Nativity was a very sick creature and would have died in the streets anyway.""


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Who can you trust? And how?


(I signed the petition anyway, but I'm skeptical. And a little bit bitter as well)

 

[fuelair]

Snopesd it for you:

http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp


When in doubt, Snopes first!!!

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Snopesd it for you:

http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp


When in doubt, Snopes first!!!

Interesting. I didn't know about this Snopes site.

So is it a 50/50 probability of it being true or not at this point?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Interesting. I didn't know about this Snopes site.

So is it a 50/50 probability of it being true or not at this point?

It is unknown whether it is true or not. That does not mean that those outcomes are equally probable. That's not sound reasoning. That's like saying, "I don't know whether anyone will remember my birthday next year, therefore that probabilities are 50/50."

 

[pgwenthold]

It is unknown whether it is true or not. That does not mean that those outcomes are equally probable. That's not sound reasoning. That's like saying, "I don't know whether anyone will remember my birthday next year, therefore that probabilities are 50/50."

In fact, if I had to guess, I would suggest that it is more likely NOT TRUE if it is unconfirmed. It's a lot easier to confirm something than to prove it not true.

While some of the unconfirmed stuff is undoubtedly true, I would guess that more than half of it is not.

 

[fuelair]

Interesting. I didn't know about this Snopes site.

So is it a 50/50 probability of it being true or not at this point?

When they say it is undetermined, that is all they mean. Right now the official story is that the dog escaped and is alive. There is no proof either way. Snopes won't clear until it is certain.

 

[rjh01]

Also I would have thought it was a criminal offence to stave a dog to death. Maybe different in a country like Costa Rica

 

[SoBitter]

I just got a myspace bulletin from none other than PETA crazy Jenna Jameson, telling me about this story. I also was skeptical and looked around on the internet. I couldn't even find a website for this supposed "Central American art Biennial", so that made me doubt it even more.

Yeah, it's morally sketchy to tie up an animal that needs medical care rather than getting it the care it needs, but as long as it was fed and wasn't killed, I don't see what the problem is. Especially if it can't be proven that the dog died, or that it's actually going to happen again.

Of course I think animals should be treated humanely and killed painlessly if possible when killed for food, but these animal rights people take it way too far. I think this is just another shock tactic.

 

[Wolfman]

Ya' know...I don't know if the story is true or not...but I've gotta' say, if it is, I don't entirely disagree with the guy. You've got a city with dogs that are abused or ignored, starving to death on the streets, and nobody cares (considering that there are many people there suffering the same way, this may not be entirely surprising).

A man takes one of these dogs off the street, puts him in a room, and subjects him to the public spotlight by declaring him an art exhibition. The dog would have died, anyway...quite possibly a more painful death that what faces him now (if, in fact, the dog does die).

By doing this, the 'artist' focuses public attention on this problem, and perhaps this results in some small improvement...a few people who take in stray dogs as pets, or passage of laws to help deal with the situation. At the very least, it makes people aware of it.

So, if this is true...does this guy really deserve to be condemned for what he did? I'd personally argue that those who condemn him are the ones who should be criticized -- his real crime lays not in watching a dog die, but in forcing others to become aware of the negligence and cruelty that goes on, unnoticed, every day.

 

[SoBitter]

I agree with his goal, but not his methods (if he actually starved the dog). If he just made people think he starved it, then I'm fine with that.

There are many ways to draw attention to a problem without actually killing an animal.

 

[Wolfman]

I agree with his goal, but not his methods (if he actually starved the dog). If he just made people think he starved it, then I'm fine with that.

There are many ways to draw attention to a problem without actually killing an animal.

And tell me...what would the difference be between seeing this dog outside, starving, and leaving it to die...as opposed to taking it inside, letting it die in the same manner, and using that death as a means of increasing awareness of the plight of these dogs?

Here's a fact. If the same artist took a starving dog off the streets, and fed it, it wouldn't get any notice at all. A few people would congratulate him on getting a new pet, that's about it. After all, this happens all the time, all over the world...people adopting abandoned animals, and caring for them. But I don't see such stories getting international attention, or generating heated discussion/debate about the plight of abandoned/starving dogs.

I'm not saying it is something I am comfortable with. I doubt I would personally be able to do such a thing. But the very fact that it makes me so uncomfortable, and stirs up such strong emotions in me, demonstrates just how effective his tactics were.

If, that is, the story is even true.

Bah. Hate arguing for something that I don't even know whether it is true or not.

 

[rjh01]

If dogs stave to death on the streets so often, then it would be easy to find a recently deceased dog and use that.

Mind you any dog no matter how it dies will start to smell and rot within a day or so. This would only stop if the dog was frozen or was reduced to a skeleton.

 

[porch]

Here's another article on this topic:

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/news/story/0,,2269320,00.html#article_continue

The gallery owner assures us that the dog did not die by any means through the course of the exhibition. The artist seems to be reveling in the ambiguity (and the spotlight, no doubt). I wonder if he really burned all that crack at the show?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If dogs stave to death on the streets so often, then it would be easy to find a recently deceased dog and use that.

Mind you any dog no matter how it dies will start to smell and rot within a day or so. This would only stop if the dog was frozen or was reduced to a skeleton.

I don't think a corpse would elicit the same sympathy as a an animal that appears to be suffering right before your eyes at an art gallery.

 

[Drudgewire]

 

[SoBitter]

And tell me...what would the difference be between seeing this dog outside, starving, and leaving it to die...as opposed to taking it inside, letting it die in the same manner, and using that death as a means of increasing awareness of the plight of these dogs?

The difference is that you can't prove that the dog would have died if left on the street. It may have been able to scrounge up enough food to live on for the next couple of years. By putting it in the gallery and tying it up, you guarantee that it will die. Much different than leaving it up to chance.

Here's a fact. If the same artist took a starving dog off the streets, and fed it, it wouldn't get any notice at all. A few people would congratulate him on getting a new pet, that's about it. After all, this happens all the time, all over the world...people adopting abandoned animals, and caring for them. But I don't see such stories getting international attention, or generating heated discussion/debate about the plight of abandoned/starving dogs.

I don't know what kind of reaction it got in Nicaragua, but the only thing I see people doing in the US is signing an e-petition. Maybe it got a couple of people to adopt a dog from a shelter. I don't think it was so profound (even if the dog did die) that I would be prompted to do something about the homeless dog population in Nicaragua, or the US. I think there are many more important human issues that should be dealt with first. If there were less homeless and starving humans in the world, the number of abandoned dogs would go down too.

I'm not saying it is something I am comfortable with. I doubt I would personally be able to do such a thing. But the very fact that it makes me so uncomfortable, and stirs up such strong emotions in me, demonstrates just how effective his tactics were.

I think his tactics were effective. At getting publicity for himself. If that was his goal, then he accomplished it. My point is that he could more effectively do something about the population of starving dogs in Nicaragua by paying to have some dogs fixed, or adopting one dog for himself and encouraging his friends to do the same. It's easy to create emotion in an audience, far harder to move them to real action. If this moved people to spend more time on the issue than they spent posting myspace survey bulletins, then I'd be surprised.

 

[H-o-l-l-y]

(but hey, how reliable can a blogspot be? I could open a blogspot and say that I'm Michael Jackson and I never went to bed with those kids).

For a skeptic that was quite an ignorant comment.

 

[gumboot]

The interesting thing here is that there's a lot of unverified information...

According to the owner of the exhibit the dog was fed while in the gallery and was only tied to the line during the 3 hours of the actual display and was left to roam freely in an enclosed part of the gallery at other times. They also claim the dog ran away.

The artist refuses to say whether the dog died or not, but it would at least appear there's no evidence that the dog was actually starved to death while in the exhibit.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If dogs stave to death on the streets so often, then it would be easy to find a recently deceased dog and use that.

Mind you any dog no matter how it dies will start to smell and rot within a day or so. This would only stop if the dog was frozen or was reduced to a skeleton.

Is staving a dog to death the application of vigorous blows with a longish walking stick until the dog dies from blunt trauma?

Might we instead call it caning the canine?

DR