Is this art?


Status
Not open for further replies.

Deceased

New Member
Oct 20, 2004
117
0
0
#3
It is sick art.

Artist wanna do installation works and claims to be art is totally bu||sh.t.

:thumbsd: :sticktong :thumbsd:
 

bahibo

New Member
Aug 6, 2006
1,970
0
0
#4
like he said then i chain animal then shoot them, call that inspiration from war or street shooting. Or put the electric shock collar on the dog and call it "freedom of speech" . He has no right to do that !!! There are many way to express your opinion ,but do not play with life, the dog has the right to live. If you want to attract attention, be a true artist , show ur ability. He is rubbish .

But on the left side of the coin, i remember one man who rob the bus , wait till police and media come,and tell his story about his friends (street kids ) were killed by police. He was brave and somehow was the only way for him to get attention and set light to the matter.

But for the artist, it is no no, there are many other ways
 

aeskywan

New Member
Feb 13, 2007
104
1
0
#7
The idea is there but there is another way of putting the message across. Using a live animal that feels fear, hunger, thirst to bring a msg across? Mmmmm its like the abused turning abuser..... No to me that is not art....
 

#8
if it involved the sacrificial of a living thing for the sake of art, it isn't art.


came across some equally disturbing 'artworks' such as live goldfish being placed inside a juice mixer. to 'complete' the artwork, viewers jus need to press the switch to turn on the juice mixer.





what is art?
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#10
spastic

like that hitler is the best artist in the world already
and the atomic bomb is the world's best paintbrush

why you invade another's right to live
IT CAN NEVER BE CALLED ART
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#11
on the other hand, when he says

“I won’t say the dog died. The importance to me is the hypocriscy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death.” “The same thing happened with poor Natividad Canda. The people sympathized with him only after he was dead,” the artist added.

he does have his point

just that it's not a good way to show it
 

mattlock

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2004
1,871
0
0
www.superhyperreal.com
#12
what difference is there between the dog and all the chickens and cows that we eat everyday?
or those pigs...those yummy yummy pigs.
*dreams of pork chops and sweet & sour pork*
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#13
what difference is there between the dog and all the chickens and cows that we eat everyday?
or those pigs...those yummy yummy pigs.
*dreams of pork chops and sweet & sour pork*
that's why cooking is an art

but butchering is not

there is no dignity in death, ever
 

mattlock

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2004
1,871
0
0
www.superhyperreal.com
#14
that's why cooking is an art

but butchering is not

there is no dignity in death, ever
that doesn't answer my question?
the outrage is just hypocritical. there's alot of animal death going on which we knowingly endorse. so he wastes a dog on a shitty exhibition.I guess there's worse in life.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#15
that doesn't answer my question?
the outrage is just hypocritical. there's alot of animal death going on which we knowingly endorse. so he wastes a dog on a shitty exhibition.I guess there's worse in life.
naw, i didn't mean to answer your question

but if you must have an answer, i suppose one could argue that
he attempts to make the dog's death seem like a glorious thing
even when it is immensely saddening, that a living thing is paraded in the name of art
make that a dying living thing

i'm sure, if one had to buy a chicken at a supermarket
and the policy is that you have to see the chicken being killed
before you can buy it, same goes for cow, blah blah blah
a lot more people would be vegetarian

so you argue that a lot of animal death goes on - that does not disprove that he has caused the death of an animal
just because a lot of people do A, does not mean A is right, does it?

if you examine with an extremely pragmatic eye, you could ever go so far so to say that he achieves nothing much with his artwork, merely public outrage, and this detracts from his claimed purpose - in this sense his dog artwork is different from killing a chicken for food - at least the food is useful to someone

i'm sure all of us here remember that dude - kevin carter?
it is the same hypocriscy, i do not deny you that, and definitely it is different , since he did not cause the plausible eventual death or current plight of the girl.. but at least he had possibly achieved some positive outcomes in the sense of the photograph bringing out the idea that the people of south africa need aid

but in what way, do you think this artwork here, will achieve any positivity?
i don't know - do you think even one person who saw it or read about it, is going to go out on the streets tomorrow and start caring? a widespread truth is different from world affairs - we all know that animals die on the streets - i would argue that animal lovers who cared enough would be doing something already, and animal lovers/animal nonlovers who did not care enough would not do anything.. this has nothing to do with knowledge, hence his art serves no purpose, given the massive displeasure displayed by the majority who view it
 

Pablo

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,854
0
0
Blue/Green Planet
#16
I suppose that by calling it art he thinks it is ok.

Just like the morons there drinking with their backs to the poor animal.

Maybe he should be chained up and left to die in the name of art, dedicated to mis-treated animals.

:devil:
 

seankyh

New Member
Nov 30, 2004
802
0
0
43
Singapore
www.pbase.com
#17
Its never okay to cruellly kill something in the name of art. Its okay to kill for food. And that method of killing is usually fast.

This was just a waste of a life. And it isnt art. There was nothing beautiful in it. The message did not enrich my life, my thoughts by one iota!
 

mattlock

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2004
1,871
0
0
www.superhyperreal.com
#19
naw, i didn't mean to answer your question

but if you must have an answer, i suppose one could argue that
he attempts to make the dog's death seem like a glorious thing
even when it is immensely saddening, that a living thing is paraded in the name of art
make that a dying living thing

i'm sure, if one had to buy a chicken at a supermarket
and the policy is that you have to see the chicken being killed
before you can buy it, same goes for cow, blah blah blah
a lot more people would be vegetarian

so you argue that a lot of animal death goes on - that does not disprove that he has caused the death of an animal
just because a lot of people do A, does not mean A is right, does it?

if you examine with an extremely pragmatic eye, you could ever go so far so to say that he achieves nothing much with his artwork, merely public outrage, and this detracts from his claimed purpose - in this sense his dog artwork is different from killing a chicken for food - at least the food is useful to someone

i'm sure all of us here remember that dude - kevin carter?
it is the same hypocriscy, i do not deny you that, and definitely it is different , since he did not cause the plausible eventual death or current plight of the girl.. but at least he had possibly achieved some positive outcomes in the sense of the photograph bringing out the idea that the people of south africa need aid

but in what way, do you think this artwork here, will achieve any positivity?
i don't know - do you think even one person who saw it or read about it, is going to go out on the streets tomorrow and start caring? a widespread truth is different from world affairs - we all know that animals die on the streets - i would argue that animal lovers who cared enough would be doing something already, and animal lovers/animal nonlovers who did not care enough would not do anything.. this has nothing to do with knowledge, hence his art serves no purpose, given the massive displeasure displayed by the majority who view it
What will it achieve positively?we're here reading the article and at least we read what he wanted to say right?
Well there you go. Publicity stunt achieved its goal.

Sorry to me fast or slow a death is a death
I imagine a world overrun by giant cats killing humans for lunch and them discussing if it's ethically ok to kill humans as long as its done fast and not slow.
I'm just gonna eat my meat and hope that one day karma doesn't come to bite me in the ass
 

#20
The artist made a good point, if that was in the street dying very few would care, as soon as its being 'shown' to people, suddenly their heart appears from nowhere and they get on their moral high ground. I dont agree with what he has done, but he raises a very interesting point.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom