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