I had recently emailed the blog/articles regarding the starving of a dog by a Hondurian, named Guillermo Habacuc Vargas, in the name of art to a lot of my friends whom are mostly dog owners. I got a bunch of strong reactions with the majority in favor that is akin to “torture porn” fantasies fo what should be done to this so-called “artist”. (I have reprinted the reactions in the comments sections, but no doubt I may get a few additional comments also.) In an ideal world, this type of art should not happen. In an ideal world people should be brought to justice for utilizing the ending of a life as an excuse for art. Although, I’m not a PETA fanatic myself, I love animals and doggies and cats. And in my experience, a lot of these animals are actually more intelligent than the majority of the human race. Although, I personally haven’t thought of ways to punish Guillermo Habacuc Vargas that would warrant a sequel to Hostel just yet. Anyways, his excuse for having done this “art”, he had recently said,
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.source
Ironically, I see the hypocrisy in his own statement (as well as to the question of “What is art?”). Should we starve a hungry, sick, homeless person to illustrate a point of poverty and hunger also in this world?