digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at popgive.com

Since When Starving a Dog to Death is Called Art

popgive.com — A so called artists by the name Guillermo Habacuc Vargas with the help of 2 children, who he paid, caught a dog on the street. He tied the dog in his exhibition gallery so people could see it starve to death. He told everyone not to feed this dog. He calls himself an artist. After suffering for a few days dog died in the gallery.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • darkchild82, on 03/19/2008, -16/+958Lets put the "artist" in the same exhibition gallery and tell him that we think its art. I'd like to know how he takes it. Ass.
    • chrisj33, on 03/19/2008, -8/+259What happened to when it took talent and intelligence to create a good piece of artwork?
      • DeadlyCouncil, on 03/19/2008, -10/+71It died with the post modern movement.
        • asdfkane, on 03/20/2008, -8/+1Are you kidding? it took brilliance to convince people to show it in a museum!
        • roodammy44, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5Postmodernism was a protest against the elite nature of art establishment.
          One of the postmodern artists ***** in a can and called it "artist *****".
          It was meant to be worthless and bring art back to grassroots, but the rich went and paid a fortune for it anyway. Amazingly, it's still incredibly valuable today and their protest to make sure art wasn't elite failed.
          Postmodern art is like anti-art. That's why there's no value or talent in it. There is the occasional talented postmodern artist that makes you really think about their work, but most of it is *****.
          This "artist" with the starving dog makes me sick.
        • joosebuck, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2guess i don't need to reply now. well said roodammy44.
      • bitcloud, on 03/19/2008, -3/+84someone tied it to the wall of a gallery and left it to die.
      • feebie, on 03/19/2008, -6/+29It's all Marcel Duchamp's fault for finding a urinal and signing it with his pseudonym, calling it art.
        ***** ass. He knew he was stirring the pot in the art world too.
        • gutistg, on 03/20/2008, -11/+1Fault?
          • feebie, on 03/20/2008, -1/+12Yes, his fault for opening the meaning of the word "art" to mean, well, anything.
          • gutistg, on 03/20/2008, -4/+1I don't see that as a problem.
          • feebie, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1So you don't see anything wrong with starving a dog to death and calling it art?
            You're disgusting.
          • gutistg, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1That's not what I said.

            You need a class in logic and a class in english comprehension.
          • feebie, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1And you need a class in the use of upper-case letters.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 03/20/2008, -0/+6I agree but I don't. The people were just as dumb to recognize it as art. If ***** art can gain an audience as art, then the word takes on a new meaning.
      • oxdeltaxo, on 03/20/2008, -3/+61I could understand just random abstract art, but starving any living thing to death is cruelty not art.
        • MWeather, on 03/20/2008, -31/+3Can't it be both?
        • Gir53457, on 03/20/2008, -16/+3This caused a bit of rage a few months ago (repost of a repost of a...) where we came to the conclusion that the dog was already dying, he just tied it up there and told people to not feed it to see if they would anyways.
          • tech42er, on 03/20/2008, -0/+11No. When this story last came up,most people attacked this sick "artist". IIRC, the dog was not "already dying".
          • sugarazor, on 03/20/2008, -0/+17Uh yeah, we're all "already dying," that doesn't mean I should be allowed to tie up some cancer patient in a corner and watch them die.
          • Gir53457, on 03/20/2008, -7/+4I never said what he did was OK. It's still a horrible act by a pretentious art whore.
        • Origin415, on 03/20/2008, -6/+3What does it matter? They still left it there. If they wanted to be all psychological about it, they could have fed the dog at night, when no one was around, not just let it die.
      • JaqMs, on 03/20/2008, -7/+0Seriously...all it takes is a single black dot in the middle of a white canvas to create a masterpiece. Art requires not only creativity but also ability.
        • hexydes, on 03/20/2008, -1/+11Art is subjective, so while you may not agree with it, that doesn't mean someone else can't interpret it as "art".

          Having said that, it doesn't matter if the "artist" or anyone else considers this art; you can do whatever you want within reason, but there are lines, and torturing and killing an animal is a line. This guy chose to cross it. He'll have to deal with the consequences (either in this life, the next life, via karma, or whatever form of retribution you prescribe to).
        • andrew1338, on 03/20/2008, -0/+11And yet, a single black dot on a white canvas takes neither creativity nor ability, just a knack for ***** people
        • ThndrShk2k, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3A single black dot on a white canvas can be presented in a way that the ideal it represents is the art and all the painting is, is a reminder of what it represents.

          But personally I'd rather have a painting of a jet engine on my wall than something someone pretentiously made that leaves it up to the viewer to decide what the painting means. Art can be anything, but art should be self evident with a universal meaning to display.
        • notanidiot, on 03/20/2008, -0/+4that is *****. A black dot on white canvas being appreciated by people just shows that people will say they like anything, if they think they are supposed to. If it doesn't take skill, its not art, end of story. Otherwise, everything in existence would be "art." I am a REAL artist myself, and am offended by simplistic paintings of minimalist garbage. Theres a reason they say, "He's got that down to an art." Its because it requires skill.
        • samgab, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Emperor's new painting?
      • GeorgeClayton, on 03/20/2008, -3/+1Speaking as an "artist" myself, anything beyond making something cool or attractive, artists are just fill of *****!
      • dch111, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Photography is what happened.
    • heypetray, on 03/19/2008, -65/+3Ass is best used as a comeback, Ass.
      • heypetray, on 03/19/2008, -5/+31Alright, I deserve it.
        • Gir53457, on 03/20/2008, -3/+9Ass is best tapped or used as a beast of burden. So ride that Ass!
    • freshlycut, on 03/19/2008, -3/+205Whats more disturbing is why no one has done anything about it? I would make a point of feeding the dog instead of doing as some pom-pus art ***** has told the audience to do.
      • jcaino, on 03/19/2008, -1/+49yea...i would have fed the dog too - what would he do about it? nothing. no law against feeding a dog...
        now, i think the artist should still do his next exhibition, except, for his ultimate piece, he should chain himself up and tell no one to feed him. doesn't get much more 'art' than that by his definition i would think...
        • accelleron, on 03/20/2008, -0/+20Or, better yet, why won't he place himself in front of a gun set to go off in 24 hours, and see if anyone pushes him out of the way.
          • jstone, on 03/20/2008, -0/+9I think he should give himself radiation poisoning. Then everybody could watch his body slowly deteriorate to match his conscience.
          • misterdrumz, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2these are all good suggestions for dealing with this sadistic tool.
            I'd have given the dog food and punched him inthe mouth.

            I long for the days when art was photography, sculpture and painting.....and that was it.
      • Phendrana, on 03/19/2008, -3/+69I think that was the point of this, to show that people will submit to rules. Anyone could've fed the dog, but they didn't because he told them they weren't supposed to. It died because nobody stepped up and broke the rule. It was an absolutely disgusting way to make his point though, and he should be banned from displaying his work. I can't believe he's been invited to do it again.
        • bitcloud, on 03/19/2008, -2/+12yeah y'know the "blue eye brown eye" woman managed to make that point without ending up with anyone or anything being starved to death...
        • Phendrana, on 03/19/2008, -1/+20Which is why I said "It was an absolutely disgusting way to make his point though, and he should be banned from displaying his work. I can't believe he's been invited to do it again."
        • notanidiot, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4Wow, a piece of artwork that proves that "artlovers" are just full of *****, and just appreciate what they're told to? Well, then that piece of art just proves how much it sucks.
      • Ph240Z, on 03/19/2008, -5/+18Even if it cost $500 to get in, I'd go out, get some damn dog food and pay again to get in, in fact I'd get arrested trying to feed the dog if it came to that, F'ing MF'ing F'r, I'd spit on him if he needed help. Then I'd probably help him, I'm such a sucker for humanitarian effort. But Then I'd spit on him again and maybe kick his ass.
      • feebie, on 03/20/2008, -3/+25In one of the comments in the actual post, someone describes that society in Honduras (where the "art" took place) see many dogs as pests, much like we see rats and mice. That might answer a few questions. But it doesn't make it right.
        • jon30041, on 03/20/2008, -1/+6He didn't say it definitively, he said we need to find out to make a decent statement that caters to their cultural stance on animals.

          It's ***** up, regardless.
      • rawg, on 03/20/2008, -5/+14That's the point. It's not art so much as a social experiment. Someone should have fed the dog. I'd like to believe that I would have fed the dog too.

        I'm not going to defend the artist but I think it's revealing that nobody felt that they needed to feed the dog even though the implications of that non-action were pretty obvious. Everyone must have assumed that someone else would step in to save it. Guess what happened? Nobody did.

        Everyone on here who is morally outraged because of this should remember that there is probably a stray dog starving on the streets in your neighborhood right now which will probably die unless someone takes the effort to feed it. Is that somehow less tragic and disgusting because it's not in a museum and labeled art?
        • Wardonic, on 03/20/2008, -3/+11To your last statement. It is no less tragic to know that some dog is going to die because it has no food but it isn't disgusting. It is absolutely impossible to save every animal but this was someone putting an isolated case on display and telling you it was art, something to look at and admire. The person that does that has a sick and twisted mind and is truly disgusting.

          I do believe though that people should make an effort to adopt animals from your local humane society or whatever there called around your home so that that situation happens less frequently.
        • theseans, on 03/20/2008, -1/+8Wow you missed the point completely. Now maybe if the dogs starving in the street were tied to a wall. Obviously if they had to catch the stray it was making a living on it's own. Two completely different things.
        • notanidiot, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2The dog was alive up to that point, but died two days later. If it was an experiment, then guess what, its not art. It was being masqueraded as art, for research purposes.
        • mozert, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2you are mixing up eveything..
      • Bandersong, on 03/20/2008, -2/+7I don't believe most of you understood the point of this. ANYONE could have fed the dog, but NO ONE felt the need to feed the dog. It's not art, its actually a display of how caring and kind humans are. He didn't ENFORCE the "do not feed the dog" rule, he just calmly told people. The fact that no one fed the dog shows how great people are, and all of you who say that you would feed it, would you? Really?
        • juniorb, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3Absolutely. Without question.
        • Rikkochet, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2He could have upped the ante by putting an open bag of dog kibble outside the display. All someone has to do is reach in and throw the food in.
          There's your experiment and your art.
          It's a hell of a lot more compelling than wondering why people don't leave the venue, find an open store, buy dog food, regain admittance to the venue, and feed the dog. In a third world country. Where they treat animals like crap in the first place.
      • HonestAbe, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure thats the whole point.
    • JonyMill, on 03/19/2008, -58/+3i actually really liked it lulz
      • JonyMill, on 03/20/2008, -24/+2Thank you all for digging me down, as you helped me defeat my arch-nemesis in an epic digg-down war.
      • SamOut, on 03/20/2008, -3/+9Let's hope you're a part of his next piece of art, Lulz!
        • JonyMill, on 03/20/2008, -16/+1I am already pretty skinny, I agree.
    • ophello, on 03/19/2008, -3/+17it would have been art if it weren't really alive.

      That's ***** up.
    • LostnTransition, on 03/19/2008, -6/+20Where does he live? Please, someone post his address, phone number, email. I know I'm not that talented, but someone here is. Please, find him.

      I can't wait until my next art project involving wretched worthless human beings.
      • Ph240Z, on 03/19/2008, -2/+9Yes, his rights would be violated by 7 angry men (most of whom are named Buba) if he did that here. Repeatedly. I'd venture to guess the police would look the other way if he was attacked.
    • themastersb, on 03/19/2008, -3/+14I said pretty much the exact same thing the last time I read about this last year.
    • ad81, on 03/19/2008, -0/+7I think a californian artist called Chris Burden probably already did that. As well as shooting himself.
      • LostnTransition, on 03/20/2008, -0/+10At least he finished himself off afterwards so we didn't have to.
    • merripen, on 03/20/2008, -2/+101This is widely known to be a lie, intentionally maintained by the artist himself. In actuality, the dog was well fed and eventually released.

      The artist's point was to highlight the hypocrisy demonstrated by people making an apparently sick and ill-fed dog the center of attention when it was presented as an art exhibit, even though many of them would ignore the same dog if they encountered it roaming the streets.

      Controversial, but poignant.
    • zerosumgame, on 03/20/2008, -8/+7this is obviously a twisted thing to do but when people give the "see how he likes it" type comments they are implying that animal rights = human rights under the law.

      The last piece of pork you ate once had a higher IQ than the dog...of course you would laugh at anyone suggesting "feed him to the pigs see how he likes it"

      perspective is an odd thing
      • Wardonic, on 03/20/2008, -1/+6I don't know many farmers that tie up their cattle and invite others to watch it die with them for kicks. The reason for the death is the key point here. The farmer raises the cattle as a living and for food not because he enjoys raising them so that he can watch them die.
      • SoulGrub, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3We have no problem with the killing of animals humanely. This is hideously painful torture.
      • Hraes, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2A dozen pigs can devour a human corpse, leaving no trace of its existence, in under twenty-four hours.
    • IglooBurner, on 03/20/2008, -6/+10the artist alone shouldn't be blamed for this... he simply placed the dog on display, the people who walked by and did nothing are in fault as well, they coulda feed it, despite what the artist said, they coulda done something. i believe this is the message the artist was trying to get across. we walk by starving people on the streets and read about thousands who die every day but all we do is shake our head and move on with our lives, we simply obey orders without question it. so before you talk negatively about this man, think about the reason behind his art.
      besides, no one said art is going to always be a beautiful thing.
      • theuber1337, on 03/20/2008, -1/+5I don't know why you're being dugg down, not as if you're condoning it. You make a very valid point. All art, even questionable material like this, is interpretive. I could certainly see this as the artists perspective of the matter, doesn't make it right, but it teaches us something about ourselves.

        I personally would have said ***** that and let the dog run free. Or at the very least fed it something.
        • HonestAbe, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1You say that, but you probably wouldn't have. No one else did, either.
        • notanidiot, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Thats cuz the people there were a bunch of rich snobs.
        • theuber1337, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1No, I would have. I'm what you might call a social deviant.
      • notanidiot, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2If this is art, then my ***** toilet paper is art, and everything else is art. The only reason this is seen as art, is because it was in a gallery, but I can stand in a garage, it doesn't make me a car.

        I am so sick of this "interpretive' label put on art. Art isn't supposed to be disgusting and ugly, regardless of what those who wish to broaden the definition may think. If so, then when I fart, I should just call it music, and curse words scratched on the bathroom wall, literature.
        • atezun, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Art doesn't exist to be beautiful, it exists to make valid points on the human existence. Art is designed to evoke emotion, be it love, hatred, joy, sorrow, etc. Your approval of an art piece at no point devalues its status as an art piece; possibly it may on it's value as a masterpiece, but that's debatable. Your dismissal of interpretation proves that you haven't the slightest clue what it means to be an artist. Art is exactly that; an artist's interpretation of reality as he knows it.

          An artist isn't supposed to march to the beat of your drum. He's supposed to punch you out and use it for his kickass new set piece.
          • notanidiot, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1well, you f'n pogue, then my last comment was art, and who are you to question it? You just didn't "interpret" it right, but its art, man!

            In all seriousness, to make art, you actually have to MAKE something, not just go get something thats already there. Like, if I went and stole a painting, and put it up in my gallery, that doesn't make it MY art, now does it?

            I am so sick of people just accepting anything as art, just because someone says it is. Art requires skill, and creativity. Tying up a dog, is just tying up a dog. Deal with it.
    • schneidafunk, on 03/20/2008, -2/+2reminds me of stranger in a strange land... the martians contemplate blowing up the earth as art
      • NaziHatinChimp, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Dud I am ***** reading that book and I am not there yet. Thanks.
        • pyro789x, on 03/20/2008, -2/+2The book is over 45 years old. You WILL find spoilers. Get over it and stop being such a dick. In fact, Smith goes out to address them and is brutally killed, his final words spoken to a grasshopper: "I love you" and "You are God". It is obvious that he is letting himself be sacrificed. Harshaw is shocked at how blasé the others are at Mike's death and attempts suicide by swallowing three unidentified pills; Mike returns as a voice in Jubal's head and both helps Harshaw vomit the pills and causes him to realize that Mike's sacrifice was only of the body, not of the soul. Smith is explicitly portrayed as a modern Prometheus, and implicitly as a messianic figure; in the ending of the book, one interpretation is that he is in reality the archangel Michael, who has assumed human form. The book ends with Mike promoted to another plane of existence, similar to Heaven, but a place where work is to be done. The original Rev. Foster appoints Rev. Digby as Mike's assistant.
          ~Wikipedia
          • LexisNexis, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Spoilers suck, it doesn't matter if it was 45 years old, it's not like you can read every great book immediately after popping out of the womb, just to prevent spoilers. Its common courtesy to put **SPOILERS**.
    • Asvetic, on 03/20/2008, -2/+16This is despicable, but it was also already on the front page, 150+ days ago... http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Artist_Chains_Up_Dog_Unt ...
    • swrostmore, on 03/20/2008, -15/+2A stray dog was going to die eventually, for the exact same reason (nobody was going to feed it on the street either). But since it happened in an art gallery, you're oh so ***** offended. Piss off.
      • fritzek, on 03/20/2008, -1/+5Its bad to starve to death, no matter where you are. But he was exhibiting it and he made money out of the suffering of poor dog. Its really disgusting. If there is one person, who I'd like to see dead, its this piece of crap. And I'm writing that although I dont like dogs.
      • insertAliasHere, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5I think that there is a difference in a stray dying on its own and somebody intentionally capturing it, and making sure that it died in a terrible way. The end is the same, but in it's own, at least it might have been rescued, or found food on its own, or even been caught by animal control and euthanized humanely. This man made sure that it died very painfully.
      • logan074, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2A stray dog can be pretty good at finding food by itself, and if the dog is being a problem it should be dealt with humanely, not publically starved so the artist can make a buck.
    • antdude, on 03/20/2008, -0/+7Let's use the artist as the starving human. If people ask, then just say it's art.
    • rye425, on 03/20/2008, -0/+4How would you feel if you went to: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi? ...
      and know that many people want to kill you. Then hit refresh and again...and again...
    • catwoman2970, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3I'd give my own food to a dog before giving it to the 'artist' if he were a bum on the street.
    • NaziHatinChimp, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3Make him fight the puppy thrower to the death.
    • GorfTron, on 03/20/2008, -5/+1This dog is waiting for him ... in hell!
    • Myztry, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Artist and Sadist may sound slightly similar, but the two are not to be confused.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/20/2008, -7/+7You are all ignorant, knee-jerk reaction whores.

      If you took the time to actually research this (which you obviously didn't) you would have learned that this dog was a street animal that was found starving, sick, and dieing. It would not take food even if it was offered and was beyond saving. More importantly though, had it not been for this artist it would have died completely ignored and unnoticed just like millions of other abandoned animals do every single day and no one would have cared. The point of the exhibit was to draw attention to this problem by forcing people to face what they do to animals every single day with their innaction. Those people are people like many of you who have done little or nothing to help suffering animals.

      Who's the monster now?
      • bippi, on 03/20/2008, -4/+4So, you, having taken the time to research this...care to provide us with some links or something? Maybe something to google? I'm sorry man, smugness without evidence is not enough to prove a point.
      • kernel, on 03/20/2008, -3/+2I too was offended by this disgusting art exhibition...but after your wise words, which I hope are true, I think the artist supported a right cause...however I do not grow fond of his project. If it were me I would of definitely brought that dog to a vet...then again I live in Canada, a place where you NEVER find dogs lying around starving (thank GOD). I have a dog, and from the moment I got her, she honestly changed my life, might sound a little far fetched, but she is now like a child to me.
        I am aware of some countries that throw rocks at dogs just because they lie in front of residents...dogs that starve, dogs that are beaten, mistreated. Oh, when will animal cruelty stop...
        One thing I'm sure of...us humans will extinct sooner or later...nuclear explosion, comet, wtv...for humans are the only livings whom carry revenge, spite, murderous joys, and shameful pleasures...something innocent (ignorant if you may...) animals would never have...
      • lik3n, on 03/20/2008, -2/+6Oh that's ***** ***** and you know it. It's possible to rehydrate the dog, feed it using a tube and once it's gained weight back and muscle mass, it WILL take food from you. I guaran-*****-tee it. Why, do I guarantee it? Because I've seen it done many times. Working at a pet store/helping at a vet's office will show you these things.

        Just because a puppy has parvo doesn't mean you should ***** let it die on it's own. If you do that, you're an idiot. You give it what it needs and liquids. You clean up it's ***** in the quarantine cage and clean it every day. After a few days to a week, as good as new. So, before you come on digg thinking that what this "artist" did was remotely ok, talk to a vet and see what you can actually do for a starving dog that some ***** thought would be a nice piece of "art".

        This shouldn't even be faked as it just show what kind of sick ***** are actually out there that would even think up something like this. People like this are one of the reasons I don't want to have kids so they don't have to deal with any idiotic person out there. I can't wait until humans die off.


        Also did I mention that you're ***** stupid for coming up with that?
      • archivist, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2you, sir, are an idiot.
      • Discobiscuits, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2MO-MO-MO-MONSTER KILLLLLLLLL
      • dstz, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1I think that the only point of the artist was to show the amount of stupidity, political correctness and hypocrisy on Digg. Well done, then.
      • Samputer, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1yeah, i agree with lik3n of course the dog could have been helped - and wtf difference did it make with the dog dying noticed, the audience obviously didng give a ***** did they! - personally i would have taken the dog away to a vet - im by no means some1 who would normally breat 'rules' but when its a ***** animals life at stake!, ur the sick bastard for even suggesting that there was a purpose to this!
    • KireGoTI, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1It's comment abuse, I know, but I have to do it.

      Just because the artist tells you not to feed the dog does not mean that no one can feed the dog. In contemporary art, people are welcome to interfere with the exhibit. The fact that no one did says something. It says that people would rather obey the rules of the gallery, and thereby let the dog starve to death, is the monstrous part.

      What would you have done? Looking at the reaction on this comments page, you would have gotten really angry, blamed the artist, and then not fed the poor starving dog.

      If you hate the rule so much, then break it.
      • lik3n, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2It's not hard to put an IV into a dog to rehydrate it. I've done it. Especially when the muscle mass is gone like that dogs was. Find the vein, stick it in, tape it up. Once it's going to the bathroom, use a tube to feed it.

        Yeah, I would have done something like that. Then, once the dog was stable, went and punched the "artist" in the face.
    • chris1012, on 03/20/2008, -2/+2i hope that ass hole burns in hell..

      So far petition has 1195490 Total Signatures.
    • mentor972, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Sorry to comment hijack, but this is from last September.
    • Trav3133, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1It is art, it is cruel is hell but still the fact so many people get emotional over it really says a lot about it.
    • hollyminkowski, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2That was no artist! ... That was a monster!
      • SirBrittanicus, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1That's no artist... It's a Space Station!
    • Amiga500, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1Not a single damn one of you idiots should EVER EVER open your fat stupid mouth and complain about a dog not having food when there are HUMAN BEINGS on this planet who starve to death. That includes women and children. You idiots and crybabies make me sick. Go kill yourself, you are worth less than nothing.
      • Samputer, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2***** off Amiga500, The problems in Africa etc. are due to a failure of actions by humans in the developed world, This is a single act of, simply put, evil. This person did not fail to do anything but rather went out of his way to harm the poor dog. This person should be dead not all the readers of digg.
        • Samputer, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1ALSO - who is to even say that a human life is worth any more than a dog's? - humans are evil, twisted and sick - in general , animals are much more innocent through the fact that they do not have the intelligence levels to be able to do something intentionally mallicious
    • Trevordtodd, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I just hope this is just a viral marketing thing to see how many signatures they can get...
  • FootieForum, on 03/19/2008, -9/+478There is an online petition for this, as the guy has been invited to do this again by another gallery. Hopefully the stink raised on the internet will stop this.
    • oreonblade, on 03/19/2008, -2/+68There are more people who think that starving animals are considered an art form?!

      Those people ought to be switched with some of the starving refugees in Africa. Win-win situation: refugees get the food they want, and the assholes get to personally watch their 'art' on themselves.
      • capiCrimm, on 03/19/2008, -11/+7well I do agree that it is art in this case. This seems to be representing and criticizing reality. It's not as if stray dogs starving are a bizarre thing. Even PETA kills the vast majority of the animals it gets. Mainly because because if they didn't kill them humanely they'd starve.

        I would argue there are better ways to get the same point across though. For example, you could find an already dead dog and just preserve that in some way.
        • wexmajor, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4It may technically be "art", but so is child pornography. If it hurts someone or something that shouldn't be hurt in its production then it stops being legally protected and starts being legally prosecuted.
        • blankhorizons, on 03/20/2008, -2/+3You are ***** up
        • Rikkochet, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3PETA adopts animals from shelters where they are being fed so they can kill them on their own turf. There's nothing remotely sensible about that, except that they're removing and destroying animals from shelters that may otherwise have had homes.
        • Kzoo, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Yes. . . it is art. It is also VERY wrong. It's not like having a rotting piece of wood in the gallery. If the subject is capable of suffering, and one -intentionally- causes the subject to suffer, the art SHOULD NOT be made/executed/displayed/performed.
        • notanidiot, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1As an artist, I am personally pissed at what has been called "art" these days. If this is art, then EVERYTHING is art. Like for example: Beating this artist to death with a bat would be art, to express "the reality of what happens when you're a worthless piece of ***** and you piss people off too much." I think that would be a beautiful "statement."
      • xCaRpEnOCtemx, on 03/19/2008, -0/+7http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Starving-A-Dog-is ...

        Here is the Petition for anyone who is as outraged as I am.
        • TacitusBen, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1It's clear that this is about bigger issues than hungry dogs in the 2nd and 3rd world art galleries. With that in mind, should we be humbled by how we are using our 1st world resources to put an end to the artwork first, and then an end to the hunger of Central American dogs second? Or should we be outraged?
      • jethroalias97, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1hypothetically, if an American where to visit Africa and see all the starving refugees, they would say that it is too bad, but they would still be powerless to help because there are too many that need help. i think the artist is capturing the same idea. To knee-jerk say that this guy is disgusting, though it may be true, kindof misses the larger picture.
    • Jimbob200, on 03/19/2008, -17/+6Any of you signed some sort of petition expressing your outrage about Guantanamo?
      • Teh1337Pirate, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1The difference is this dog didn't deserve this, the people in Guantanamo don't have souls so it doesn't matter anyway.
        • Jimbob200, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1If you're being sarcastic, well, I'll laugh. If not, well, you're a huge douchemuffin.
          • Teh1337Pirate, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1rofl douchemuffin....i actually hadn't heard that one.
    • djepik, on 03/19/2008, -7/+5Anyone know what País means, I want to sign it!!
      • djepik, on 03/19/2008, -8/+4It means "country"... don't be such an idiot djepik
        • norman619, on 03/19/2008, -9/+4Don't be such an ass. Maybe that was an honest question? I speak fluent Spanish and even I didn't recognize that spelling. The spelling for the Spanish word meaning "country" I'm used to seeing is País.
          • expert01, on 03/19/2008, -0/+9Hmmm... yes... he was an ass in response to an honest question he himself asked...
          • norman619, on 03/20/2008, -1/+8LOL!!! Damn it! I fell right into that one...

            Dig my blind ass down please.
          • nullx42, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2@ norman619
            Don't be so hard on yourself for him on himself, or something like that.
        • mitchlourens, on 03/19/2008, -1/+9haha he replied to his own question dude, don't call him an ass.
          • notanidiot, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Asking a question you already know the answer to kind of does make you an ass.
    • ophello, on 03/19/2008, -9/+6...not to mention the stink raised in the gallery....phew....
    • gwycliff, on 03/19/2008, -4/+19I doubt a bunch of people whining on the internet will do *****.
      • tmccool, on 03/19/2008, -3/+16it got ron paul elected president, didn't it?
      • Ph240Z, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Sadly I agree. Or angrily! Maybe he's going to be invited to another gallery to get his ass kicked? That'd Be awesome.
      • Jaliyl, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2It got the guy who threw the fake puppy off a cliff and his family to get rid of their myspace, bebo, facebook, etc. Also if anyone here is from anonymous, plz DDoS the gallery site.
      • wexmajor, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0And if it gets reported on "real" news due to internet "whining"? Go back to somethingawful you dumb pessimistic *****.
      • KingGorilla, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Seymour: Oh, Edna. We all know that these children HAVE no future!
        [Everyone stops and stares at Seymour.]
        Seymour: Prove me wrong children. Prove me wrong.
    • ralphthemagi, on 03/19/2008, -2/+9Oh, thank goodness for that online petition!

      Honestly, no one cares what the "internet" thinks. The only time people listen is when groups make a fuss and start DDoSing websites, which cost people money. Otherwise, no one cares.

      I can't say I approve, and I don't really have a better solution, but online petitions are about as useful as a stack of papers, you've all signed yourself, that live under your bed.
      • wexmajor, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Negative publicity on the internet has never gotten anyone to not do something before? Thanks for the fun fact. Moron.
      • sylvok, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1I have three letters for you to disprove your statement

        Co$
        • ralphthemagi, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1No. That PROVES my statement.
        • FiP0, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Agreed. Anonymous isn't asking people to put their email address on some website.
    • chodges4, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3If you ask me, the people that invite him to do it again are almost as sickening as the "artist" himself
    • 1gunners4, on 03/20/2008, -3/+7"1,192,662 Signatures Total"

      As of 9:47 pm EST (21.47 EST (-5 hrs) for you non-Americans). ***** this guy's career up.
      • Phatt138, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3No 'artist' does something like this without realizing that it'll raise negative publicity. For 2,000,000 people to know his name was the only point to something this stupid and hateful.
      • mitch37, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3>> -5 for you non-Americans

        Umm, what..? Everyone non-Us lives in London ey
    • GorfTron, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1This dog is waiting for him in heaven ... with a gun!
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/20/2008, -12/+5You are all ignorant, knee-jerk reaction whores.

      If you took the time to actually research this (which you obviously didn't) you would have learned that this dog was a street animal that was found starving, sick, and dieing. It would not take food even if it was offered and was beyond saving. More importantly though, had it not been for this artist it would have died completely ignored and unnoticed just like millions of other abandoned animals do every single day and no one would have cared. The point of the exhibit was to draw attention to this problem by forcing people to face what they do to animals every single day with their innaction. Those people are people like many of you who have done little or nothing to help suffering animals.

      Who's the monster now?
      • TheTSArt, on 03/20/2008, -1/+10If you get sick and refuse to eat, can we tie you up in a gallery for everyone to watch you die?
        That would call attention to whatever disease or sickness you were suffering from.
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/20/2008, -3/+3Wow, you fail at logic. THIS DOG COULD NOT BE SAVED. It would have died no matter what kind of food or veterinary assistance you brought it. So tell me now, what difference does it make if it dies in an art gallery or in a dumpster? Oh, except that in art gallery it can't be ignored as it would have been on the street.

          Now, besides the fact that you are insinuating that people are equal to dogs, the point here isn't one dog anyways. It's the MILLIONS of dogs that die every year and NO ONE CARES. You care about this dog now just because it's in an art gallery dieing instead of in an alley? Well, ***** you sir. You are an outright hypocrite and a joke as an individual. But you don't care do you? Because some has to be PUNISHED for this GREAT INJUSTICE. ***** you and all the sheeple like you who plod along right behind you taking no time to think for themselves and stop to consider the BIGGER ***** PICTURE.

          Damn it.
          /rant
          • TheTSArt, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2"Wow, you fail at logic. THIS DOG COULD NOT BE SAVED. It would have died no matter what kind of food or veterinary assistance you brought it."
            I applied the same rules in my scenario about you.
            "You care about this dog now just because it's in an art gallery dieing instead of in an alley? "
            Animals and people die everyday, it's a part of life, but you do not attempt to make an art of that by exploiting it, and making the death even more cruel. If you cannot see what is wrong with that, then you obviously have no compassion or humanity whatsoever.
        • notanidiot, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1The point is that its not art. A dying animal may be a statement, a sick one, but its not art, so it doesn't belong in an art gallery. This artist has profited off of this dog's pain, whether or not he completely caused it. Gaining fame and fortune from others' misfortune is a sick ***** thing to do. I could take many disgusting and terrible things from the world and stick them in a corner of a gallery, but the point is that it can't be art, because the "artist" did not create it. He just found it.
      • jacobsor, on 03/20/2008, -1/+5Way to use copy and paste from your earlier moronic comment, Speed.
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/20/2008, -2/+2Meh, I never spam like this, but there was way to much unchecked, unjustified righteous hatred flying around to only say it once. And I'd love for you elaborate on what exactly is "moronic" about what I said.
      • markperia, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Im an artist too. Tell me when you're old and about to die cause I'm gonna put you up in my gallery. Let's see how you'll like it.
      • Norris667, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2This is in no way designed to highlight the stay dog problem. im not saying the dog wasnt ill. this piece was designed to blur the lines between art and suffering and how it can be a dark place to be.

        Who's a ***** moron now.
    • Trevordtodd, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I just hope this is just a viral marketing thing to see how many signatures they can get...
      I think "País" = "age", worked for me.
    • Lightfall, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Everyone digging this is an absolute fool. Wasting your time signing an online petition is just as useless as covering your car in magnetized meaningless empty gestures. Walk into the gallery with some Alpo and feel good that you figured out the artist's puzzle.
  • MayaMaya, on 03/19/2008, -10/+406This is just sick, this man should be arrested !!
    • DucoNihilum, on 03/19/2008, -40/+3While I too find this sick, it is just a dog. Putting an animals rights above a mans is entirely unjust, even if the guy is a giant douche.
      • rnwen2750, on 03/19/2008, -3/+20He lost his right to freedom when he took another life knowingly and senselessly. He has to pay for his crimes.
        • Ph240Z, on 03/20/2008, -6/+1I refuse to accept I am the same species as that artist or his followers.
        • DucoNihilum, on 03/20/2008, -10/+2He didn't take another life, he took the life of a dog. That's not at all comparable to the right of a human. You have the rights to life, liberty, and property so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others life, liberty, or property. Animals have no right to life, liberty, or property- thusly, he took no rights from anybody else.
      • BrewBeau, on 03/20/2008, -2/+8How is it unjust? You don't think there should be laws against animal cruelty?
      • DucoNihilum, on 03/20/2008, -10/+1No, I don't.
      • SoulGrub, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Unjust my ass. It would be justice to have him starve to death also. Failing that laws need to be in place to prevent the torture of animals.
      • PueSi, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3Human beings are animals too.
      • Sroek, on 03/20/2008, -0/+8You're a colossal moron.
      • siszam, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2I hate all dogs and think that human rights are more important than animal rights but that isn't the issue. No one is trying to put animal rights over human rights. This is an animal cruelty issue. The "artist" is removing all the animals rights and murdering it. That's just wrong. Completely wrong. It didn't attack anyone. It's only crime was being caught by the wrong people. The man should go to jail.
      • AriaStar, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4So Michael Vick should be free?
    • DangerCollie, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6Gives me an idea for an art project. I call it Artist Across The Sky. Glad I didn't go to this exhibit. I would have cut the dog loose and taken it to an animal shelter. If the cops didn't find something to charge me with, I would file an animal cruelty charge on that dickweed.
      Here's a hint: Don't try that around here. This is farm country and people don't much care for artists to begin with. Someone starving an animal in the name of art would likely get an ass whipping in name of common sense.
      • Rikkochet, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2It sounds like the exhibition was in Honduras, or in South America if nothing else. How many animal shelters do you think exist down there? This isn't your safe suburbs; their life is very, very different.
    • Vindexus, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6What rights of this man would be violated by not killing a dog?
      • DucoNihilum, on 03/20/2008, -6/+1Life, Liberty, and Property- if he's imprisoned.
    • elnerdo, on 03/20/2008, -4/+4I agree. I think that starving a dog is a terrible thing, but I don't think that his point was to starve a dog for art. I think that the point of the project was an experiment. I think that he just wanted to prove how much people are like sheep. There was never anything stopping anybody from simply unchaining the dog or feeding it, but plenty of people walked through the art gallery and didn't feed it at all. The idea was that even though everybody thinks that starving a dog is bad, nobody DID anything about it! They were told not to feed the dog, so they didn't feed the dog.
      When this is viewed in that perspective, I don't really hate the artist so much.
      • DucoNihilum, on 03/20/2008, -4/+2Same with stalin.
        • jellygraph, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1It is possible to make a point like this without murdering an animal
    • cjnkns, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1You're much kinder about it that I would be.
      This idiot and the people that condone this ***** should be shot.
    • Llanowar, on 03/20/2008, -3/+2More than just arrested. Doesn't happen often, but this just brings tears to my eyes.
      It would be a horror story on itself if I ever got my hands on that guy.

      I also want to beat up anyone who did nothing more than just watching the poor thing die.
    • snugglebear, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5What about all the people who ***** went and saw it? Why didn't someone grow a ***** ***** and let the dog go? Who the ***** is going to stop you? A bunch of art fags standing around thinking torturing a dog is art?

      Anyone who went to the exhibit and didn't do anything should be ***** ashamed of themselves.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/20/2008, -4/+4You are all ignorant, knee-jerk reaction whores.

      If you took the time to actually research this (which you obviously didn't) you would have learned that this dog was a street animal that was found starving, sick, and dieing. It would not take food even if it was offered and was beyond saving. More importantly though, had it not been for this artist it would have died completely ignored and unnoticed just like millions of other abandoned animals do every single day and no one would have cared. The point of the exhibit was to draw attention to this problem by forcing people to face what they do to animals every single day with their innaction. Those people are people like many of you who have done little or nothing to help suffering animals.

      Who's the monster now?

      Sorry for spamming this, but no one else was trying to make this right and I wanted to be as sure as possible the truth would be known. The way this is being misrepresented here unjust and disgusting. This man deserves to be commended for his bravery and nobility. Not threatened and slandered by the uninformed.
      • phuibonhoa, on 03/20/2008, -2/+3So if you found a homeless man starving, sick and dying and chained him to a post for everyone to see that would be okay, or as you put it an act of 'bravery and nobility'...
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/20/2008, -2/+2No, that would inhumane and wrong because people aren't dogs. But since this is a dog that would have died no matter what you did for it why is it wrong for it to die in an art gallery instead of on the street? Because you have to look at it there? Hypocrite.
          • phuibonhoa, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1I don't have to look at it in an art gallery, I can just not go.

            The point is the artist could have helped the dog, but instead of using his resources to help it, he spent his time and money on showcasing its death. That's inhumane whether or not we are talking about a human or an animal.
      • jacobsor, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Yes, you are spamming. And yes, starving animals are well-known for their ability to refuse food. (Sarcasm.)

        Please tell us what is the basis of your "research"? (By the way, it's spelled "dying." You should have gotten it right after the third time at least.)
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1"And yes, starving animals are well-known for their ability to refuse food. (Sarcasm.)"
          Actually, most animals refuse to eat just before they die of serious illness (as this dog did), not that you care about the truth. No, you are too busy being righteous

          http://www.gnn.tv/threads/27928/Is_starving_a_dog_ ...

          3 seconds on Google..


          And according to that, the dog was only there for 3 hours and was later adopted or escaped.

          There's plenty more as well if you are willing to sift through the sensationalist petitions and blogs that erupted out of this when it first happened last year and someone who couldn't read Spanish very well attempted to read an article about the exhibition, got it wrong, then apparently started a chain e-mail about this "atrocity." (By the way, being a spelling nazi only serves to make your argument look weak and make you look like a prick)
        • Ryan77, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0No, being literate makes the conversation legible and allows others to understand what you're saying. By not spelling things correctly you look uneducated and completely nullify any passion behind your argument.
    • freshgrease, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3I'd rather shoot him and get it over with.
    • Tayls, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Plus, he's a talentless hack of a bitch. Learn to draw, little man.
    • ninjasaurus, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Yes, this is why I can't watch shows like Animal Cops. If I were a cop that had just discovered someone was torturing animals, I would knock on their door and promptly shoot them in a face.
  • weskandel, on 03/19/2008, -173/+18If this was done to a cat it wouldn't bother me... but a dog!? What a horrible person!
    • allowners, on 03/19/2008, -22/+25You are disgusting scum.
      • Myonosken, on 03/19/2008, -2/+23Don't feed the troll.
        Edit: Oh *****, no pun was intended there :x
    • ophello, on 03/19/2008, -8/+6har har
    • Iconoclast25, on 03/20/2008, -3/+16I absolutely detest cats, but this is sick no matter what kind of animal it was.
    • GrodyChamp, on 03/20/2008, -24/+4I'm with you lol. Cats are worthless animals.
      • sixsidepentagon, on 03/20/2008, -2/+9I'll see you in hell.
      • morninglorii, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1Yeah an animal only has worth if it benefits a human with your tastes in some way.
    • palmer, on 03/20/2008, -3/+7If it WERE done to a cat. Why don't you get a basic education and then post stuff you don't mean in order to get a reaction?

      What a baby. Do you throw your mashed peas on the floor, too?
    • morninglorii, on 03/20/2008, -0/+6If this were done to you, it wouldn't bother me.
    • lik3n, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3You're retarded.
    • Coyote47, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0Can anyone see that this guy was kidding I thought it was funny
    • robthom, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Your an *****. I see no ***** humor in it.
  • NewPatriot, on 03/19/2008, -6/+178disgusting
    • BlackJackJester, on 03/20/2008, -8/+1So PETA will throw blood on fur coats, but where the hell are they now? ***** hippies. Disgusting indeed.
    • ABadPerson, on 03/20/2008, -2/+2The same can be said for the ones that saw this cruelty yet did nothing. Sadly, this happens everyday to every one of us. We see suffering all around us, near and far, but never are we passionate enough to act. We are such a pacified and moderate bunch.
    • DinosWillDie13, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2That last picture just makes me pissed off.
    • archivist, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3If I were there, I would untie the dog. Then tell the artist: "What I did is also art".
      • ph070sh0p, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure the artist wanted someone to do that, but no one would.
      • 4d669, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Contemporary art is *****. People now read Dali's biography and think that doing crazy stuff is automatically going to make them look like geniuses. If making a dog starve to death is art, then everything is art. If everything is art, then there is no such thing as an artist and they should all drop their pretentiousness once and for all.
    • 4d669, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1How come I see people being arrested on "Animal Cops Houston" for stupid ***** and people like these are free?
    • schibs, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1What's disgusting is how everything above the fold on this blog is an ad.
  • Jade456, on 03/19/2008, -13/+176That fing POS. He needs to be thrown in jail and left to rot. Someone should tie his ass to a pole and let him starve for his "art". See how he likes it. Wouldn't be a waste, since he obviously has no talent, the fing nazi.
    • ophello, on 03/19/2008, -21/+6chill out, crybaby.
      • LostnTransition, on 03/19/2008, -4/+15Burn in a fire. Emotionless swine.
        • Amiga500, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Slap your mom for not having you aborted.
    • screwfanboys1, on 03/19/2008, -4/+18you had me until fing nazi
      • d0onut, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5which doesn't really make a difference, since it's the last two words he said
    • LostnTransition, on 03/19/2008, -8/+5I'd like to think Nazi is an insult saved for the most despicable and vile of human beings. The kind of people that need to be sodomized or cut slowly with a scalpel and left to bleed out over hours. But somehow that insult just seems sub par for this *****.

      And before anyone goes after me saying how much worse the Nazis were than this man, I won't disagree. But they were under command this ***** psycho is doing this of his own volition.
      • jon30041, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4So... he's Hitler? And the dog is a Jew? And the gallery goers are the German populace during Hitler's reign?

        Hmmm... No, he's still a sick *****.
    • norman619, on 03/19/2008, -6/+2Thrown in jail and left to rot? Seems a bit extreme. I was thinking more along the lines of a good ass kicking. The peopel who want him to do this again on the other hand.....
    • DucoNihilum, on 03/19/2008, -11/+3Kind of ironic you call him a nazi, and in the same breath suggest we throw him in jail. I agree, he's a douche- but I don't think we should throw him in jail for this. After all, it's just an animal. Apparently a stray dog that he acquired legitimately, thusly his property. We have no right to come inbetween a man and his property. No animals 'rights' should trump the natural rights of man, no mater how much of a dick he is.
      • bitcloud, on 03/19/2008, -0/+11really? you've never heard of animal cruelty laws?
        • norman619, on 03/19/2008, -9/+2There are MANY stupid laws on the books.
        • LostnTransition, on 03/20/2008, -1/+7Yes quite a few absolutely retarded laws. Animal cruelty is not part of that list though.
        • DucoNihilum, on 03/20/2008, -3/+1And because they exist they are just?
      • LostnTransition, on 03/20/2008, -1/+6So legitimate is to pay 2 children to capture a stray dog and torture it to death. A man has every right to stroke his rocking-chair any way he damn well pleases. This is not a ***** inanimate object for someone to own this is an animal and a companion and it is terrible that you don't see it that way. And I agree jail is nowhere NEAR subsequent as far as punishments go. I hope you never have a pet or have children. For their sake, because they are not your property they are a part of your life.
        • DucoNihilum, on 03/20/2008, -4/+2Children are people, not property. Animals are however exactly that.
        • Lukesed, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2Yeah, animals are sacred companions! That we also like to eat!
      • UsedToVacation, on 03/20/2008, -2/+3I can't believe people like you actually exist.....an animals right to life is less important than man's right to own one? The fact that a man should be able to 'own' a dog, if he is even allowed that, is NOT being able to do whatever the ***** you want with that dog, and does not "trump animal 'rights'". The high pedestal humans put themselves on over other beings is disgusting. I've really accepted that humans use them for work, and eat them, and that's not going away. But what the ***** dude?
      • onetimer, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4...and THIS folks, is a peak into the mind of the pseudo-libertarian, and how they view the relationship between morals (or lack thereof) and property rights.

  • NatnlEklipseSho, on 03/19/2008, -7/+73that's really sick
    • notwkf, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1kafkaesque*
    • johnmatias, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Seriously. By this mans standard, people who abduct children, rape them, and then photograph the end result are also "artists". Wonderful thought...
      • pdrap, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1One problem. Where's the photo of the dead dog? There's no picture of the dead dog on the site.

        I call *****. The dog ain't dead unless there's a photo.
  • mshifley, on 03/19/2008, -11/+248***** that guy. That makes me so sad and angry.
    • GhostyBoy, on 03/19/2008, -1/+54I'm inventing a brand new style of "art": I'm going home to see my dog right now.

      First I'm gonna feed him, then I'm going to play with him for the rest of the evening.
      • rnwen2750, on 03/19/2008, -1/+16Aw! Say hi to your dog for me! :)
      • Ph240Z, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2Definitely!
      • LostnTransition, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5I'd pay to see a kid playing with a puppy in an art gallery in a heart beat. Especially if the puppy is ***** on the shoes of the pom-pus ***** that attended this gallery and didn't stop it.
      • rawg, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3We should all be creating that kind of "art"... :)
    • FutureGuy, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1He is the lesser animal here, the dog would have fed him in this situation. what an ass, he should be in jail.
    • robotosaurus, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1It makes you sad/mad. It makes you smad.
    • Zera, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2AND ***** THOSE ***** AT THE ART SHOW
    • Amiga500, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1No problem, just double up on your existing Lexapro dosage.
  • VikingoTJ, on 03/19/2008, -8/+94That is a person without conscience. If you are going to willfully kill an animal that isn't a danger or health risk, do it quick and consume the meat. May he rot in hell.
    • daveaspen, on 03/20/2008, -12/+1These animals ARE in danger and a health risk! I lived in Honduras for 7 months, and they are an infestation! Full of fleas and tons of diseases!

      I can guarantee that this dog would have probably starved to death in the streets eventually. At least this one go to go out in a nice place, not some dirty-ass gutter.
      • ricksite, on 03/20/2008, -0/+12You are sick. Intentionally starving a dog is torture. IF the dog population there needs to be thinned, it should be done in the most humane way possible.
      • Kzoo, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Intentional vs. unintentional... It doesn't matter if the dog would have starved anyway.
    • Clodhopper, on 03/20/2008, -10/+1I hope someone kicks your teeth into the back of your throat.
    • KireGoTI, on 03/20/2008, -3/+3Who says he killed the animal? A bunch of people came and saw it every day. They let it starve just because they were told to. All the artist did was put it in a public space.
      • mimigins, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1A public space where it could not get away and get food? Yeah. You're a moron. He killed it.
  • skateboard1, on 03/19/2008, -19/+240All l need is five minutes with that guy... PLEASE!!!
    • mrmario, on 03/19/2008, -3/+33Five Minutes??? I could get it done in 30 seconds.
      Now, if we're trying to hide to body it's a different story.
      • jordanmerle, on 03/20/2008, -0/+8Use pigs, they can consume an adult body in no time. As for the teeth your going to need some hydrochloric acid.
        • skateboard1, on 03/20/2008, -1/+5you need about 16 pigs to do the job so always beware of a man who keeps pigs
      • koopertrooper, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1good god, you're all serial killers
    • Roryking, on 03/19/2008, -5/+51oh *****, the internet tough guy ***** has fully arrived in Digg
      • bitcloud, on 03/19/2008, -2/+24he's gonna rearrange his hard drive...
      • ricepicker4000, on 03/20/2008, -2/+11The little anime by your name shouts "Tough guy" too there cheif
        • tdog138, on 03/20/2008, -2/+0He wasn't trying to be tough, rather calling out someone on their attempt to be tough.
        • nogChoco, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1He can change his avatar to Chuck Norris, but you can't change your comment anymore (unless Mr.Norris does that for you).
    • norman619, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1Mind tag-teaming?
    • jserio, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4I'm thinking of the scene in Saw where we chain the guy to a wall and lock the doors leaving him to rot in his tomb!
    • DangerCollie, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3The line starts back a ways.
    • jacekpoplawski, on 03/20/2008, -11/+1You are sick. You want to kill (or rape?) person who doesn't even exists, because you read urban legend on Digg.
      • Jesusridesabike, on 03/20/2008, -0/+7I think jacekpoplawski is a pretty cool guy, eh can't construct a sentance and doesn't afraid of anyone.
    • rz8472, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Sam and Max?
    • cnot3, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3I'd take a bit longer than five minutes. That guy let the dog starve to death over a period of several days. Vengeance dictates you take your time and let him truly appreciate the suffering he inflicted on another.
    • rasbill, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1pervert
    • poponegra, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2That's what she said.
    • Amiga500, on 03/20/2008, -2/+2Ok... you want to hurt a guy who doesn't feed a dog. I'd be happy if you just killed yourself. While your family might be sad, it leaves more resources for others who give a damn about what really matters.
    • robthom, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I was thinking the same thing.
  • johnstays44, on 03/19/2008, -5/+61very disturbing
    • groberts1980, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Seriously. I can't believe no one did anything. I swear to God I would have brought that dog some food and kicked the ass of anyone who tried to stop me. Consequences be damned.
      • Dysanovic, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1People who have read about this and live near to the gallery should go in en masse and free this dog!
  • RomanSavell, on 03/19/2008, -11/+62Someone should kill this piece of sh*T .And who let children around such a monster.
    • sra8sra8, on 03/20/2008, -3/+4Judging from the large number of American commenting here, the title of this "artwork" must be "Hypocrisy." It is sickening that a dog can be left to starve to death. It is more sickening that Americans (both Republicans and Democrats) supported the starving of an entire nation (Iraq) for 12 years via food and medicine sanctions.

      "When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

      (John Pilger, Squeezed to Death, Guardian, March 4, 2000)

      http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast ...
      • furi0us1, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2Very good point. Its easy to be outraged from behind a keyboard, but when it comes to actually making a difference when it really counts, people turn a blind eye.
        • HonestAbe, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1That's the whole point. All the visitors to the gallery turned a blind eye.
  • bamafun, on 03/19/2008, -8/+70Why didn't someone call the police? I hope they lock him up and starve his sorry self to death
    • Devilboy666, on 03/19/2008, -15/+2Just wanted to let people know that the artist did in fact try to feed the dog but it was terminally ill and wouldn't accept food. This dog wasn't eating anyway and was dying anyway - the artist just put him on display and tried to pass it off as art.
      • heatmiser, on 03/20/2008, -1/+7Well, gee, then that makes it all better. As long as it's for "art"
      • one1plus1one, on 03/20/2008, -2/+3With comments like that, trying to justify people like this "artist" who have no regard for the sanctity of life, it looks like your living up to your name there "devil boy".
      • SoulGrub, on 03/20/2008, -1/+5Where is it reported that the dog wouldn't accept food? I call bs
  • atomicwedgie, on 03/19/2008, -11/+112If only science permitted the possibility of a 150lb Rottweiler impregnating a man via his arse and carrying said offspring full term, we could then have true justice here.
  • allowners, on 03/19/2008, -28/+6Human cruelty has no bounds:

    Cats Boiled Alive: Popular Chinese Cuisine
    http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Cats_Boiled_Alive_Popula ...
    • FeargusMcDuff, on 03/19/2008, -5/+33Lobsters boiled alive, popular western cuisine.
      • dungbeetle, on 03/19/2008, -6/+4Lobsters are sea cockroaches. It's a little different.
        • bitcloud, on 03/19/2008, -7/+1and yet we all turn a blind eye to the beef industry...
          • norman619, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3We are living things that actually need to eat. Hunting is not very practical.
          • Ph240Z, on 03/20/2008, -0/+6Dude! We don't starve the cow to death before we eat it! Not even close!
          • furi0us1, on 03/20/2008, -1/+0Sure, we just poison it.
        • norman619, on 03/19/2008, -5/+1When I told a friend of mine what she was about to eat was a large marine bug butt first she laughed. Then after she thought about it she sent it back and hasn't been able to lobster since. LOL!!!

          I'm amazed ah how people can look at a lobster and not tell it's a huge bug that lives in the ocean.
        • kyeetza, on 03/19/2008, -2/+4Do uglier animals suffer less?
        • rpebble, on 03/20/2008, -2/+4Sea cockroaches?

          Cats are highly evolved efficient predators. But they are cute furry, cuddly and relatively domesticated, so it's far worse when they suffer than other animals.

          I call it the PETA effect.
          • norman619, on 03/20/2008, -4/+3Cats are not "highly evolved." They are simply evolved like all life on the planet is. You are making the same mistake most people make when talking about evolution. Evolution is not movement from worse to better. It's simply the changes a life form goes through in response to external stresses. Cats are no more "evolved" than the mosquito is. Cats have a niche they fill just like a mosquito does. OK enough of the evolution rant.

            You are right. Most people only get upset at the mistreatment of animals which they can identify with. Not many people get outraged at the treatment of fish.
          • LeggoMyEgo, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1@norman

            Your political comments since I've joined have been questionable, but I hate seeing a scientifically correct comment dugg down. +1.
          • norman619, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I love it. They are "questionable" only because you don't agree with them. Nice. But thanks for your support here.
      • andycr512, on 03/20/2008, -0/+4Lobsters don't have central nervous systems. They are like bugs - they literally can't feel pain. It's not the same thing.
    • norman619, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3All you need as proof of this is most of recorded human history. The Spanish inquisition is full of shining examples. As are the Middle and Dark Ages.
    • PathDaemon, on 03/20/2008, -2/+10Animals eaten for food: OK
      Animals starved to death slowly just because: Not OK
  • N3tw0rk, on 03/19/2008, -5/+151If i had stumbled upon this "gallery", I would have quietly fed that dog instead of just watching it die. I would've visited that dog several times to give him meals. After a week, the "artist" would have been like, wtf the dog ain't dead yet.
    • cyberwiz01, on 03/19/2008, -3/+73I would have cut it free and taken it home. Just feeding it would leave a poor dog just tied there. Does Honduras not have animal cruelty laws? This is just horrible!
      • DucoNihilum, on 03/19/2008, -22/+1That would be theft, unjust. A man has a right to his property, no mater how disagreeable he is.
        • korvan504521, on 03/20/2008, -2/+13You do not have the right to be cruel to animals. There's laws against that.
        • DucoNihilum, on 03/20/2008, -8/+3Why don't you have the right to do that?

          Just because it's illegal doesn't mean you don't have the right to do it.
        • Barclay1188, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3@Duco: ....
        • Typhoon2009, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5You support slavery too, eh?
        • D0m0kun, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2No, no, no, NO. Furniture is property. A TV is property. A dog/person/monkey/cat or any advanced life should NEVER be granted as property to anyone.
        • Jadey, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1RTFA: he stole the dog from the street. Was it a stray? Or did it belong to someone? Who knows? He didn't have a "right" to the "property" that he snagged from the curb.
    • sixthsoon, on 03/19/2008, -3/+44That's exactly my problem with this story. It's astounding that this douche has the balls to call himself an artist for doing this, but what really sickens me is that out of all the people who saw the "exhibit," not a single one did anything to help the poor dog.
      • ehalasey, on 03/19/2008, -1/+19I have no idea why you're being dugg down for this. I was wondering what the hell was wrong with all of the gallery attendees, as well.
        Part of me wonders if the artist could have wanted to see how likely people would be to disobey his directions. It seems to me the only viable avenue to redemption for him, though the most crooked and ***** up way to get there.
        I doubt my hope is right, of course.
      • AngryAngryBrian, on 03/19/2008, -2/+16Amen, but remember the experiment where a man was told to ask another man in a chair questions. The man was covered in electrodes and if he got it wrong the participant was told to zap him and then turn the voltage up to the next notch. On the controls was a line, that read "Caution, Exceeding this level could cause serious bodily harm". While this was going on a scientist in a lab coat stood behind the operator and ordered him to zap whenever the question was wrong. Slowly as the questions got harder the voltage increased and the person being questions began to cry and shake from the pain as the voltage increased. When the line was crossed he passed out, but the questions did not stop. Because he could not answer the scientist asked the operator to increase and shock again. By the end of the experiment most people had turned the level all the way up, and those who objected usually continued even as the man begged and cried from the pain. The man in the chair was an actor, the subject was the operator who believed he was actually harming this man, yet continued as ordered from a man in a white coat.

        My point is, most people are afraid to help. No matter how righteous you are at least one time in your life you have stepped over a homeless person, or walked passed the salvation army donation can.
        • ehalasey, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2That's exactly what I was referring to. You fleshed out my point quite well.
        • f54280, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0This is the Milgram Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)

          Of course this "art exhibition" hint at it, BUT the very same thing could have been done without killing the dog (ie: feeding it at night for instance), hence it looks more like a publicity stunt to me.

          And, of course, this is the internet, so there is a non zero probability that everything is fake and nothing ever occured....
      • korvan504521, on 03/20/2008, -2/+4I think tossing a dollar to some drunk on the street is a little different from seeing a mugging in action, or seeing someone about to jump off a bridge, or permitting some ***** artist to starve a dog to death.
        • ehalasey, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3The thing is, your assumption that someone on the street is most likely to be "some drunk" rather than, for example, a mentally disabled person unable to support him/herself, or someone who was laid off from his job and couldn't find another, or some kid who ran away from an abusive home, or a victim of any number of other causes for homelessness is at the ROOT of the problem.
          Respect for life first requires admitting things like the fact that that person you think might just be "some drunk" is human, too.
          Helping and saving people isn't solely done in grand acts of heroism. The little things count, too.
      • jessetessej, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Ummm, maybe you should go to south america and see how they treat their dogs? Clearly you have no idea that there are hundreds of skinny, uncared for dogs in every city. People wouldn't go out of their way to help a starving dog, that's just how the culture is. After living in Peru for six months, I was quite used to seeing dogs getting kicked (and I mean kicked). It's just different, they aren't viewed as little fury companions.
        • ehalasey, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1This dog was tied up, it took three days to die, and the artist PAID two kids to TAKE it. That means the dog wasn't unclaimed, was fed before (it takes about three days for a healthy _human_ to die of thirst/ starvation), and was basically stolen. Meanwhile, just because people do it doesn't mean it should be okay, and you can say that it's "culturally bound" or whathaveyou, but really, you saw people abuse dogs and you said NOTHING? What was the problem? Did you think people might think you were rude or something?
          It never ceases to amaze me the things people will rationalize in the name of self preservation.
    • dungbeetle, on 03/19/2008, -4/+22Not to defend the guy but it was possible he was doing this to test people's response to his authority. People will roll over for anyone who seems authoritative. Milgram Experiment is the classic example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment.
      • nanded, on 03/20/2008, -0/+10I dugg your response for intriguing it is. However, if a person really wanted to present this idea, the humane thing would be to secretly feed the dog at night when the public wasn't watching.
        • TacitusBen, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1I feel like the humane thing to do would to not conceal your attempts to feed the dog.

          Extrapolating outward from this, would it be humane to feed the other stray dogs outside the gallery? How long does one have to feed them to be humane? Is it an effective use of resources? Are there dogs in my local area that I may help for less cost than dogs in other parts of the world?
          • nanded, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2There is an implied degree of responsibility in this case. It's one thing to say that there are so many stray animals out there and that there isn't anything you can do from them, and you simply have to let nature take its course. But when you intervene, and you take control of this creature's life, then by all sensibilities, you are obligated to work in it's best interest.
        • KingGorilla, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1what about the poop?
      • lyeta, on 03/20/2008, -2/+2the milgram experiement is COMPLETELY different. It was also found that in that experiment, the further away the source of authority was, the more the people just said 'NO'. Unless the artist was standing next to the 'piece', the likelihood that a normal person would have just rolled over and ignored the dog is very unlikely. anyone who likes dogs would have tried to feed it.

        unless they were not informed what was going on, and just assumed the dog was getting fed.
      • isaaccp, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0Yes, that was the idea of the artist, and the dog didn't really die, a museum guard feed it in the night.
    • FelixA9, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4Quietly? QUIETLY???? ***** that! Cut the rope and if the douchbag says anything hand him his ***** ass.
    • TacitusBen, on 03/20/2008, -0/+6I doubt there was anything stopping anyone from doing just that.

      In this case an authority figure, the artist, asked the world, the people in the gallery, not to interfere. This is a rather literal model for how nations of privilege starve their enemies. The actions of the people, including their inaction, regarding the dying dog, define the work, just as our action, outrage, blog comments, petition signing, inaction, and or apathy, over the dog, define us.

      A copy of the online petition, which has gotten world-wide attention, should be included with the documentation of the work, as well as any petitions we've signed protesting the starving homeless in Central America, Honduras, and possibly our own towns.
    • tdog138, on 03/20/2008, -3/+0Genius!
    • KireGoTI, on 03/20/2008, -0/+4Good. This is exactly what you are supposed to be thinking.

      We need more people like you to question the boundaries. Now, if someone would actually do something...
    • empraptor, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5The fact that the dog died says something about the people who visited the gallery. Maybe the "art" was modeled after the Stanford prison experiment and meant to be audience-participation piece? Who's to say the artist wouldn't have been just as happy had someone freed the dog and fed it despite his instructions?

      Or I'm thinking too much.
    • HonestAbe, on 03/20/2008, -0/+4I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of the installation. The artist isn't responsible for the death of the dog; the people who willingly followed his instructions are.

      Corrupt governments would have no power if not for the people who blindly do what they're told.
  • Telionis, on 03/19/2008, -9/+62This reflects worse on the country of origin than anything I can think of. If nobody bothered to complain or try to stop him, all of those people are just as sick as the "artist". This implies the whole country is a bunch of barbarian f-cks.
    • dmacmattack, on 03/19/2008, -4/+8So what you're saying is that the country is ***** because of a couple people.
      • DaveTehWave, on 03/19/2008, -3/+7Well, it *is* Honduras...
        • Requench, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5I work with a Honduran guy. He's a really nice guy and has a dog. I wouldn't generalize so quickly.
      • Xibalba, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1The gallery where the dog died is in Managua, Nicaragua; Vargas is invited to the "Bienal Centromaericana" in Honduras in representation of Costa Rica.
    • one1plus1one, on 03/20/2008, -2/+4Yes, Telionis is right.

      The people of Honduras do bear some guilt in this flagrant disregard for the sanctity and respect of life.

      There does not appear to have been any serious outrage, or effort on the part of authorities in Honduras to intervene.

      As Ghandi said: You can judge a society by the way it treats its animals.

      And while I'm on that topic don't even get me started about my own country, Canada, and the psycho yearly baby-seal hunt. I don't even want to begin to think what this says about my country's morality.
      • hitoshi, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0The seal hunt is justified as it keeps the killer seal population from overpopulating, eating school children and impregnating our women.

        /Is also Canadian
    • gmprunner, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1The people probably didn't do anything because they didn't think this guy was actually going to let the dog starve. Sure, they shouldn't have given him the benefit of the doubt, but they probably didn't take him very seriously and except him to really let the dog get to the point of death. Still not right on anyones part, I'm just saying its not a un-understandable as a lot of people think.
  • allowners, on 03/19/2008, -17/+50There are a bunch of hypocrites who whine about cruelty to a dog, yet celebrate cruelty to other animals. They are themselves below the status of animal.
    • floridiot2, on 03/19/2008, -12/+7but dog lives in the house.
    • ehalasey, on 03/19/2008, -4/+18Oh. You mean like cruelty to humans?
    • ralphthemagi, on 03/19/2008, -3/+22Because people humanize dogs, cats, monkeys, and anything that's cute and/or fuzzy. That's just how it is.

      Not feeding a feral dog until it dies is completely unacceptable. Lighting ants on fire is acceptable. There isn't really a good reason to do either.

      Hypocritical? Maybe. But that's life.
      • wexmajor, on 03/20/2008, -7/+0It's not hypocritical at all. It's like the difference punching a