Is it art?

[Five-hole]

Judging by everyone's reaction, it is art.

It doesn't make it right in any way, or in any way absolve the artist from all the criticisms leveled at him in this thread.

It's the 21st century, people. You're not supposed to like new art.

[rockstar]

He calls himself an artist. I call him an animal abuser.

"Can't it be both?"

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Judging by everyone's reaction, it is art.

It doesn't make it right in any way, or in any way absolve the artist from all the criticisms leveled at him in this thread.

It's the 21st century, people. You're not supposed to like new art.

Say I walk into work and shoot everyone in the head with a 9mm. Because everyone has a "reaction" to the event, that makes the result art?

I think you need to re-examine what constitutes "art".

[Reaper]

Somebody needs to remove this guy's fleshy parts and appendages in an artistic way. Let's start with his thumbs (on the off-chance he survives the art show he'll never be able to make a proper pincer grasp again) and feed them to a dog while he watches.

[driveway]

Interesting... is the art the act of starving the dog, or is the art that no audience members stepped up to save the dog? Is it a commentary on death, or a comment on people's indifference to suffering?

Also, the story mentions that the dog was a "starving, sick street dog" and that the artist "tied the dog, ... in a corner of the salon where it died." It does not mention whether or not the artist denied the dog food, nor does it mention how long the dog was there.

Is putting an animal who is too far gone to help on display while it dies also cruelty? Did the dog die moments after it was brought into the art gallery? There are too many unanswered questions in this case to pass judgment.

Yes, absolutely causing the death of an animal is reprehensible and is not art, however I would argue that displaying the inevitable death of an animal and forcing the audience to think about it and come to terms with it is absolutely art.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by driveway

Interesting... is the art the act of starving the dog, or is the art that no audience members stepped up to save the dog? Is it a commentary on death, or a comment on people's indifference to suffering?

...

Yes, absolutely causing the death of an animal is reprehensible and is not art, however I would argue that displaying the inevitable death of an animal and forcing the audience to think about it and come to terms with it is absolutely art.

Possibly. But whatever social commentary the "artist" was trying to covey didn't need to be acted out on a living animal. Jonathan Swift got his message across without eating babies.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Possibly. But whatever social commentary the "artist" was trying to covey didn't need to be acted out on a living animal. Jonathan Swift got his message across without eating babies.

Maybe it did. There's a huge difference between painting a death and actually having something die in front of an audience. I'm not trying to defend animal cruelty here, merely pointing out that this might not be as bad as it sounds.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by driveway

Maybe it did. There's a huge difference between painting a death and actually having something die in front of an audience. I'm not trying to defend animal cruelty here, merely pointing out that this might not be as bad as it sounds.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were. I was just pointing out that his means of communication for his message could have been done differently and still had a positive effect. Likely whatever he is trying to get across with this will be lost in the poor taste of his delivery.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were. I was just pointing out that his means of communication for his message could have been done differently and still had a positive effect. Likely whatever he is trying to get across with this will be lost in the poor taste of his delivery.

Not necessarily. I doubt that people reading second hand accounts of the exhibition are the intended audience. It could have been a very powerful piece of art for those people who were there to witness it.

Again, I want to make it clear that there is a huge difference between causing a death and calling it art and simply displaying a death already in progress. The former looses any claim to art by dint of its heinousness, the second could qualify as art, depending on the presentation.

Although, to play devils advocate against myself there was the "goldfish in blenders" piece that appeared in Denmark where at least two goldfish were killed in the name of art. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/3040891.stm

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think it's art. To me, art is supposed to envoke an emotion by appealing to one of our senses. It should take a degree of intelligence in the method and the aim should be deliberate. To put it bluntly, there should be an element of sophistication.

Watching a dog die envokes emotion, but more on a primal level. There is no sophistication there; just instinct.