Fanta Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 http://www.popgive.com/2008/03/since-when-...o-death-is.html Seriously. What in the frack is wrong with people today?!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenquest Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 http://www.popgive.com/2008/03/since-when-...o-death-is.html Seriously. What in the frack is wrong with people today?!!! I would just love to tie him to a cable and starve his a** and call myself an artist if front of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 People like that, deserve to burn in the deepest darkest hottest culdrens in hell!!! Stupid SOB deserves a death no less than the one he gave that poor dog! The POS comes from one of them backwards Central American countries where people themselves are treated like animals. Backwards arse people! You should see how these "people" treat their children.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSMDUDE Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 WOW...That really pissed me off...I wish I could find that guy on the street...I'd take him to my garage and show him what I think is art ( power tools are fun) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenquest Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 WOW...That really pissed me off...I wish I could find that guy on the street...I'd take him to my garage and show him what I think is art ( power tools are fun) Haha, thats awesome. Red paint for the win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
importwarrior Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 nice hot 400 watt soldering iron comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim87tsi Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 my f'ing .308 comes to mind.....and him with a dog leash and some bells tied to his a**........who wants to hunt? i go for the knees first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minagera Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 I wonder if we starve him could we call it art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) I wonder if we starve him could we call it art? the only way I could imagine this being justifiable, and barely, would be if the artist was an animal rights activist trying to make a point about the fates of strays or the impact humanity is having on certain species in the wild. Alot of animals die slow painful deaths from starvation because of spreading human populations and because of lazy pet owners abandoning or failing to spay or neuter their pets. The artist might be trying to get exactly the reaction he's getting by purposely starving an animal. We all know certain domesticated animals would quickly die of starvation if left in the wild, as do deer and plenty of others who can't cope with humanity's growing presence, but we don't lose sleep over it because we don't have to look at it. Standing there, at that exhibit, staring at a dying dog, you would feel it for what it is, unconscionable. Hearing about it now you feel it for what it is, absolutely unthinkable. The "artist" might want you to ask yourself, "if it's so unthinkable to do it, then why isn't it unthinkable to let it happen" Either way, he has people all over the web discussing animal cruelty. That is an accomplishment in and of itself. Knowing it happens in the back of your mind, it's always been easy to brush aside. All he did was put reality in your face and you don't like it, perhaps. He could be appealing to the same part of most of us that is fine with eating the beef, but could never kill the cow. Humans are very "out of sight out of mind" type beings and we're not so appalled by suffering we feel like we can't control as we are by suffering we can and do control. He might, MIGHT, be trying to point out that you can and should do everything in your power to help stop animal suffering, and that failing to ACT is as good as chaining them up and starving them yourself. Watching that you might think it would have been great to just unchain the dog and give him a fighting chance on his own to find food. You're probably thinking, if the dog is free, it's up to the dog to survive. The artist is saying he doesn't think that's good enough, especially for domesticated animals. Humans domesticated dogs, so humans have an obligation to NOT expect them to survive on their own in the wild. Letting a domesticated dog fend for itself, is as good (to the artist) as chaining it up and not feeding it. Sometimes it takes a BOLD and unthinkable act to get people to see their own true nature. If this is to be considered art, then it is open to interpretation. My interpretation is that the artist means for you to be disgusted by his act, but he also means for you to eventually draw parallels in your mind between his direct action, and your own inaction. The dog is dead, there's no going back from that, but if his life is really so valuable to you that you're "disgusted" and ready to physically harm the human who did it, then perhaps you'll also care enough to go down to the pound and rescue a stray that will be put down in 3 days, or to stop your car next time you see one wandering the streets of your town. Edited March 20, 2008 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 The ppl standing around doing nothing is just as bad as the artist himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) The ppl standing around doing nothing is just as bad as the artist himself that's exactly what the artist wants you to say and think. he wants you to eventually realize that it is just as bad to do nothing about it, as it is to physically commit the act yourself. You're playing into his hand perfectly when you despise the people who did nothing. The people who did nothing represent you, and me, and all of us who go on about our daily lives and do nothing about animal suffering. Now, what would really be graduate level art, would be if he did it to a person. half the world's population lives on $2/day but that doesn't stop americans from blowing money on senseless, meaningless stuff, myself more than most. If he chained up a human and let him starve, his point would be that if you're not going to help starving people all over the world then you might as well chain one up and force him to starve yourself. When you say, "those people who didn't help are just as bad as him", you're reacting EXACTLY as the artist meant for you to react because the average person doesn't do anything about animal or human suffering outside their immediate view. again, out of sight out of mind. Everything about every post is ironic in this light. When we bash the people watching, we are bashing the part of the art that was meant to represent us, and we are displaying our true ignorance and blindness to our oblivious over privileged a$$es.. The title of the thread "Wth is wrong with people" becomes indirectly aimed at all of us, because in our day to day lives, we are the people walking by doing nothing to help. The art of the thing is the whole exhibit. The act of chaining the dog represents how helpless the animal kingdom is to defend itself against our advancement and our neglect. Putting it on display is symbolic of the news media or any means by which information flows around the world. The dog himself is representative of all animal suffering, neglect and abuse by inaction, of which we are all aware. The people viewing the exhibit are symbolic of you and I and everyone who watches this stuff on the news and reads about it in the paper and does nothing to help. I'm convinced, this is art, powerful art, and your reactions prove it. Art doesn't have to make you feel good. If it's genius, it will get an emotional reaction out of you and perhaps motivate you to action. I won't be signing the petition. It should be displayed. Edited March 20, 2008 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edde Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 I think I'll not even click. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boosted77. Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 The pics of the dog were very disturbing. I don't get the artist's purpose, and I mean his pupose in life. I love animals and could NEVER imagine starving an animal to death for my own selfish reasons. The (only) way to truly understand something is to experience it firsthand. So if that (man) were starving to death, tied to a rope while people stood around drinking champagne, clapping their hands and celebrating the works of men, maybe it would sink in his black heart and he'd re-analyze what he believes to be ART. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanta Posted March 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 chip - as cynical as a view you brought up, it makes sense... but still Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edde Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 The thread gives me an opportunity to make a plea to everyone. If you live near a (or many) recent forclosure (s) please take a look around and make sure the people have not left their PETS inside. I just saw a story about a woman who has been doing just that, getting into emptied homes and finding LIVE animals inside, left to starve. Sometimes it's so cluttered she has to put food out and come back later to determine if there is a live animal hiding out. It's stunning to me, but there it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenquest Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Chip, if I was a spectator there, I promise you there is no way that I'd do nothing about it. I'd be putting foot in some a**, I don't care if I went to jail for it. I honestly would rather die or rott in jail than to allow stuff like that to happen in front of me and do nothing about it. I can't do much about it here, but believe me. And if I was out numbered, I'd bring friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Chip, if I was a spectator there, I promise you there is no way that I'd do nothing about it. I'd be putting foot in some a**, I don't care if I went to jail for it. I honestly would rather die or rott in jail than to allow stuff like that to happen in front of me and do nothing about it. I can't do much about it here, but believe me. And if I was out numbered, I'd bring friends. I believe you, and I'd like to think I'd do something about it too if I was there. The guy's "message" isn't really aimed at individuals I don't think. I think it's aimed at popular apathy and the general indifference the masses have about the suffering of and impositions on animals that humans allow and perpetrate daily without hesitation or even a bad feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) chip - as cynical as a view you brought up, it makes sense... but still I'm with you on the "but still" man. But no matter how much animal rights activists do there isn't much changing about humanity's sympathy toward animal suffering. PETA will be the BIGGEST detractor from that guy's "art". They'll lobby strongly against any such thing being displayed or heralded as "art". I'm serious when I say they'll be wrong for that. I'm not trying to be cynical. The broader point here is a very important one. It makes us feel angry to watch it and imagine the dog's suffering and think that someone could be so cruel. I have a feeling it hurt the artist more than we can imagine to starve that animal. I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be the operator of a huge no kill animal shelter or something. If it makes us think about how our inaction stacks up against his action then it will be for the better, I think. We are meant to find the two virtually indistinquishible in the moral behavior department, and I recognize the trouble many will have with that because I have the same trouble. I'm trying to figure it out too. I'm also serious that I think we should consider how "artistic" it would be if someone repeated the exhibit with a human child. Chain it up and let it starve to death, to make the point that failing to help is as good as committing the atrocity yourself. The physical act of chaining the child would create OUTRAGE but begs the question: "is a child born of dirt poor parents in a war torn village any less helpless than the chained child?" Should it create more outrage that someone consciously chains a child than it should when we all ignore millions of children every day. Are these people, children and adults alike, not effectively chained by their circumstances, enslaved by mere misfortune of birth place and parents, utterly unable to do anything to help themselves? There is no money, nothing clean, no opportunity, no help and we go on and on with our lives of privilege like there will be no consequences, and there probably won't be, except in our own guilty conscience. I fall into this category as well so I'm not pointing fingers. If you're going to have a $1000 car payment, $2200/month rent and an aggressive savings plan for YOUR own future in America but you don't give a dime or a damn or do anything substantial to put food in the bellies of starving children on earth, then you might as well chain up a kid and watch him starve. perhaps a better way to put it is this. If you wouldn't chain a child up and starve him to death. Then why doesn't your conscience bother you when you know there are starving people all over the world? If you won't starve a child, why would you let one starve? When you bash the people watching the dog starve you symbolically bash yourself. The twist is truly artistic in my opinion. The artist found a way to make everyone regard themselves with hatred for their inaction, albeit symbolically, but I hope people will eventually get it. I submit to you all that in my notional example, which I hope will remain notional, we are all no better for failing to act, than the person who chains the child. There is no good answer, just the question, but if someone did chain a child and let him starve to death, say it was a child who would have starved anyway in some 3rd world country, and if the act became so public that it resulted in an unprecedented outpouring of assistance from all over the world to feed everyone and clothe everyone and provide EVERYONE with clean water and medicine and warmth and comfort and safety, would that child's life have been worth it? What if the death of that one child only resulted in a strong enough outpouring to save 100,000 other children, or 10,000, or hell 10? Would it not be artistic in the highest order? Eleven children would have died of starvation, but since someone consciously starved one, 10 of them will live. Forget that it would be murder by modern standards and unconscionable by ALL standards of morality that we can imagine. The child was dead anyway, as are millions of children each year who won't get 90% of the aid we do send. What defines "art" in your mind? The artist's point is clear. Perhaps we are all culpable in the suffering of our fellow man. Perhaps any of us who refuses to sell everything he owns, fly to africa, and deliver food by hand to anyone who needs it is doomed to indescribable hell. Perhaps Edited March 20, 2008 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marso Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 The dog should have ate him. That's art and poetic justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts