Thread: Guillermo Vargas Habacuc

My bro was telling me about this artist who used a ill dog as a part of his art installation. He starves the dog till it dies. I looked at more details online, there is a video on youtube.com as well...

This came from Trisha Crawford, who is in charge of Animal Adoptions at Helen Woodward Animal Center in Rancho Santa Fe,
From: Trisha Crawford [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:14 PM

In 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope in an art gallery, and starved him to death.



For several days, the 'artist' and the visitors of the exhibition have watched emotionless the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, until eventually he died.



But this is not all... the prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of the Central American decided that the 'installation' was actually art, so that Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the biennial of 2008.



PLEASE HELP STOP HIM.




PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO SIGN THIS PETITION


http://www. petitiononline. com/ea6gk/petition. html



IF YOU SIGN THE PETITION, BE SURE TO PREVIEW YOUR SIGNITURE AND APPROVE

A Costa Rican artist found himself in hot water with the animal protection people in his home country after using a starving, sick street dog as part of an exposition in Managua, Nicaragua, in August. Guillermo “Habacuc” Vargas allegedly found the dog tied up on a street corner in a poor Nicaragua barrio and brought it to the showing. He tied the dog, according to furious animal lovers, in a corner of the salon where it died after a day. Habacuc’s exhibition included a legend spelled out in dog food reading “You are what you read,” photos and an incense burner that burned an ounce of marijauna and 175 “rock’ of crack cocaine. In the background, according to reports, the Sandista national anthem played backwards. According to the artist, his “art” was a tribute to Natividad Canda, a Nicaraguan burglar killed in Costa Rica by two rottweilers guarding property he had entered at night. The incident caused friction between the two countries. Habacuc told the daily La Nacion, “I won’t say the dog died. The importance to me is the hypocracy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death.” “The same thing happened with poor Natividad Canda. The people sympathized with him only after he was dead,” the artist added. The artist apparently is unaware that at least three large, active organizations are dedicated in Costa Rica to the protection of animals and that several persons have been prosecuted for cruelty to animals. They are hampered in their efforts by the old Hispanic customs of disregard for animal welfare and by a lack of funding.

http://petloverstips.com/ForTheLoveo...s-art-petition



weird. I just heard of this guy...

i think this guy mad a good point in the discussion.

Jarrod on October 19th, 2007
JJ Dutch,

Your comments seems to suggest that the only acceptable reaction to this is one that vehemently condemns the artist. That’s the only example of “collectivist thinking” here.

Don’t get me wrong, it sickens me to think that people would allow something like this to happen. But it’s wrong to apply your own personal moral code to the situation. When you do so, you miss out on the bigger picture.

You cannot speak of “moral obligation” like it’s some universal Absolute. As seen through someone else’s eyes, there are “moral obligations” you or I choose to ignore on a daily basis. You can’t just look at this as black and white, or good and evil.

Consider the following: The context of this piece is Costa Rica, where feral, malnourished dogs run rampant through the streets. It’s a common sight, not unlike rats in some cities. Do the inhabitants of those cities have a “moral obligation” to care for these animals? What about other cities, where rodents roam the streets? Is their life less valuable? Do we have a moral obligation to do something? What about “feral” humans? Surely the most popular response is to look the other way. Throughout the world, the “standard” practice for dealing with stray dogs is euthanizing them. How do you reconcile the calculated execution of animals in the name of morality and a “humane death”? Surely you are aware that throughout parts of this world, dog is a foodstuff, not unlike chicken or beef. Is eating a dog barbaric? How do you think a Hindu feels when you chow down on a burger? What moral obligation did the attendees to this exhibit have? Should we be equally mad at them? Possibly more mad, due to their complete inaction? What penalties, if any, should society impose on people who choose to look the other way?

Look, I don’t have the answers to any of these. Anyone but the most closed-minded individual will see that there’s more to this than sadistic animal snuff. The fact that we are engaging in a dialogue here about the nature of moral obligations, immorality, and the value of life once its gone confirms that this is indeed art (however gruesome it may be), as the purpose of art (particularly the conceptual kind) is to provoke, incite a response, and encourage dialogue, which this does. Animal cruelty and thought-provoking art needn’t be mutually exclusive.

There are way more humane ways of putting sick animals to sleep. Eating the flesh of sick dog is NOT even good for the ppl eating it.

I'm extremely open minded about art work but any time it involves a living creature to suffer (& then repeating the process over & over for more exhibits) is wrong IMO.

i don't disagree with you michele. but the point this guy make is valid, IMO. morallity is relative. different cultures might not find the same things wrong that we do.

I also read that the dog was periodically fed and watered throughout the day and that he escaped at the end of the first day.

Originally Posted by Kitty B.I.C.

I'm extremely open minded about art work but any time it involves a living creature to suffer (& then repeating the process over & over for more exhibits) is wrong IMO.

Heh, what about artists like Chris Burden who make a career of doing this? Where do you draw the line?

i think we need another thread about this!!

I think it would be great if we could put a rope around Guillermo's neck & starve him to death. Watch him die instead.