Define Art
A recent uprising on Facebook is that artist Guillermo Vargas Habacuc is planning on starving a stray dog proclaiming it as art. Several groups and petitions have been created to discuss the manner and hope to stop it.
The artist justifies the public display of this dog’s death by saying that it is already sick, refuses to eat and will die anyway. Simply by putting it in a fixed location is not a crime.
There are a few brave people in those groups who attempt to defend Habacuc and seem to support the piece. One argument said (generally) that art is more then just a visual stimuli, it also is about the emotional reaction that someone has to the work. Therefore these groups and petitions, while defining the art as grotesque and horrific, merely amplify the brilliance of the artistic value it creates.
While their definition can be debated as true, it also opens a dangerous precedent if such a conclusion were allowed to be accepted. What if Habacuc’s next art was the starving of a monkey? Or if starving gets old, how about tortured and distorted bodies? What if animals grow old and he decides to use humans?
Even the educational “Bodies” exhibit at national museums was harassed and protested because of the such public display of deceased human anatomy (among other reasons). True, this exhibit was in the United States, where as the artist hails from Costa Rica, so such artwork would not be as accepted within our borders.
But clearly there should be a line somewhere. Just because these creatures have four legs and can’t speak to defend themselves that makes their lives less valuable then artistic reflection? They were born into this world just as those who view it and they live in the world just as those who view it. They are made of flesh and bone. They feel physical pain and they base action on emotional and instinctual thought.
By saying any horrible or emotionally ravaging act is merely “artwork” can open the doors for any nightmare inducing act imaginable. Proclaim that the distraught and heartache you feel is artistic expression. The more you disapprove the more justified the artist becomes for it’s creation.
Those who watch these art pieces may look down on those who disagree with accusations of “close mindedness” and “just not understanding.” However, I think it’s those people who need to open their minds and realize that the priority of conversation and inner thought do not supersede the existence of a living creature.
The only historical similarity towards such a public display of life ending for the benefit of an intangible benefit would be tribal sacrifices to appease their gods. It’s shocking to believe how little some people have culturally evolved in hundreds of years, isn’t it?









