magnificentsynthesizer said:

I can understand the notion of art as holding a mirror up to society, and yes it can make for uncomfortable viewing. But the way this artist has interpreted animal cruelty so literally is only motivated by shock value (but maybe thats the whole point )..anyway... The artist probably wants to be notorious HE doesn't want the world to ignore him He should have tied himself up in the gallery and starved himself if he really wanted to make statement...lol

Evenstar, I love conceptual art. And yes, depictions of rape and murder are in movies, but they are actors. Artists have a responsibility imo. He's not saying anything that hasn't been said before. Most (not all) artists dont want the "masses" to be into them, we both know that, because it casts aspersions on their credibility

evenstar3 said:

But your point about art's history of rejecting it's own history is right on, and it is the reason some of this shit happens.

People didn't understand Picasso, or the guy who put a shovel in the middle of a room, and those went on to be genuine artistic statements.

So I think museum curators get confused when someone presents something "challenging" like the dog exhibit, thinking maybe he's really saying something and people just don't understand it.

But they're ignoring the obvious.

What I'm fucking pissed of at is the people that are there letting him die. I would've cut him loose and ran out with him.

MIGUELGOMEZ said:

I know. And the artist probably loves that.

He thinks it's an illustration of modern society and how people refuse to get involved when they could so easily bring a the dog a can of food. Brilliant!

NDRU said:

That would have been great

NDRU said:

Unfortunately I can see the art or the political statement or whatever in that. BUT I STILL DON'T WANT A DOG OR A PERSON TO BE HURT.

The "artist" is probably saying "Why the fuck didn't anyone give the poor dog a can of dog food!"

LleeLlee said:

You had the right point earlier, that he should have done it himself. That would be far more valid to see him starve to death while art patrons watch. While I wouldn't support such art, it would be a for more powerful statement.

NDRU said:

The patrons would have been assisting in suicide. A doctor probably would have been called and he would have been forcibly removed and taken to hospital. I dont know how they could let the dog die.

LleeLlee said:

Exactly. But it's a more artistic statement than making a dog do all the work--if it had happened.

amazing...
look, this won't be popular, I'm sure...if that's art, fuck art...
if any life is less important than art, then I don't need it or appreciate it...
if folks want to make a "statement", then they should just fucking make a statement and not hide behind some shameful display such as this...it's disgusting and it's a shame that art has become all encompassing to include bullshit like this...

NDRU said:

That's Marcel Duchamp's "In Advance of the Broken Arm". I love Marcel! (Although it's all his fault this guy is being shown in a gallery.)

JustErin said:

Look, I’m not an art & legality expert, but I think in the US, art falls under the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) so banning it would be a violation of the Constitution. However, in this case, it becomes tricky because it seems as though other laws are being broken. Thus, I guess it would come down to which law trumps the other—the Federal right to Freedom of Speech or a State/Municipal animal rights law. (And doesn’t Federal Law always supersede State Rights?) Honestly, I haven’t even clicked on the links, and I don’t need to in order to ‘argue’ the art side of it. But you are making a big leap from me saying some art could be unethical or even illegal to assuming I think people should break laws in the name of art. Please don’t misconstrue my personal opinions (which I have not stated) on this with the “art world/art historical” interpretation/justification of it. Two different things, just like whether ‘x’ is art and whether ‘x’ is good art.

LleeLlee said:

Firstly, it's not *my* criteria, it's the "art establishment's" criteria. I'm not saying the criteria is right or wrong (because I don't feel like getting into contemporary art theory on a website), but if you read my comments on the other thread you can figure it out. Furthermore I'm a self-professed art snob anyway so the fact that "the masses" don't always get why something they find revolting can still be art (e.g. art doesn't have to look pretty or make one feel good) is not surprising to me. If the "masses" don't want to educate themselves about why this or that or whatever is art, that's their problem not mine. As someone who studied Modern & Contemporary Art and Critical Theory I'm just trying to explain why it is art because that was the original question posed. No need to shoot the messenger (unless it’s an art performance. <-- Joking! That was only a joke, people. )


.
[Edited 4/22/08 12:16pm]

magnificentsynthesizer said:

There are tons of images of women being raped in art museums and galleries throughout the world. Rape of the Sabines, Rape of Europa, etc. but no one bats an eye because "ooh, it's a pretty Renaissance painting" or a "it's a beautiful classical Roman sculpture." So that makes it okay (or 'not the same'), right? The subject matter is still rape--we're just not seeing it happen in real time. So if you want to expunge all distasteful subject matter from your art, I suggest Sol LeWitt, Frank Stella, and the color field painters. Otherwise pretty much everything you look at has a less benign side to it.

jone70 said:

haha I totally agree. he really pioneered this entire argument of "what is art" and that art is in the perception, not the object itself.

Like many great artists, he's partly to blame for a lot of the crap that follows in his footsteps!

NDRU said:

I think it would've been art if the dog had a choice in the matter.

NDRU said:

I'm going to start calling it Duchamp's paradox. Because of him, anyone can 'be' an artist, but their art can't be like anything that came before it so the art becomes more and more outrageous b/c it's all been done before. Duchamp was smart, he knew he wasn't that great of a painter or sculptor so he changed the rules and said, "I'm an artist" instead. And the fact that he chose a pre-made functional object and took away it's functionalness thereby turning it into art. Genius! That choice changed the history of art. Brilliant--because he was the first one to do it. Love him, love him, love him, but I hate that now there is so much shitty contemporary art that overshadows the good stuff.

(Sorry I get a little about him. I have a poster of Duchamp on the bulletin board at my desk, and as my wallpaper; plus I have a crazy idea for an essay about him and Prince and Benjamin's Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. )

i just cant understand why 'art' has moved so far from painting or sculpture etc

to me art is a painting or a sculpture whether it is from the Renaissance, Cubist period or Post-Modern era i can understand to a degree the skills and time put into a piece. Grabbing a dog of the streets tying it up and starving it or displaying a messy bed which has been slept in i just dont understand

I would never be able to stomach anything like this.

My dog is like my child. He eats, sleep, with me. He listens and watches TV with me, hugs me kisses me. I take him for weekly car rides. He ride in the cart at Target and Kmart.

My chinchilla is my heart. She sits and watches tv with me. She eats oreos with me. She cuddles up next to me and whispers in my ear....


hell no!!!!

real art would never hurt a living creature.

I asked a friend who's a First Amendment attorney and represents a lot of artists over controversial exhibits. He says that since this revolves around the gleeful breaking of animal cruelty laws — and is actually HAPPENING in REAL TIME and not a photo or painting — the "this is art" argument won't hold up. Animals have no free will, so injuring a dog like this is illegal--no way around it.

I find plenty of art offensive (I saw a sculpture created with used tampons once), but bad taste is not a crime. Injuring a creature that can't make a rational conscious decision? NOT legally art.

SnakePeel said:

It's art, but it's also illegal.

NDRU said:

Ya, ya...we get that. Whatever.

But the problem is though that it's accepted as art in the art community and no one steps in to put a stop to it (torture and death in this case)....because it's "art".

jone70 said:

this was not a painting of a dying dog

JustErin said:

But I don't think snakepeel gets it because he says it's "not legally art." It's actually "not legal art."

nobody's defending it, except these moronic galleries who put it on and people who watch the dog die, and nobody here is saying artists are above the law.

NDRU said:

I'm sure that's what he actually meant.

JustErin said:

Say what you mean, people!! Has The Bachelor taught us nothing?!

JustErin said:

That IS what I meant (Grammar's off--being an editor all day will do that to you). The point is, you can't cite "artistic license" as a reason for committing a crime.

SnakePeel said:

definitely. otherwise we'd see less "Twinkie defense" and more "artist defense."

jone70 said:

I respectfully disagree; there is no artistic expression in tying a dog up and letting it die; as if any type of cruelty can be labeled as art because it was thought up of. The Iraq war was created, is that a piece of art

CoolTarik1 said:

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. Cruelty does not automatically equal art or artistic expression; it is the intent behind the act that makes something art. (And honestly, I am not going to waste my time reading this dying dog artist's intent because I'm guessing it's a bunch of post-modern .)

But to answer your question: If the Iraq war was started with the intent of being (performance?) art by someone who is an artist, then yes, it would be art. (Fucked up but still art.) But seeing as how it was started by a bunch of idiotic politicians without the intent of being art, then no, it's just a straight up clusterfuck. In contemporary art, a lot of times the end result is secondary to the intent or the thought process it took to get the end product. That's the part that makes it art, not how the final product looks. Not saying this is the case with this dog thing, just answering your question.


.
[Edited 4/22/08 19:37pm]