jone70 said:

this was not a painting of a dying dog

evenstar3 said:

Yeah, definitely the depiction of cruel or criminal behavior is acceptable, but only as a depiction, not the actual act of harming someone or something--unless it's two willing parties and not an innocent dog.

Still I think the dog is art, it's just criminal and should be prosecuted.

ZombieKitten said:

So if the artist shows us a painting of a dog dying of starvation that's okay because we're not confronted with the "realness" of watching the dog starve? It's still a dying dog.

(Playing devil's advocate here.)

jone70 said:

a representation of a dying dog did not cause a dog to suffer

jone70 said:

a representation of a dying dog did not cause a dog to suffer

ZombieKitten said:

Sorry if I wasn't clear: the artist shows us a painting of a dog dying of starvation that they painted from life. In order to make an accurate re-presetation, they had to see the suffering of the dog so that it could be conveyed realistically in the painting. There was a real dog, suffering and dying of starvation, but the viewers only see it through the artist's re-presentation on canvas, not in "real" life. Or a photograph of a starving dog? Those wouldn't be as problematic?

ZombieKitten said:

Sorry if I wasn't clear: the artist shows us a painting of a dog dying of starvation that they painted from life. In order to make an accurate re-presetation, they had to see the suffering of the dog so that it could be conveyed realistically in the painting. There was a real dog, suffering and dying of starvation, but the viewers only see it through the artist's re-presentation on canvas, not in "real" life. Or a photograph of a starving dog? Those wouldn't be as problematic?

jone70 said:

Hmmmm...good one.

I'm pretty sure there are realistic paintings that didn't use EXACT models, though.
Is every piece of art worth making?

ToraToraDreams said:

exactly, it's called using ones imagination

pardonme4livin said:

I am not looking either.

ToraToraDreams said:

exactly, it's called using ones imagination

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]

JustErin 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]