Monday, October 3, 2011

Art Reaction: What is Art?

Art is a form of expression, but that expression should be portrayed without causing physical, mental, or any type of harm to another person or creature. In the case of Guillermo Habacuc Vargas’s piece, where he put a starving dog on display in a museum and asked the patrons to not feed or water it: this would not classify as art. Yes, anyone could have (in opposition to the posted restraint) given the poor, dying creature at least a small morsel or ration of water, but that isn’t really the point. The act of confining the canine to one room, eliminating all means of survival, and then allowing people to view and interact around the creature is, to be frank, inhuman and cruel. This poor animal suffered great amounts of pain, depression, and starvation before he finally decided to release his will to live. How, in any sense of the “composition”, is this right? This poor dog had no means of speaking for itself, let along fighting for its right to live. This project was done against the animals will, and therefore, should not be considered art. Now, if Guillermo would have locked himself in a room and refused to give his body any of the nutrients needed for survival, then, yes, I would allow that to be considered art because he was acting in accordance to his own free will.



The last thing that really pains me, is the fact that Guillermo was act to repeat the heinous exhibit a second time. Not only was he sick and twisted enough to put one creature through this, but a committee of multiple people loved his “art” enough to ask him to condemn another innocent creature to death? It makes my stomach cringe to even think of such a thing happening twice.

1 comment: