Is anything allowed within the boundaries of performance art?
His museum installation.
I wonder if this is not as it seems.
The idea of starving a dog to death is bound to provoke a huge reaction, the ‘artist’ surely knows this.
Methinks this unfortunate animal died of something else unrelated, and the ‘artist’ is now using the corpse for his own ends.
I don’t think it would have been half as noteworthy if he had admitted that he had discovered it dead in the street from some disease or whatever.
He is simply a child craving attention.
FYI, that was probably a hoax: http://thepetextraordinarium.blogspot.com/2008/03/starving-dog-exhibit-reported-as-hoax.html
To answer your question, no, making animals or (involuntary) people suffer for art should not be allowed and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, IMHO,
Here is a related pit thread from last year.
The artist sounds like a creep – and a pretentious creep, at that.
A painting or photograph called “Death of A Street Dog,” now that would be art. And, depending on the execution, maybe powerful art.
But this? Not art, as I understand it. But then, I confess to being a low-brow with no understanding of, or appreciation for, performance art.
Cruel? Yes, however, it was made clear the dog was dying anyway - although that doesn’t make it any less cruel and appalling.
Art? Well, performance art is meant to shake things up.
As much as I think this was a cruel and inhumane way to let an animal die, it certainly has proven to be effective. If even 1/10th of the people who have ever seen, or read about this are now more inclined to report animal abuse to authorities, well - then the “artist’s” goal was accomplished.
So it’s just another case of trolling then. Ho hum. And fuck you, Guillermo Habacuc Vargas, you pretentious wanker.
Oops. I thought we were in the pit. Sorry.
The Rev. Palmer Vreedeez told once about he and some pals put out word they were going to napalm a puppy onstage, to show the crowd what a napalming really looked like. (This was during the Vietnam War)
Of course, there was never any puppy, but campus security had to keep these guys from getting hurt by the outraged crowd that gathered for the event.
If a dog was deliberately starved to death in public, there’s no way it wouldn’t get a lot of people out to stop it.
Brings to mind the goldfish in a blender episode.
Hmmm, that gives me an idea…
A row of blenders containing live goldfish.
Under each one, a sign that says ‘choose life or death…’
Under the sign, a big button, covered by a sprung safety cover (you have to hold it back with one hand while you press the button with the other).
If you press the button, high voltage electricity is delivered through the button and the sprung cover - the circuit is completed by the arms and chest of the participant who chose death.
No goldfish will be harmed.
This is not art.
It is at best, nothing more than a vulgar stunt designed to shock as many people as possible. It is at worst a case of terrible animal cruelty. Despite the backpeddling of the museum, I am not thoroughly convinced that the animal received the care it needed. It was obviously a starving dog, and terribly emaciated. If they did indeed fake it’s death and let it go back into the streets, then it’s even worse.
Acid-
A.A.- Fine Arts/ Sculpture
B.F.A.- Fine Arts/Sculpture
no
I like this idea. 
Anything for art.
Is decapitating 50 random people, then displaying their heads on sticks as part of a performance art exhibition OK? Of course not.
“Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, on the mouse organ, ‘Three Blinded White Mice’…”
This is not art because no artist did anything. On a more personal level, it is a very good thing for me and for this filthy sewer trash ‘artist’ I did not witness this.
I wonder if the artist would have good-naturedly received ‘criticism’, if it arrived in the form of someone cutting the rope and taking the dog away to care for it…
(There was, I believe a thematically similar incident where the work of art consisted of a standard ceramic urinal attached to the gallery wall, and a member of the public pissed in it and declared it as criticism - although maybe that story is made up).
I’ve read all of the supposed debunkings and I still have a problem with it. The dog was badly emaciated, so even if it was fed and watered out of the public’s sight, it wasn’t being properly taken care of, or it would have gained weight over the course of the exhibit.
The “artist” misfires in his attempt to show the rest of us hypocritical. If there are dogs starving in the streets of Costa Rican cities, they are not under the control of any humans. Now, if Costa Rica has ample resources to resolve the starving dog issue, then yes, it needs to do so, whether by rounding up the dogs and euthanizing them or whatever other means is humane and culturally acceptable to them. But once a person takes an animal under his/her control, he/she has a moral obligation to take the best possible care of that animal. So if the artist had actually starved a dog to death, he would have been guilty of gross immorality and cruelty. But even if he didn’t, he still had an obligation to take the best possible care of any animal take under his control, and he did not do that. He’s still guilty, he’s still not an artist, and he’s undermined whatever point he was trying to make.