Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

This really makes my blood boil :@

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Caz V1, Apr 15, 2008.

  1. Just read about this on another forum, the more I read about it the angrier I get.
    The more I learn about the human race, the more I love my dog.
    Some people are just whacked, they need to be exterminated.

    And they call this SH1T "ART" :? :evil:

    Snipped from another forum


    Hi all,
    this is a very serious matter...

    In the 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, he tied him to a rope in an art gallery, starving him to death.

    For several days, the 'artist' and the visitors of the exhibition have watched emotionless the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, until eventually he died.

    Does it look like art to you?

    But this is not all ... the prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of the Central American decided that the 'installation' was actually art, so that Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the biennial of 2008.

    Let's STOP HIM!!!!!

    Click on the following link :



    http://www.petitiononline.com/13031953/petition.html or just copy it in your browser to sign a petion to stop him to do it again, then digit the name Guillermo Vargas Habacuc to find the petition to sign.

    Please do it.

    It's free of charge and it will only take 1 minute to save the life of an innocent creature.

    Please also send this e-mail to as many contact as you can... Let's stop him!!!

    If you want to double check all the above informations you can google the name of the 'artist' to see all I have just said corresponds to truth.

    Thank you
  2.  Top
  3. witnessing a person mistreating animals is one of the very few things that have made me violently angry.when it comes to cruelty to animals i will always act first and consider my consequences later.
    humans behaving like that is intolerable.
  4. The article that reported this wouldn't have been published about 15 days ago would it?
  5. this is his 'defense':

    "Hello everyone. My name is Guillermo Habacuc Vargas. I am 50 years old and an artist. Recently, I have been critisized for my work titled "Eres lo que lees", which features a dog named Nativity. The purpose of the work was not to cause any type of infliction on the poor, innocent creature, but rather to illustrate a point. In my home city of San Jose, Costa Rica, tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the streets and no one pays them a second thought.

    Now, if you publicly display one of these starving creatures, such as the case with Nativity, it creates a backlash that brings out a big of hypocrisy in all of us. Nativity was a very sick creature and would have died in the streets anyway."

    then why doesn't he start a fkn dog home rather than tie one up for show :evil:
  6. He does make a very interesting point though. Why do people get so worked up over one dog starving to death in a gallery, but happily ignore the tens of thousands dying elsewhere.
    Don't get me wrong I despise modern art with a passion, but this does illustrate an interesting thing about human attitudes. After all how many people who donated money to the Tsunami appeal for example are still sending money to Indonesia, India etc. to prevent people dying from disease. I'm guessing very, very few for the simple reason that the death and disease is now no longer right in front of them and therefore not something that concerns them anymore.
  7. i hear you and it is a valid point but it still doesn't excuse knowingly and consciously letting one specific animal die in your power rather than helping it live. Amnesty International doesn't choose to torture humans live on show to make its point and yet plenty of people continue to support them. Same with RSPCA and other animal protection organisations. they may show images of how animals are appallingly mistreated in various countries/industries etc but won't do it themselves to make the point. There are other ways to bring issues to the attention of the masses and rally support than perpetuate the mistreatment yourself - and that is HIS hypocracy, not that of the masses watching.
  8. The stray dogs are not usually tied up, so can 'fend' for themselves, but a tied up dog represents domestication, which is then abuse.

    This brings up a good point of what is art. I heard of one where it was a dirty bathtub, and the cleaner not realising it was art cleaned it
  9. I think that's along bow that even I wouldn't have drawn, jd. We have children prosecuted for mistreating a kitten on a railway station, but it's OK to let a dog die in the name of art? How long will it be before an 'artist' (Leonardo would turn in his grave) kills a HUMAN in the name of art??
  10. I don't think anywhere jd is saying it is right, just that it is a valid identification of the hypocracy, in Turn I also agree with Carri that the "Artist" Has also displayed a distinct hypocracy of his own.
    As for Leonardo, he did pay grave robbers to get him corpses to study and that was recorded, so who knows what he may or may not have done unrecorded.
  11. Fair point in every point!

    I wonder still that we are expected to allow all sorts of excesses from 'art' which are unacceptable in normal society. If I displayed a glass case with a crucifix swimming in urine in my front yard, I'd be told to remove it because it's offensive, but the same rules don't apply if I call it 'art'.
  12. I support his message, not his method per se.
    Of course I can see this heading off into a lengthy morale debate on why torture+execution is bad, but "painless" execution is fine. Okay so vegans could take the moral highground on this but for most other people being concerned for a dog in a museum (particularly when you're not even sure if it even exists) is somewhat hypocritical if you're not concerned about the welfare of whatever animal you ate for dinner last night.

    The interesting philosophical point to ponder is that if that dog was going to starve to death anyway, then surely it is better to have that death and suffering mean something? (It worked for Jesus :LOL:).

    Interesting you should mention Da Vinci though Hornet, given that he did have a propensity towards stealing corpses. Obviously not the same as killing them himself but for strongly religious types of the time having your body desecrated after death was considered worse than death itself (since it meant no afterlife for them). And at the time even Da Vincis art was considered socially unacceptable, even illegal (which is why much of it was kept secret).
  13. I agree, but I doubt Loenardo would have tied a dog up to a tree and watched it die and called it art, though, don't you?? :)
  14. No He would have called it science.
  15. No, he would have strapped it to a bench and dissected it live like most of the other animals he studied.
  16. I hope that the original incident in the thread is an urban legand but the series of *very* similar dog killings in the Bendigo area are not :evil:

    The original article which was on the front page in the Bendigo Advertiser included a large very disturbing photo of the dog tied to the tree and still upright but strangled and dead and lead to a lot of complaints from people about the image. Personally I support their running that picture it attracted more attention to the case.

    A summary of the article is available here... http://www.bendigo.yourguide.com.au/articles/1220987.html?src=topstories

    A reward has been offered for information etc etc.
  17. I'd like to think I'm fairly tough, and I've seen some fairly horrific sights, but that pic (in the Bendigo paper) made me alternately want to (a) kick 7 forms of sh1t out of the animal/s who did it, or (b) puke!
    Actually (a) should be amended to showing the animals what it felt like!

    As far as the sicko who wants to run his "exhibition" don't get me started.
  18. Not really as I don't plan on eating dog (I know some cultures enjoy it). And the animals that are eaten are breed just for that sole purpose.

    But like you said, you are not even sure if it is real
  19. Hmm there's an interesting philosophical point right there. If I read that correctly you're going with the argument that as long as an animal is bred into captivity for the purpose of slaughter then it's fine to do whatever you want with it - it's only cruel if it's an animal that was once free or domesticated.
    It's certainly not an uncommon view but the dangerous part is that it's often also applied to humans. A good example being illegal immigrants, many people are okay with them being mistreated on the basis that "at least it's better than what they had".
    Human empathy is an interesting thing. People can get upset about a dog being mistreated but at the same time have no problems whatsoever with stepping on a spider, poisoning rats and mice or even killing fish by asphyxiation.