"
This is pulled from an email i got today...
"In 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope in an art gallery, and starved 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."


"Hello everyone. My name is Guillermo Habacuc Vargas. I am 50 years old and an artist. Recently, I have been criticized 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."


I am an art lover, and a dog lover.  So i am broken hearted to see the desecration of both in one exhibition.  Habacuc is one of the many contemporary sensationalists that incorporates the reactions of the viewer into their art. This is a common trend in contemporary art - and will continue to be. Art is expressive in nature, and truly good art is supposed to elicit something from the viewer. It's supposed to engage.

But where are the lines? When does an act of art deviate into a crime? And what is more important?
Street dogs in South and Central America have a very different existence than they do in the US. They are not pampered. There is also less attention to their well being because of poverty and poor living conditions for humans. He raises awareness about the conditions of these animals, but like much art, there is a context that it needs to be taken in.

When you view a  triptych, it is in context: when it is seen in single pieces, it loses a portion of its value as a work of art. The same goes for an altarpiece or ornamental frieze. Art has context. A criticism of the Louvre is that the galleries removed too much of the work from its original context which takes away the intended impact (also a criticism of the Salons in 18th and 19th century Paris)

Instillation art is problematic, in that it must, by definition, contextually install the work of art into the space it is being displayed. It can fail miserably, and often does because the artist does not understand the effect the gallery will have on their work. The factor of context is over looked or miscalculated.
  
The "art" that Habacuc was trying to portray was out of context. A starving dog on the street and the indifference society felt was the scenario (he claims, although he has made several conflicting statements regarding his intent) that made him feel something, and it is the scenario that he wanted the viewer to engage. He misses the mark by removing the dog from the streets and starving it in front of spectators. His manipulation of the situation devalues it as art, and  makes it cruel. The "reaction" he was attempting to get (assuming it was not malicious) is lost because of his presentation of "art". Because of these factors, his work is no longer a reflection of society.
By maintaining control of the dogs intake of food and water (by starving the dog intentionally) he corrupts the scenario of a dog who starves "naturally" in the streets. He removes nature from the "art" and by doing this makes his work self centered. It does not prove that humans are selfish hypocritical, but rather,  how selfish and hypocritical one man is.  This not only devalues his attempt at enlightenment, but reeks of vanity and self adoration. The fact that humans are cruel is not novel. The hardships of the world are represented in many ways by many artists (including disturbing social commentaries by Goya, Rivera, Kahlo, Dicks, Bacon, Hirst, Ofili...). What Habacuc fails to do is represent his perspective.
Habacuc should have considered the importance of his cause, and his actual motivations when deciding how to express this emotion. The message he was attempting to communicate is lost in this piece of "art" because of its lack of creativity and cruelty at the cost of an innocent street dog. 

Thank God Habacuc was not trying to enlighten the world about starving children. His logic only contributes to the disgusting society that he attempts to comment on.

If you want to sign a petition banning this, click below.

http://www.petitiononline.com/13031953/petition-sign.html