Please sign this petition to help save a dogs life!

[Jeanne]

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 watched emotionless the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, until eventually he died

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

PLEASE HELP STOP HIM. It takes a second to help put a stop to animal abuse.


Sign the petition, today;
http://www. petitiononline. com/ea6gk/petition-sign. html


Warning, the following images are VERY disturbing, this is what he did to his last victim:

 

[goReptiles]

I can't get the link to work. :-\

 

[Jeanne]

Sorry! Try this one:

http://www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition.html

 

[SanDiegoLeos]

wow...i signed it...what a horrible story...that man needs to be tied to a rope and starved

 

[goReptiles]

I signed. I posted the link and the pictures on 1 forum and 1 message board. Or rather I'm working on it.

 

[Jeanne]

I signed. I posted the link and the pictures on two other forums.

Thank you Whitney!

Everytime I think about how frightened, hungry, and how sad this dog must have been, it makes me want to cry. Why do Humans have to be so cruel!

 

[goReptiles]

I just did a search, and one place said that the dog didn't die but escaped... ?

One site said,

In his defence, the artist has claimed that what he was attempting to prove was that those who saw the suffering of the dog just walked on by and that if it had been left on the street to die, no-one would have even known of its existence.

It has also been reported that the dog did not die but escaped, and that it had been fed by Vargas and was only tied up during the gallery opening times. It has not been possible to confirm this.

one said it was a hoax: http://thepetextraordinarium.blogspot.com/2008/03/starving-dog-exhibit-reported-as-hoax.html

Supposidly they unleasehd the dog at night and let it dig through the trash.. Even still they should have left a bowl of dog food and a bowl of water out for him.

 

[Jeanne]

In his defence, the artist has claimed that what he was attempting to prove was that those who saw the suffering of the dog just walked on by and that if it had been left on the street to die, no-one would have even known of its existence.

Well, at least if he was on the streets he could try to get food, and he wouldn't be tied up on a short rope.

It has also been reported that the dog did not die but escaped, and that it had been fed by Vargas and was only tied up during the gallery opening times.

God I hope this is true! But even if it is true, it does not make me change my mind about not wanting him to do it again.

 

[goReptiles]

I'm getting pounded with statements of 'this is a hoax' from a bunch of people. Those people saying that

The dog was't starved, folks.

The artist was trying to make a point that these kinds of things happen, not only in the animal world but in human society.

People starve to death, physically, emotionally and financially, and the rest of the world just passes them by.

It's not a matter of animal cruelty. That dog they used was a stray they picked up off the street. If anything, that exhibit treated the dog better than it got out in the alleys of a metropolitan area - it had warmth, shelter, food and drink for the duration of the exhibit. Look beyond the rage of seeing this poor dog in the state it was in, and to the bigger picture of the meanings there."

Basically, to me says, forget the dog, let him starve, what about the people... Well the people weren't put on display. A dog that could have been saved was.

Even if he was let lose at night to rumage the garbage, I haven't found a source saying he was properly fed and given water. The dog is from the streets, but he was still saveable. If he could still walk and stand up, which are seen in the pictures, then he could have been saved, as he still had the will to live.

So, personally, it's still animal cruelty because they didn't try to save a dog in need.

 

[Jeanne]

Until someone shows me proof that someone fed that dog, gave him water, and gave him proper exercise, then I still stand firm in that I don't think he should be allowed to run the "Exhibit" again.

 

[goReptiles]

Oh definitely. Even letting him rummage the trash, is not adequate enough by any means. I think that the dog really could have been saved, and that enough is cruelty to not help him. I will still stand by the petition that he shouldn't be allowed to do it again because he would subject another dog to that torture.

 

[leolover2]

I signed it. Even if it was fed, im not taking a chance. Something in the upstairs of this man is broken. That poor dog...how is this art?

 

[Leonardo]

1. art has been defined in many ways. but what i always was taught from all my art professors and teachers and instructors over the years is that art is man made.
that is anything designed, created, or produced by man can be considered art.
a building is art, a tree is not. a movie is art, the mountains in it are not. an installation of arranged prekilled and taxidermied animals could be art, not a live dog.
therefor, this is a false claim of art.
an expression, perhaps, but not art. and does not belong in an art gallery.

2. it is animal cruelty not only if it was really starved to death but if he is not getting adequate food and water and medical assistance.

art galleries are not exempt from the law. there are animal cruelty laws they would have to abide by if they were going to do this. if they did not, they would get fined and thrown in jail by the officials.

 

[Leonardo]

i read it and signed it. but costa rica may not have the same animal cruelty laws as the usa does. it is considered cruelty by our standards and should be sickening to all, but it may not be a crime there.

although it is still a false claim of art. the definition of art is the same all around the world for everyone.
the photos themselves could be considered art. but that dog is not!