A few months ago, artist Guillermo Habacuc Vargas was all over the news as people protested his most recent exhibit: After paying two boys to capture a stray dog on the street, he tethered the dog to a very short rope attached to the wall of the art gallery, without access food or water. It was enclosed in a separate room that allowed visitors and patrons to walk past, watching the dog sleep and pace back and forth. The entire event appeared under words, written on the wall, made out of dog food: “Eres Lo Que Lees” (You are what you read).

Some news stations reported that the dog died from starvation, while the gallery owner and Vargas himself adamantly stated that the dog was well fed the entire time and ended up escaping on its own.

When asked about the purpose of his work, Vargas originally made these statements:

"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."

Countless petitions have been formed to try to arrest Vargas for animal abuse, to boycott his work, and to stop him from ever repeating the exhibit.



Here's the kicker: It was a hoax.

Apparently (and I say this with a bit of a wink), the entire point of the art show was to be a stunt. He wanted to get people all worked up about a starving dog in the gallery, only to point out how little they care about starving dogs on the street. He's exposing the population as a group of "hypocritical sheep." Both he and the gallery owner worked together to give the illusion of a starving dog and spreading the rumor that it had died, while it was in fact quite well fed and let lose at the end of the final show.

This was a conceptual work meant to point out a very real social problem.



There's so much to discuss that I think we all need some spoons:
- How did you feel when you first heard about this exhibit? Were you outraged?
- Do you feel a bit betrayed that this was all planned out?
- What should happen to Vargas? Should he be allowed to recreate this same show?
- Do you think this "hoax" was just a publicity stunt to make Vargas seem like the genius? Or did he just manipulate the situation as he went along? Was it really planned, or did the guy just think on his feet?

And for the deep thinkers out there:
- Is this "art"?
- How far can art go before it becomes harmful to society?
- Do you see a difference in the "art" of the original and the "art" of the hoax? Does it change your perception of the exhibit?

I've heard about this, and signed a petition against him doing this again.
I was disgusted and enraged that so many people stood by and watched as a poor creature was forced to starve and die. If I was there, I would have called management, or taken the dog myself.
Vargas should not be allowed to recreate this stunt. It's animal cruelty. Not art.
I don't think it was really all planned out. He probably took advantage of people's emotions as they formed, and turned them to his advantage.

It's so wrong, and is not art in any way. Though, how far can art go before harming people, I'm not sure. Art is in some way bound to offend someone at some time. I'm sure there are people out there who don't like the Mona Lisa. But when a mass amount of people are against a form of expression, there must be something ethically wrong with what the artist is doing to express their views.

If it's true that the dog was killed in the process, then I completely agree. Ending a life is not art, it's abuse. There are plenty of ways of raising awareness without harming an actual animal.

But would it change your mind at all if this was all planned?
After all, it isn't the message here that I disagree with, just the execution. If the animal was treated well, and the gallery was only open for a few hours each day, I really wouldn't have any problems with Vargas.

The way I heard the story, the dog did indeed die.

Even if it was all planned, it's still cruel to have a dog kept in an art gallery as an exhibition piece. It is not a piece of art; it's an animal that needs to be cared for.

I believe they shouldn't have used the dog to prove a point. There were many other possible ways to prove their point without tying up a dog in the gallery.

And if the dog did die, I guess their plan got a little out of hand.
I think their possible bet was to just take pictures of people while walking past a stray dog in the street. I've seen people do this, without even glancing at them. And then to see people when in a debate thinking "Oh, all those poor animals!".

When I see a stray, I try my best to feed them [if they appear to not have rabies] or call a pound. That way, there will at least be food, water, and shelter for them. And even a possible way to be adopted into a new family where there will be warmth for them.

Thats sick. And that isnt art. D=

That's horriable. I wouldn't call that art at all.

well, art is a form of expression. Although this was cruel, it made a point. He could have made his point in a different way, though.
But think about it, if the dog really did die, or was dying, the authorities would have been called because animal abuse is illegal. I think it was planned and the dog is fine.

If the dog wasn't harmed and the whole thing was a planned hoax from the beginning, then I'd say it's a damn smart idea and very funny.

It's the way our world works: nobody notices and nobody cares until we get a martyr. Once we have a tragedy to rally behind, we attack the aggressor without abandon. And maybe the aggressor wasn't even that bad compared to things that are slipping under the radar while people are freaking out.... and the media dramatizes and fucks facts up to the point where we don't KNOW what's true.

But honestly, I doubt they killed a dog. I mean, it was in a gallery, right? What gallery owner/manager would risk getting PETA or the ASPCA up their ass (assuming it's a legit gallery)?

i had never heard about such a sick perspective of art in my life. This is what makes me ashamed to be an artist, taking an innocent animal away from it's environment to do such a thing? i hadnt read the entire first post, but in my opinion, that man should have the same fate as the dog did,

treat those with dignity and respect, it will follow you through life and you shall get the same thing. That's the philospophy of Karma and Dharma

I do believe it was probably planned. Because, I'm sorry, I doubt an actual art gallery would LET an animal actually starve to death, even if it is in another country.

I think a lot of people who have responded so far did read the full post and need to.

I think it's brilliant, really. Then again, even if the dog did die, why is it that 'kill one, save many' only applies to people? If his intetnion was to get people to notice it and get all riled up about it so they pay attention to the other starving dogs out there in his country, what better way to do it??

Seriously. If you're trying to get something done about something that is wrong. IT HAS TO GET NOTICED. If no one notices what is wrong except a select few, very little will get done.

I did hear about this project.
In fact, when I heard about it, there were also pictures of it.
In the pictures, the dog was indeed visibly malnourished and underfed.

Because of this, I do agree that Vargas was just saying all that jazz about society to cover up the fact that he abused a dog.

Also, when I heard about this story, it was in an exhibit that was open (something like) 18 hours a day. At no time was there ever food given to the dog. Apparently, people also watched it die.
(I will try to find the original article that I'm talking about. If I do, I'll post it here.)

It's a cruel form of art, indeed. I can hardly understand how such a thing can be considered art.

The funny thing is, however, if it were a human in this situation instead of a dog, the uproar would've been way louder.

I don't really consider that art... just a man making an excellent point.

I bet it was a hoax, made by someone intelligent enough to see all the flaws in our society. He's exactly right; we don't give a crap about something until it is stuffed in our faces. Why is it that we make a huge uproar about one dog dying of starvation while we blissfully ignore all the others starving on the street? Why, when you could sign a petition and save one dog (who is actually getting food and water, mind you) wouldn't you go out and help the hundreds of dogs who are roaming the streets instead?

While I do not particularly agree with using a live animal as an art piece, I also see no better way to perform the little exhibition. People do not pay attention until you shock them. A man on his soapbox does nothing, but the prospect of a dog being abused rises our pathetic sense of morality and forces us to respond.

And I agree with serafim_azriel. Even if the dog did die, he doubtlessly raised awareness of the starving dogs everywhere. If one dog died, but many others were saved, it is for the greater good.

I want to start by saying that I am an avid animal lover and frankly think animal abuse is one of the worst crimes known to man.

However I don't think Vargas is an abuser - I think he's a genius.

The more convinceing reports I've heard said the dog was a stray, only displayed for three hours and was feed when not being viewed (ie behind-the-scenes).Unfortunatly the dog ran away after only one day.So if the dog did die it was while it was on the streets - just like thousands of other dogs do.

I perticularly liked a comment I heard from the artist that despite all the uproar no one who walked through the exhibit tried to feed the dog, untie it or call the police.I think that speaks volumes about people.They love to lay blame but take no action to change it! Isn't that ironic?

In my honest opinion, I don't believe that the dog was ever abused. I'm going to side with Vargas on this - If his intention was to stir public interest, why would he feel the need to actually harm the animal when deception would have been so easy?

Even looking at this from a strict business point of view, it would have just made sense for the animal to be well kept and taken care of. If the dog were to die, that's the end of the exhibit. Vargas would have had to quickly find another animal to take it's place. It would have interrupted the entire piece, especially if the dog passed away while the gallery was open and the public saw it happen.

From all the reports I heard, the gallery was indeed only open for three hours a day, and the dog was taken out of the room after that time.

Originally Posted by serafim_azriel

I do believe it was probably planned. Because, I'm sorry, I doubt an actual art gallery would LET an animal actually starve to death, even if it is in another country.

I think a lot of people who have responded so far did read the full post and need to.

I think it's brilliant, really. Then again, even if the dog did die, why is it that 'kill one, save many' only applies to people? If his intetnion was to get people to notice it and get all riled up about it so they pay attention to the other starving dogs out there in his country, what better way to do it??

Seriously. If you're trying to get something done about something that is wrong. IT HAS TO GET NOTICED. If no one notices what is wrong except a select few, very little will get done.

I agree completely. Why is it that people get so pushed out of shape with animal abuse when many people die every day. They get so freaked out about that. And yes animals are innocent. But what makes people any more or less innocent than animals. I say, the only difference is that we have money and we run the world. People and animals behave in almost the same way. Money is to people as food is to animals. People are just seen as more intelligent because we run our huge civilization. But we can't run the earth.

Hm...if what he says is true, and the dog was well-fed throughout the whole thing...then wow. He made an amazing point. Stray animals are a neglected issue and he addressed it in an ingenious way.
If the dog was abused, that's just horrible and cruel.
Was this art? To me, no. But I've never been one to take in this whole "modern art" thing.

Wow... well yes it made him seem like a genius... he basically slapped them in the face with their own comments...

Art is made to make a point... he just used real life as the "picture"

Leave it to the "art" community to use killing as a means of expression.

I had not heard of this untill now.
This would make me very mad but I do understand his point.
Man people will complain about something but never do anything about it.

He was proving a point but I don't think it would work again.

Thats NOT art!!! Its called abuse. Its against the law here in the U.S. purposely not giving a dog food or water is abuse. D=
How would you like it someone did that stuff to you? If it was a hoax thats really messed up. That person is mentally ill. We already know how dogs and animals get abused, theres no need to be an insane person and make a hoax just to make a point when people are already aware of the abuse.

This is not art at all. It is abuse, and stupidity. The idea of starting a rumor that the dog died was stupid, and only for fame or reaction. Things for fame and reaction are silly and cause faults in community that are not needed.

- How did you feel when you first heard about this exhibit? Were you outraged?

I felt at the first words I read that this was really just another desplay of the things that humans find sickningly entertaining. I felt that Vargas like others felt animals where below us and that there lives held very little meaning. I guess I am wrong and in that sence I am happy.

- Do you feel a bit betrayed that this was all planned out?

Do I feel betrayed....hm...no I feel perhaps I was tricked but not betrayed. I am a pessimist by nature...a realist. In nine out of ten situations the reverse would have been true from what really played out here. I feel I like many others assume the truth based on what we have known in the past to be true.

- What should happen to Vargas? Should he be allowed to recreate this same show?

Should Vargas be allowed to repeat this again? Yes I truely feel this is a valid point. So long as it is closely monitered and made sure that it really is a hoax then absolutely. People really need to see the truth with there own eyes......most of them refuse to see the truth. I myself am a person who takes in strays, brings them to health and finds them homes....and so I agree with the point of the experiment.

- Do you think this "hoax" was just a publicity stunt to make Vargas seem like the genius? Or did he just manipulate the situation as he went along? Was it really planned, or did the guy just think on his feet?

Well I feel that perhaps this really may be a hoax within a hoax as so many things we are told are I would like to feel that there is some truth behind this. It makes me happy to know there are people out there who truely care and therefore I would like to assume that this is not a hoax within a hoax.

And for the deep thinkers out there:

- Is this "art"?

No, I dont feel it is art but I do feel it raises a valid point.

- How far can art go before it becomes harmful to society?

On the surface art will always be just art. It becomes the society's perception of the art that cases the harm upon itself. I do feel that the influence of art does become an issue that truely should be monitored at times
.

- Do you see a difference in the "art" of the original and the "art" of the hoax? Does it change your perception of the exhibit?

There really is a difference between how we first precieve the "starving dog" and how we later precieve him. I feel there is a beauty in the whole this that works off the way the human mind works. The human mind works in many strange ways making the assumtions that we can not always point out from the reality. We would see the exibit and come to the assumption that the dog is starving without really taking the time to look at the whole picture. We can not see the whole picture and therefore our mind fills in the blanks.

I still feel outraged hoax or no hoax thats not a very nice thing to do.

:angry: i may be wrong to say this but if he but a dog in a box with no way to get food or water he should be put in a box with no way to get food or water, he's just lucky PETA or th ASPCA didn't get wind of his "art" show :angry: