That motherfucking artist is back
 

"In 2007, Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, a so called ‘artist', took a dog from the streets, tied it up to a short rope attached to a wall in an art gallery, and let it slowly dir of hunger and thirst. For various days, the author of this horrible cruelty and the visitors of the gallery were impassible spectators of the poor animal's torture, until it slowly died after an absurd and incomprehensible agony.

Do you think this is cruel?
But the story doesn't end here: the prestigious Biennale Centroamericana of Art has decided, incomprehensibly, that the bestiality committed by the aforementioned individual is art, and in such a way Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat the cruelty at the 2008 Biennale Centroamericanan which will be held in Honduras. LET'S STOP HIM!

Sign here: http://www.petitiononline.com/13031953/petition.html ; you don't have to pay nor register, and its worth doing it so that this man will never be appreciated nor be called an artist for performing such a heinous act, for such an insensitivity and for provoking another beings pain"

I don't know if this is art or not (I remember there was a thread on there about it), but you must stop this motherfucker

the question is this, why did NO ONE, not a worker at the gallery, nor any of the people going in to the gallery, grab a knife and cut down the poor dog?

think about it.

I'd kill the fucker, and give him his notoriety, after cutting down that defenseless dog.

Or just free the dog.
But we should kill him, yeah

or you could shut up and start a petition to end hunger and homelessness among both people and domesticated animals in the poorer war torn regions of latin america.



...but it seems that preventing an artist from provoking thought is a higher priority, so fuck that other stuff, GET THE BAD ARTIST MAN!!!

Even if it is art, it shouldn't be allowed. It's the same thing as saying killing a man and making something cool looking out of his body parts is art.
Personally, I think the guy should have the same thing happen to him as what he did to the dog.

Or both?

Come on, I know that there's some more important stuff, that's obvious. But that does not make weaker causes to ignore totally. As Anngella said, you can do both. As far as I know, by posting this thread I didn't blocked this board so that no one could start a petition to end hunger and homelessness among both people and domesticated animals in the poorer war torn regions of latin america anymore, right?

The whole message of the piece is how comfortable first worlders like yourselves get upset over a dog starving in a gallery than by those dogs and people dying right outside the gallery.

Is one man dying on television more offensive than thousands dying right behind the cameras?

Odd that googling "Biennale Centroamericana" only brings up articles about this 'artist'...

pbradley has a point, definitely
but still
what this cunt did was an unjustifiable act of cruelty

sorry but you were duped.

the dog didn't actually die-- it was a scam to rile up people. at which he succeeded.

well then more power to him. it's still not art.
sorry for my modernist view on this, but some things ARE objective and not subjective.

either way I'd gut the guy. it woudl be fun.

blame the REAL culprits for the stravation and poverty in the third world, their own corrupt poliiticians. the very same people who live in mansions while their countrymen sit in shacks eating garbage and killing children rather than watching them starve

exactly the point the "artist" was trying to make

Cantankerous now suddenly cares about world famine and poverty!

... and then get offended by one dog dying in a gallery.

Since when, to make a "point", are people allowed to kill other animals? At least be decent and kill a human

shut up.

now excuse me, i have to be leaving now because i have a big fucking 22 year old baby to handle.

I thought this thread was about a new release by Prince :(

Regardless of if the dog died or not, what was done to it was still cruel. Making a point doesn't justify cruelty to a completely innocent being. There are other ways he could've gotten the message out to people about animal cruelty (which includes humans).