What is Digg?901 Comments
- ccalabro, on 11/01/2007, -15/+787i'd like to show him some art of my own.
- foopirata, on 11/01/2007, -22/+577Chain him and let him die. Call it "art criticism".
- canewediggit, on 11/01/2007, -26/+555just chain him up and don't feed him until he dies.
- worldthoughts, on 10/26/2007, -5/+486Why the F*CK didn't anybody feed it?!
- Hawker400, on 10/24/2007, -2/+212What the hell ever happened to paint and a canvas?
- rabidmonkey1, on 10/26/2007, -2/+195The patrons who did nothing sicken me more...
- Bukowsky, on 10/26/2007, -4/+190so, he just simply asked them not to feed this dog, and everyone just slowly watched him die? That is some ***** up *****!
- RockMyMonkey, on 10/26/2007, -17/+170I think the art would be better if he was chained up next to the dog and left to die of hunger.
- doktorzee, on 11/01/2007, -89/+224I'd love for the so-called artist to face the death penalty for this. His pointless killing is outrageous and shows that he is without a moral compass. What next, killing a person for "art"? Maybe he also thinks the holocaust to be "art".
- wreckosaurus, on 10/30/2007, -4/+131Didn't artists used to have talent? Seems like art today is just doing weird stuff and then telling people that it's art.
- natedouglas, on 10/24/2007, -40/+147If this is true... then I would call it art. I largely define art as something created by a human that 1) impacts the art world significantly, and 2) evokes emotion or contemplation from an audience, however unschooled. This does both.
And yes, as others have asked with outrage, a serial killer's latest victim can be called art, even art in one of its purest forms. Likewise, the holocaust, or the third reich as a whole.
That doesn't mean that it's a moral act or an excusable act. Art and morality are and should be completely unrelated. I'm a dog lover and I think this is one of the sickest things I've ever seen. That being said, I think the point he made was that people will unwillingly sit by and watch something disgusting happen and won't do a damn thing to help, just because they're instructed not to. If someone had knocked him out and freed the dog, would it have changed the nature of the piece? Absolutely, but it would remain art. It would also be the morally right thing to do, as far as I'm concerned.
He deserves a massive amount of blame for this -- but to suggest that the people who saw this are completely blameless is, to me at least, absurd. Don't sit by and watch an act of injustice -- do something to stop it, and don't stop because of "instructions." Just ***** do it.
Commence digging me down to the nether-realms, unfriending me, flaming me from all sides, etc. - Tenlow, on 10/26/2007, -6/+110Right now my dog is whining because it's a bit windy outside and I havent gone out to cover him up with a blanket yet, and even that makes me feel a little guilty. How the hell could anyone kill a dog for no reason?
- johnroth, on 10/24/2007, -13/+104You people really don't get it. This really is a powerful piece. The dog was already sick and dying. But the fact of the matter is is that none of the viewers of this piece tried to help the poor dog out. They just sat there and followed the rules, and I think thats what the artist was trying to show us. We're still the same after all these years. They did an experiment with people like this many years ago, but nobody was really in any real danger of dying or being hurt. But there was no law telling those people they couldn't feed the dog or attempt to do something about it.
Look at what's happening in the United States. And we citizens all just sit idly by. I'm no ***** different, and I'm disgusted with myself. But I loved what I saw another digg user say the other day. He pleaded with another user from another country.
"What can we do? Seriously? No really, I'm being serious. What can we do to stop this?" - macaddct1984, on 10/21/2007, -12/+90"I'd love for the so-called artist to face the death penalty for this. His pointless killing is outrageous and shows that he is without a moral compass. What next, killing a person for "art"? Maybe he also thinks the holocaust to be "art"."
Does anyone else find this to be comment to be filled with irony? - Error601, on 10/20/2007, -3/+80That has the sound of an Internet chain letter.
- IMADV8, on 10/20/2007, -2/+71It was a living being, and it needlessly suffered and died because of this man's cruelty. Please, excuse me if I have a low opinion of him for that.
- imdeanlabouty, on 10/20/2007, -1/+64Ah, subtlety.
- Identity4, on 10/24/2007, -1/+62they are not art either....
- Fcukbear, on 11/01/2007, -10/+71That's a good point doktorzee, I think so many people (re: snobs) want to push "the line" of decency and get us to think "outside the box" that they end up justifying terrible acts. I liked this quote from the author:
I’m not sure what the cultural bias may have to do with it (as in some countries dogs have less respect as animals), but I agree, and I think that’s what the artist was in fact trying to portray.. That we only care about things after they die. But the fact that he instructed people not to feed it, obviously meant someone showed interest, thereby sort of negating his whole premise..
Inexcusable in any fashion in my opinion.. there are better ways to document this. The picture of the starving, dying african child and the vulture from the National Geographic picture is one thing because there really was nothing to do, but this dog could have been fed, given water, and then released and probably would have done decently for itself on it’s own. Better than being chained down at least. - WaterDragon, on 10/21/2007, -12/+72Yeah there's this amazing piece of ART that we all want to see, that involves his head being splattered onto a canvas!
Bitch! - plaing, on 10/26/2007, -5/+60he should be dropped in a dark forest with a link of sausages around his neck and the smell of wounded fawn on his clothes
- inactive, on 10/20/2007, -9/+63Forget that, just feed him to starving dogs. Televise it.
- Ajajadude, on 10/20/2007, -9/+61Amen to that.
- themastersb, on 10/21/2007, -7/+52I have an art piece. It's called catch a Guillermo Vargas and chain him up until he starves.
- Pxtl, on 10/20/2007, -1/+43And THERE is the art. It's not about the artist, or the dog, its' the fact that nobody did anything. Kitty Genovese as art. That kind of stuff would be really cool, if it weren't for the whole.. y'know... harming innocent life for pleasure thing.
Still, it's been done before, and better, without killing anything as intelligent as a dog. http://tinyurl.com/3awxw4 - alternately, google Nathalia Edenmont for some very pretty photos of very dead animals. - badqat, on 10/21/2007, -7/+46If I shoot him in the skull, splattering his brains on a canvas, is that art? I would think so!
- inactive, on 10/20/2007, -7/+43This is horrific. Starvation has got to be one of the worst ways to go. And to do it to a defenseless animal, well, I hope they give this guy the maximum amount of Jail time possible. He deserves no less.
- DeviantDragon, on 10/19/2007, -6/+41Shoot him and kill him instantly. Call it "performance art."
- wittyname, on 10/20/2007, -4/+39Ironically, he is Michael Vick's favorite artist.
- TrojanGuy, on 10/20/2007, -7/+39This is sickening.
- BlackAle, on 10/20/2007, -4/+36Get your head out of your ass and REALISE not everyone that reads digg is American.
- malkir, on 10/20/2007, -0/+31Or take it down for that matter.
- Scarfy, on 10/19/2007, -15/+45As cliche as it may be, two wrongs don't make a right.
- sdipaola, on 10/27/2007, -5/+32This still smells of being fake, can someone fully verify this. Who isn't going to be outraged by a dog dieing in such a way via hearing on the web. Which at least gives me pause that it needs to be verified.
- bunji, on 10/20/2007, -0/+26Huh? If this doesn't meet your criteria for "needless animal cruelty", WTF does?
- inactive, on 10/20/2007, -1/+27If 90% of people buy into something, that makes it convention. Convention is what laws are based on. Congratulations, you're in the 10% unappreciated minority.
- manageMyRights, on 10/20/2007, -1/+25It's like the Stanford prison experiment but that was ended early for ethical reasons. If he wasn't a sick animal abuser he would have called the whole thing off after making his point and fed the dog.
- emjaymj, on 10/20/2007, -1/+24Apparently you missed the "needlessly" part. People kill ants because they're pests and cause problems. This guy paid kids to go FIND him a dog.
- eschompthis, on 10/24/2007, -4/+27animal torture just infuriates the ***** out of me. OMG the picture with the people in the background just ***** kills me. ***** him ***** him ***** him
- opiniastrous, on 10/19/2007, -2/+25Worldthoughts, I think that may have been the message he was trying to communicate. He was seeing whether or not people would be merciful towards the animal and willing to break his 'no feeding' rule. Stanley Milgram ran a famous psychological experiment (now called the 'Milgram experiment') where individuals were told to electrocute a person behind a wall (the electrocutions were fake). They could not see the person being electrocuted, but they could hear their screams and pleas to stop. Nevertheless, the large majority continued to up the electrocution level (to the level marked "Dangerous") when they were told to do so by an authority figure (an observing scientist).
I think this art exhibition was essentially the same thing. I think he was probably trying to make people subordinate themselves to authority until they realised how easily they placed authority before their own morality. When the dog died, perhaps the people who went by it and did nothing realised that instead of simply obeying the rules, they should have taken a stand. Although there might have been a better way to do it, I think his point (as I understand it) was valid and very important. After all, it is not just in this instance that people have unethically subjugated themselves to authority. The Nuremberg defence is based on that very idea! That people are not responsible because they are just "following orders". You never know, next time something unethical happens, someone might do something because they were influenced by this very art exhibition. - Shigglyboo, on 10/24/2007, -10/+33yeah, as an artist, gonna have to say that is not art. you could debate it, but i wouldn't be swayed. this is something he should have talked about, or painted a picture of, not done in real life.
- luvs2spooge, on 10/21/2007, -10/+32If you think a person who killed one dog deserves the death penalty, I'd hate to hear what you think the penalty for people who commit homicide and torture other humans should be...
- NoStoppingUs, on 10/19/2007, -1/+23Put him in a jail cell with a large tranny named Hank, and
wait..what? - orangekid13, on 10/20/2007, -1/+23Mine's called "red mist syndrome" medium is blood on canvas. It's from my "revenge for the dog you sick *****" period.
- ghostlywind, on 10/20/2007, -3/+25Mine comes in blue, black and purple colors, you will also see orange and white then complete black.
- mgrest, on 10/19/2007, -2/+24Did you really need to specify "in real life"? Was this to make a distinction between how you would deal with him if you met him on Second Life?
- DogHumpsMonkey, on 10/20/2007, -1/+20Launch them off a high speed catapult into a brick wall? And the splat could be called art. It's win-win!
- shitdrummer, on 10/21/2007, -3/+22I see a lot of (albeit justified) outrage here and a lot of people are commenting that they would have done something to help the poor animal if they had seen it. I just wonder how many homeless people you all pass each week who are sick, hungry, mentally ill, who are perfectly capable of being helped/treated/saved? You don't think that perhaps even one of those homeless people you ignored might have died because you didn't do something? It is a tragedy that the poor dog had to suffer that way. But at least learn the powerful message the artist was trying to convey by sacrificing the animal. We all have the power to help, no matter who says not to. Just like that guy in the US who was arrested and charged for feeding the homeless. (his case was thrown out in the end). ***** the rules. Help those who need help. At least just think for your ***** self!
- jhdteacher, on 10/20/2007, -4/+22bless the beasts and the children...for in this world they have no voice (except mine and yours)
SPEAK UP FOR ANIMALS, PEOPLE! - Opheleum, on 10/19/2007, -2/+19'late': Michael Vick is dead?
How drunk are you? -
Show 51 - 100 of 873 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is