Re: [New-Poetry] POL: Prevent the âArtisticâ Death of Another Innocent Animal

[Joseph Duemer]

Steve, your facts do not coincide with the ones I discovered in my research
into this topic. The artist & gallery owner have issues a series of
contradictory & self-serving statements. The original version of the story
is, certainly, exaggerated, but that's not really the point, is it? Do you
really want to make excuses for such a display?

Sorry for posting the link a second time, but here is my take:
http://www.sharpsand.net/2008/04/27/guillermo-vargas-habacuc/

Also:
http://www.sharpsand.net/2008/04/28/animals/

The problem with Vargas' piece, though, is conceptual & ethical, regardless
of what happened to the dog. Literalizing metaphors is, usually, a
sophomoric exercise; in this case, a sophomoric stunt -- whatever its
motives -- made an exhibition of suffering. Your post appears to defend that
exhibitionism. I find that troubling.

jd



On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Steve Moore <s.allen.moore at mac.com> wrote:

> I encountered this some weeks back. After researching into it quite
> extensively, this is what I discovered. The artist and the gallery owner
> secretly fed and cared for the dog, which was a stray they found, at night.
> The dog was actually well treated, other than having to sit around a gallery
> all day (which would bore me to death). Eventually, they released the dog,
> but claimed it had died. The whole point of the exhibit was to show how
> passive and emotionless art world consumers are. how art doesn't impact them
> on a visceral level, it's just an elitist exercise. I think he proved his
> point, but then got more than he bargained for when the story showed up on
> the internets.
> -Steven Allen Moore
>
>

-- 
Joseph Duemer
Professor of Humanities
Clarkson University
Weblog: sharpsand.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20080508/a5fbef25/attachment-0001.html