Recently I was sent a forwarded email message regarding the South American artist, Guillermo Vargas Habacuc and his entry at a Biennale which involved a starving dog, tied up without food in a gallery.
With the requisite 'outrage' I was encouraged to sign a petition and forward this message to other friends and colleagues, so that this reprehensible activity can be stopped.
I did not as 'auto-suggested' forward the message on but instead, ruminated on the activity and what I was being asked to do and decided it was time for a 'heated debate'!
I tried looking at it from an artistic perspective first:
'This dog was probably going to die soon anyway. Do most people care or become outraged when they see a starving dog on the street or only when it is in a gallery?
Rather than stop this exhibition would it not be better for everyone who forwards this message to adopt a dog from a pound or lobby for stricter laws around dog control in these countries?
Is this better or worse than Damien Hirst and his fly life-cycle piece, breeding and then killing thousands of flies in a contained space in a gallery, worse why? Because it is a dog!
In this de-sensitised world, maybe we need the acrid whiff of reality to make a point, rather than the bland, sanitised fragrance of an illusion, a metaphor or a symbol which more closely resembles advertising than poignant truth?
What will you think now when you see an emaciated, unhealthy dog, covered in sores in the street (There are plenty of them in 1st world countries)?'My response from the 'forwarder' was that I had some interesting points but perhaps the artist could display himself instead. I replied;
'Yes perhaps the artist should put himself on display in the same manner. Although I bet that people wouldn't care half as much about a starving artist as a they do about a starving dog. The world thinks that is an artists preferred lifestyle anyway. A lifelike model would probably have sufficed and had the same if not greater impact, as people considered it real and then realised it was a model.
Art history is also full of artists pushing the bounds of obscenity and taste in order to illuminate and extend the boundaries of visual discussion. many things that are freely on display now, would have been in another time and another place, obscene and grossly offensive to many including maybe us and in that time perhaps tying a starving dog up in a public place would been normal.'
Finally I considered the moral and political implications of complying with the message and responded;
'I am always alarmed when I am sent material and encouraged/ordered to censor or stop something, especially another artist without any discussion and with the suggestion of a moral duty.
To do this without discussion implies that as long as the cause is 'right' (What reasonable person could not object to this) that no balanced analysis, discussion or any other due process need be applied to the issue.
We are then free to ban, banish, villify, censor and probably lynch the person involved without judge or jury and without disturbing our liberal consciousness - we are not fascists, we are righteous defenders of a righteous cause and anyone opposed to that is 'obviously' wrong.
The irony of which, would have made Hitler happy as a hund!
I am often acccused of being ambivalent, a fence-sitter, devils advocate and worse for refusing to blindly condemn or condone one thing or another without debate and long may that continue. To me no argument is 100% sound, no cause 100% just and nothing is black and white, not even black and white'.
The dangers of moral outrage or 'art'rage are many and well-documented throughout history. It is very easy to become what you oppose as soon as place yourself above or beyond that which you oppose. One logic can contradict another and both can still be right. Right and wrong is and always will be a subjective issue, based upon personal experience and a moral, social or political context.
The exploitation and death of a weak animal at the hands of a stronger animal is neither right nor wrong in the natural world, it is fact because natural balance demands it be so. It is only humans that see this as unfair and that is because we seek things to be perpetually advantageous to us or in accord with us and cannot tolerate anything that suggests otherwise - how unfair is that?!
Just to clarify, I like dogs, I do not condone the harming or maltreatment of dogs in any way and no dogs were harmed during the course of this discussion.
Reverend Schweinhund
If you still feel moral 'art'rage and want to stop this activity and ignore the myriad good points made here, please follow the link: http://www.petitiononline.com/13031953/petition.html
.jpg)
