Post

He Has a Very Lame Excuse.

So in doing some research about Mr. Vargas and his exhibit, it seems he did have a reason for doing it but it's not one that I feel is valid.  Quoted from the website http://guillermohabacucvargas.blogspot.com/

"Here is a part of his original [most recent] statement:"Hello everyone. My name is Guillermo Habacuc Vargas. I am 50 years old and an artist. Recently, I have been critisized for my work titled "Eres lo que lees", which features a dog named Nativity. 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.

 

Now, if you publicly display one of these starving creatures, such as the case with Nativity, it creates a backlash that brings out a big of hypocrisy in all of us. Nativity was a very sick creature and would have died in the streets anyway."   I understand that in his country of Costa Rica stray dogs are not cared for.  It's part of the culture of the country that these animals are not important.  However, I do not understand how he changed anything in his country to have strays cared for.  The exhibit was done in Nicaragua, not his own country that he claims he was trying to raise awareness in.  Maybe it's just me but if I want to bring attention to something I feel is wrong, I'm going to do so by talking to the people involved with the actions that I disagree with.  If he cared so much he could have started an educational campaign in his country, showing how dogs from the streets can be taken care of and turn into healthy pets.  I don't understand what his process of thought was with creating the exhibit.    Supposedly from what I read, he will not be doing this same thing again.  The next exhibit he is in,  "Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008” he will be doing something unrelated to his dog exhibit.    It does bother me that no one that came in contact with the dog released it.  I don't care if I would have been arrested for disturbing his "art" but I would have gone to the dog and taken it off the cord.  Of course I have the means in which to have taken the dog to a vet and if it is true, the dog was very ill, at least have him put down humanely.  The whole thing is disturbing but I'm not sure if I'm more appalled at the artist or the people viewing the dog. 

 

KiaC KiaC 31-35 5 Responses Apr 28, 2008

Your Response

Cancel

Well he certainly got people's attention, now if only these poor creatures will be cared for.

Here's a better idea: MAKE A BEFORE AND AFTER PICTURE! It seems if he had to starve it first, it was OK! But anyways, just paint the thing before it got medical care, give it medical care and whatever else it needs, then paint of picture of the healthy dog! That's what I'd do, it'd raise awarness waaaaaaaay better.

this is sick barbaric, and inhumane its outrageous and this man should be prosecuted. He is lucky he is not coming to an exhibit near me as i would kidnap him and tie him to a bloody wall and watch him die the *****

oh and good point tiny turtle

and who is he to say that Nativity would have died anyway? if he would have given the dog proper medical care instead of starving it, it would have still created awareness (though i understand not as profound) and the dog would still be alive. instead he felt like it was his place to play God and prevent this poor animal from even having a chance at living even if it was just alittle while longer.