Guillermo Vargas "Habacuc"
I received via mass emailing a plea for me to sign a petition to protest the art of Guillermo Vargas "Habacuc" who will be representing Costa Rica in the Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008. His work regarding the starvation of a stray and emaciated dog in a gallery setting has created quite an international stir but as always, whenever i get something so fueled with emotions, i feel a need to check out the story. There are some sad photos that came with the email which you can find on the web. Here is the letter and response from Snopes.com, the de-bunker of myths and urban legends. If the director of the gallery is truthful and there seems to be no reason to believe otherwise, the dog was fed and taken care of but escaped. The artist was trying to highlight the hypocrisy of people who view such dogs in the street and ignore them versus seeing the dog front and center in the gallery and being repulsed and outraged by it. I think the artist makes a good point. The senders of the emails, while very well intentioned, believe that the dog was mistreated and allowed to die a painful and undignified manner, did not do a quick check on the facts, and the story has gone viral. I trust Snopes.com to get to the bottom of the story. It could be that the artist is a cold hearted bastard but based on the facts, i see no reason to sign the petition. Check out the Snopes hottest urban legends.
Comments
There is no proof available since the dog is conveniently gone via whatever method, but simple logic fails to support the ideas that a previously starving dog who is being suddenly fed and cared for a) will want to escape, and b) would have the strength or wits to do so if confined by even marginally intelligent humans.
Furthermore, that other humans and animals are also starving is not reason to allow any particular one to do so. Having caught the dog and used it in this exhibit confers responsibility to care for it on the person who did so.
It is also suggestive that Vargas has given several different statements and justifications for his acts, including honoring a burglar who was attacked by a guard dog.
Face it, folks, you just don't want to believe that this happened, and you can rest easier if you think it didn't. So you find ways to justify it. Even the website you are relying on for your information calls this issue unresolved.
My personal inclination is to disbelieve this story as so many others before it have been shown to be demonstrably false. The internet has allowed the well intentioned but gullible to circulate rumours with frightening speed. All it takes is a few teenagers going "aaaaahhhh" and something's almost news.
I would be interested to see a credible interview with the artist. As to the changing of the story, well if it is performance art, then that fits in. The artist is as much part of the exhibit as the exhibit itself. It is entirely possible that the whole things is merely a web based hoax, either by the artist or by some other person. It's strangely convenient that it happened in a far-off country of which we know little ((C) Neville Chamberlain, 1938)
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/news/story/0,,2269320,00.html
http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/2341_no_excuses_for_cruelty.cfm?searchterm=guillermo_vargas
Even if the dog didn't die in the gallery, the use of a sentient creature that is clearly in need of medical attention in an exhibit is nothing short of inhumane and cruel.
Another defining aspect of our humanity being the ability to inflict great cruelty.
Tying a starving dog up in a gallery even for a minute is wrong, in basic terms of decency.
The only thing this sad man (GVH) achieved was to cause those of us with a heart to feel depressed.
I can only hope something happens to him one day which causes his opinion of humanity to change, not to mention his lack of respect for other living creatures.
When I first got here, I used to not throw away chicken bones or any kind of food that was left over for the purpose of giving it to those dogs, well now with time I have grown more callus because there is just too many of them and no one does anything about it. The few bones a small female gives will not really impact any dog, not really.
My point is, this artist is only trying to make people realize that we truly are Hippocrates, that we become sickened by seeing the dog in a very unexpected place as is a gallery, but we walk by those dogs every single day and feel nothing anymore because we think there is nothing we can do about it. But perhaps there is something to be done, picking them up and putting them out of their misery is probably one of the things that could be done. Governments in these countries don’t care, but if the people, the ones that are driving the nice cars, the ones that have money (which by the way I am sure are the ones going to see the art display at the gallery) if these people give 25 cents towards a fund that helps to pick the dogs up, sterilize the females in order to stop reproduction, and sacrifice the ill dogs for there not to be more disease, this would have a better impact on society than signing a petition. Only people that have seen these dogs can comment on this. If you have never seen a dog in these conditions, you truly cannot comment. And the artist is right, these dogs do die in misery anyway, he did that dog a favor, IF the dog died under his custody (which we don’t know) but IF he did die, he died comfortable, in an air conditioned space, probably not thirsty because surely someone gave him at least water, a MUCH BETTER death than dying in the streets, thirsty and worse of all hot.
The "artist" should have found a better way to portray the tragedy that befalls animals in his country. Maybe he should have started the .25 fund instead of trying to bank on another creature’s pain and suffering.
I have never seen such ignorant comments.
plus, no one appears to know what happened to the dog. we can assume, however, that the dog didn't die of starvation in the gallery, or Sr. Vargas would most certainly have been been lynched by now.
on a side note, the fact that the dog was also subjected to the sandanista theme tune backwards and some crack smoking in an incense burner has been overlooked. surely torture enough?
You can not assume facts not in evidence. You don't know what happened to this animal. You don't have enough information to even make a good guess.
why did you write a letter to god about our assumptions?
The flip answer would be: because the people in this forum don't seem to be listening, so perhaps God might.
Since, however, I see little room for levity in this discussion, I'll give you the real answer. I was using the phrase "Dear God" to express, in the most emphatic terms I could think of at the moment, extreme frustration with people who make assumptions leading them to justify doing nothing about a very sad situation.
Even the smallest positive step you can take, like hellohello saving table scraps for such animals, helps in some small way. Lots of people helping in small ways leads to a lot of help. Come on, folks, please don't get so depressed that you can't think about it at all. What is, is. Pretending it isn't will just lead to bad things in your life and in the world around you.
I leave you all with the quote from Marianne Williamson:
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
In short, if you don't like what you see, change it! Let your light shine and don't get too discouraged, and you'll encourage others to help as well.
I am also amazed that some are so quick to buy the gallery and the artists' latest revisions in their 'stories'. What? Not question their motives for now lying? PULEEEEEZE! I have a bridge to sell you...
and for those -Jeremy- who seem to think signing pettions is useless: Wow. Look at history. Actually, compared to giving one dollar (your suggestion, Jeremy), making your outrage known is FAR MORE POWERFUL. and - once again - who's to say many of those who signed the petition didn't and don't "give a dollar (or MORE) to their favorite animal charity"? I'll bet they do. Again - not mutually exclusive things. I don't know about you, but I can actually do BOTH THINGS! AND DO! The idea that taking no action and just criticizing those who do because it's not the kind you think they should be making - is again, the spurious argument of those who want to justify their own inaction.
"...the evidence suggests that the poor dog eas not killed." Really?! What eveidence? where's the dog, then? Oh, that's right: the gallery and he NOW say (differently than their original stories) that the animal WHO, IN THEIR OWN 'ORIGINAL' WORDS WAS IN SUCH BAD SHAPE "HE WOULD HAVE DIED, ANYWAY", and DESPITE BEING IN NAN ENCLOSED GALLERY TIED TO A VERY SHORT, TAUT ROPE...MANAGED TO ESCAPE!!! Quite a feat. And you believe that. Should have named him Houdini instead of Natividad.
Ah, f only we could make all the evil little incompetent cowards like Vargas disappear. Permanently. Well, we may not be able to. But we CAN reeducate, and if that doesn't work - STOP THEM. We can and MUST stand up in defense of ALL THOS WHO CANNOT DO SO ON THEIR OWN. ESPECIALLY IN THE FACE OF TYRANTS.
Thank goodness for Karma.
And please, if anyone finds a reliable account of the act, please post it but make sure you actually read the account carefully with a critical eye and not an emotional one. The artist has received death threats and doens't this sound like lynching by Internet?
“I think this guy is sick! Someone should tie him up, no, put him in a glass box, so that he can’t stand up. Then heat up the room that he’s in and have a waterfall going in the corner. And if the bastard doesn’t die in a day, then gut him from head to toe. That shit isn’t art it’s the work of a disgusting piece of shit, devil, who deserves to burn in hell for that.”
This is just one of the thousands of outraged comments found across the internet directed at the artist Guillermo 'Habacuc' Vargas. Vargas gained global attention in 2007 when he captured an emaciated dog from the streets of San Jose, exhibited it in The Codice Gallery, Nicaragua. Tied up with no food or water he let the dog starve to death, with the title ‘Eres Lo Que Lees’ (‘You Are What You Read’) written in dog food on the wall behind the animal. The story swept across the internet as a chain email directing you to an online petition to stop the artist repeating the piece while representing Costa Rica at Bienal Centroamericana in Honduras in November of this year. The petition now holds over a two and a half million signatures. Angry blogs and Youtube videos call for Vargas to be given the same treatment as the dog and be tied to a post with no food or water. These blogs and videos feature thousands of comments, like the one above, condemning the artist as an “animal murderer” and denouncing his work as inhumane cruelty. Facebook groups have been created for incensed users to rant and rave about Vargas' actions. These groups have hundreds of thousands of members. Vargas and the gallery have even received death threats.
The gallery later insisted that the dog, named Natividad, did not in fact starve to death but 'was untied all the time except for the three hours the exhibition lasted and it was fed regularly with dog food Habacuc himself brought in' and then escaped after one day. Vargas has declined to comment on the condition of the animal but says he wanted to test the public's reaction and highlight the plight facing thousands of stray dogs in San Jose.
“Habacuc has put the guests in a position to question their own moral responsibility. Failure to act to save the dog indicates a process of rationalization on behalf of the guest, which probably considered the perceived facts of the situation: the dog was a stray set to face death anyway, it's so far malnourished that it will be miserable regardless, it's for the sake of art and who am I to ruin it, etc.”
Vargas' refusal to comment on the dog's survival has only furthered speculation about the dog's demise and it is precisely what the artist wanted. The furore over the whole situation has become part of the artwork itself with each incensed comment and angry email adding to it's message. Even though no one at the exhibition stepped in to help the poor dog, hundreds of thousands have felt aggrieved enough to sign the petition after reading the email or to leave a comment at the end of a blog. The artwork's title You Are What You Read – it makes sense. To make no action when you feel things are in control but as soon as you're told they aren't and it's easy to do “your bit”, everyone jumps on board.
Vargas' work highlights people's ability to ignore suffering and cruelty until it is presented to them out of the context of everyday life. There are tens of thousands of stray, starving dogs on the streets of San Jose and only a tiny proportion of the global population are actually trying to help them. Then as soon as one is publicly displayed, the whole world throws up their arms in outrage and jostles to get on the bandwagon. By putting the animal in an art gallery, Vargas made an example of the dog. While some people will find that cruel, the statement that he was making about cruelty was immensely resonant, sparking off this global debate. Vargas was, in fact, making an example out of us, the apathetic public. He understood, and intended, the outcry that took place, it was all part of his artwork, and while it doesn't lessen the impact of the impassioned outbursts of those against the spectacle, it shows them in a different perspective. The comments are turned back on the commenters to expose their contradictions. The striking thing is that some people are still not backing down, in spite of the evidence presented that the dog survived and was well-looked after, and stubbornly continue to protest.
“With the unlimited access to information comes the heavy responsibility of critical thinking.”
The furious reactions to the exhibit have come from all over the world, probably further than even Vargas could have imagined. The exaggerated interest has amplified the artist's local concerns about stray dogs on the streets of San Jose and turned them into a global discussion about animal cruelty. This would have been incapable of happening without the World Wide Web. This far-reaching technology has shrunk the world to an unimaginably small scale. Through instant messaging, Facebook statuses and online forums; news, information and gossip can be sent around the planet in a flash and can be discussed between people of cultures than would not usually have contact. The internet has become an interactive, electronic debating table where anyone can voice their opinion, intellectual or ignorant, and be heard, but with the abundance and easy availability of information, you have to be careful what you believe.
Anybody can access Wikipedia and write something, anybody can write a blog and anybody can read them. Chain emails arrive in inboxes everyday claiming that Bill Gates wants to give you money or that forwarding the email to ten more people will bring you good luck and most people delete them instantly but something about Vargas' case was different. Even though it only takes a couple of minutes 'googling' the name Guillermo Vargas to find websites and weblogs that provided evidence to the contrary of the petitions and protests against Vargas' work, millions of people didn't take the time, when faced with the chain email, to think for themselves, do a tiny amount of research and come to an informed decision. Instead they condemn a man off the back of uninformed evidence.
The increase in audience awareness across the world has shifted the possible outcomes of work for artists such as Vargas. His exploration into the reaction that this work could cause highlights how much our communicative powers have changed over the last decade. But equally it exposes our almost unquestionable belief in the information that we know is being written behind screens. Our faith in the words written by others has come out of historical approaches to recording and writing our histories and events. But in this new age of mass un-vetted and uncontrolled communication our creative and expressive avenues must become increasingly self aware, for if you are what you read then we must be able to stand behind what we write.
References
http://www.theginblog.com/2007/10/artist-chains-up-dog-until-it-dies-is-this-art-or-animal-abuse/
http://www.pluginamp.com/network/node/3575
http://www.dabbler.ca/news/parliament-of-one-starving-dog-as-art-%E2%80%93-don%E2%80%99t-believe-everything-you-read-20080411/
i fear for the world when people like you make such statements without knowing what really happened. I think no one knows what really happened - you choose to believe something horrible and then condemn someone - perhaps even send death threats.