The Hirshhorn’s recent advertising campaign hails what I’ve been preaching all year: “Art Surrounds You.” A bus rolled by the other day with a billboard plastered to its side, proclaiming these words next to a cartoon depiction of a spiked dog collar.
At least I’m on the right track, I thought. The Hirshhorn certainly understands art and its contemporary implications, down to the bare bones of nature and the simplicity of spatial interaction.
When considering that art surrounds us, does that mean that someone’s interpretation of art may be different from that of another individual? Of course. You may appreciate a wacky pair of neon orange sunglasses and accept them as a display of character and ingenuity while someone else just laughs out loud at them. But is there a point when one’s interpretation of art becomes morally wrong? In the case of Guillermo “Habacuc” Vargas, that question has been a hot topic for animal lovers and art lovers alike.
Last fall, Vargas, a Costa Rican artist, tied up an emaciated dog and kept it just far enough away from food at a gallery in Nicaragua, calling it his art exhibit. His self-proclaimed purpose was to prove to people that animals become the center of attention when showcased as art, but not if they’re starving on the streets. He has been asked to repeat the exhibit for a Central-America wide art event called Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008.
My first reaction, like most people who heard this story, was, “How could they?” How could professionals allow this kind of abuse to take place? Since when is torture artistic? Sure, art can depict torturous scenes and can certainly be gory, but to actually sacrifice a living animal when there are so many other ways he could have proved his point?
Then I did some research. First, I could barely find a sufficient news article about this event, and even though it took place months ago, it has recently been circling the blogosphere, with a Facebook group trying to get people to sign an online petition. Just Google “starving dog as art” and see how many blogs come up. But under news selections, there is virtually nothing.
The big deal now seems to be Vargas’ changing story. Originally, it was understood that the dog died the day after the exhibit, and Vargas claimed that since the dog had come from the streets and had a disease that prevented him from eating, he would have died soon anyway. But the animal rights activists still branded him a dog-killer. Then Vargas tried to claim that the dog was still alive. Activists have since contorted and manipulated the story, and their protests pushed the Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008 event back to November.
While the details remain a mystery – maybe a result of lousy Spanish translation – it is still pertinent to muse on whether or not Vargas should have exploited a dying animal as art to begin with. Whether it was already sick or not, this creature was in need of serious medical attention, and instead, he was tied to a wall and became a spectacle. I can’t endorse that kind of complacency and selfishness on behalf of the artist. I can acknowledge an artistic occurrence in its natural setting, and even the depiction of torture on a canvas, but please, artists: keep your medium from imposing on the health and safety of others, even those of us with tails.
By Marissa Moran
