Guillermo Habacuc Vargas - "Artist"

[hansvonaxion]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

I do what now?

I'm guessing thats in reference to the comment about condoning destruction of property, I was wrong, you didn't condone it you just said you didn't feel as bad for the victims and were somewhat "satisfied" because of the kind of car they drive.

I admit that there is a small part of me that gets a degree of satisfaction from this act of vandalism.

And as for people being killed in Tibet...

1) There is nothing I can do to change the situation one way or another
2) It has no direct effect on me
3) I'm tired of seeing "Free Tibet!" on the back of smoky old VW vans and rusting Volvo 240s.
4) Did I mention there is nothing I can do to change it?

I'm not going to work myself up over every social and political injustice - the world is full of them, get used to it, live your life the best you can.

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

Forget it, this is like arguing with a wall. There's no such thing as pure altruism, it doesn't exist. There is always a secondary gain.

So his motives have nothing to do with it? Motive can be the difference between wrongful death and murder one. Motives are everything, especially when you want to start labelling him a sociopath. Anyone who kills is tarred with the same brush for you? Self defence, murder, accident, act of compassion? Don't tell me his motives are irrelevant when clearly they are.

Someone sees a dying baby, he could help, but doesn't. He takes a picture instead. What would you call him?
Photojournalist might be an appropriate name.

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

There is a difference between the children that starved and the dog. The children were not tied to a wall and food withheld while being put on display as "art." Stop comparing apples and oranges.

Wow, comparing apples and oranges? Like comparing someone who puts an abandoned animal on display for 3 hours to highlight the suffering animals are forced to endure everyday due to our callousness and someone who tortures an animal for enjoyment? It doesn't get much different than that.

Oh, and talking about those kids starving to death (more than 15,000 a day, more than 2.5million since the exhibition), well the EU has destroyed grain crops to keep prices stable while children died, they destroyed 1.7million cattle when the market was depressed and when N.Korea asked for half of the meat to feed some of the 2million people suffering and dying from famine they refused to supply it.

So someone choosing to destroy food rather than feed starving children, thats OK, but a guy tying up an already starving dog for 3 hours, well he should be starved to death himself.

A billion people starving, thats just the way things are.
One dog starving, thats an outrage!

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

Define societal norms? Have you ever checked out how many books have been written on that very subject? There are volumes just on how different cultural backgrounds effect psychotherapy, then there are all the anthropology journals. Take your pick and start reading.

There are various cultures within the United States, Florida is different from Texas, Maine from Oregon, California from... well, everyone, actually.

Exactly my point. Also, this exhibition was held in Nicaragua where there were no laws pertaining to cruelty to animals. He did nothing wrong.

One thing you can seem to define, though is art. Maybe you should write a book about it.

This is not art, it's cruelty.

And just to clear up some misinformation in this thread.
There is no proof the dog died.
It was on display for 3 hours.
According to the artist, tens of thousands of dogs die in the streets every year.

In the words of a great philosopher, "get used to it, live your life the best you can. "

[Blind_Io]

So, in a nutshell - because there are really bad things in the world, we should not only accept the bad things, but validate them as "art."

Right, that makes sense.

[hansvonaxion]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

So, in a nutshell - because there are really bad things in the world, we should not only accept the bad things, but validate them as "art."

Right, that makes sense.

Well, they're basically your words, not mine.

Once more...

Did I mention there is nothing I can do to change it?

I'm not going to work myself up over every social and political injustice - the world is full of them, get used to it, live your life the best you can.

Mr. Varga doesn't accept them, he goes out there and tries to change peoples attitudes and behaviour patterns.

I don't know about the girl who supposedly artificially inseminated herself in order to abort, but maybe she's saved lives by her actions. You know what they say, if you want to make an omelette be prepared to crack some eggs.

They are modern day heroes fighting against the injustices of the world.



And you don't have to validate anything as art. I may be a mental midget compared to you, but I'm smart enough to know that there are about as many different views as to what "art" is as there are GT-R vs Z06 threads.

[.cmd]

Originally Posted by hansvonaxion

I don't know about the girl who supposedly artificially inseminated herself in order to abort, but maybe she's saved lives by her actions. You know what they say, if you want to make an omelette be prepared to crack some eggs.

It was revealed to be a scam, link here (atleast I assume that's what was being referred to.)

[hansvonaxion]

Originally Posted by .cmd

It was revealed to be a scam, link here (atleast I assume that's what was being referred to.)

Thanks for that.

I left a couple of socially acceptable methods of animal torture, one of them being "science" and one stream in particular that seems to interest BlindIo, Psychology. I'm sure he's aware of Harry Harlow, creator of the "Pit of Despair", the "Rape Rack" and also owner of a few "Iron Maidens".

Pit of Despair:

Harlow placed baby monkeys in the chamber alone for up to six weeks. Within a few days, they stopped moving about and remained huddled in a corner. The monkeys were found to be psychotic when removed from the chamber, and most did not recover.

After isolating the monkeys till they were psychotic, he used the "Rape Rack" to impregnate them and then let them loose on their own offspring, the results were hilarious.

"Not even in our most devious dreams could we have designed a surrogate as evil as these real monkey mothers were," he wrote. Having no social experience themselves, they were incapable of appropriate social interaction. One mother held her baby's face to the floor and chewed off his feet and fingers. Another crushed her baby's head.

But thats science, and science is legit, right?

[Blind_Io]

Ok, for the last time: There is a difference between bad situations around the world that result in social unrest and in justice and someone who, for no reason other than to make a name for himself, goes out and publicly tortures animals under the guise of "art."

Do you see the difference? You are honestly saying that his actions are acceptable because China invaded Tibet?

Don't delude yourself, there is nothing honorable or noble about what Vargas did, it wasn't to raise awareness about feral dogs, it wasn't to get the dog into a good home, it was to pad his own pockets. Galleries pay artists, artists get exposure and sell more art and get more showings. Don't turn this guy into some kind of sadistic saint.

Although the miscarriage girl turned out to be a scam, you honestly think that her little publicity stunt saved lives? That makes even less sense than your other posts thus far.

As for the Harry Harlow, today those experiments would never be approved by the review committee. However, animal testing is for a specific purpose, to develop drugs and techniques that will save lives and improve the quality of life. I know scientists who do medical research and they don't like having to do animal testing, but understand that it's necessary in our search for cures for cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and other afflictions. The animals are not being needlessly harmed or put on display for the amusement of others.

We have been going round and around over the same ground. I don't think I will ever be able to phrase this in a way you can understand.

- Vargas' actions were not altruistic, they were selfish.
- There was no intended benefit for anyone other than himself, and his actions cannot be equated to scientific studies because there was no science or seeking of knowledge.
- Bad things happening elsewhere in the world does not excuse someone committing senseless acts of cruelty. These two things are independent from each other. While Vargas' actions are not "as bad" as genocide in Darfur or other atrocities, that does not excuse his actions. By that same logic I could go out and kill 10 people and just say, "Well, at least it wasn't 100,000! Right, judge? I mean, ten people, that's nothing in today's world."

Yeah, that'll work.

[hansvonaxion]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

Ok, for the last time: There is a difference between bad situations around the world that result in social unrest and in justice

I gave you a specific example where people in power had the opportunity and the means to help starving people and failed to do so. They made a specific decision to let millions of people continue to starve, its very related. Were there people calling for them to be starved to death?

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

and someone who, for no reason other than to make a name for himself, goes out and publicly tortures animals under the guise of "art."

So now you claim to know his reasoning and thought processes? And he did not "torture" an animal, stop making stuff up. He did not feed the dog for the duration of the exhibition, meaning the dog was left in its natural state and simply transposed to an art gallery.

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

Do you see the difference? You are honestly saying that his actions are acceptable because China invaded Tibet?

No, but you seem to choose strange cause to stand up for. Fuck Tibet, too many old Volvos with those annoying bumper stickers. But wait, there are (false) claims that an artist didn't feed a stray dog, thats going too far!

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

Galleries pay artists, artists get exposure and sell more art and get more showings. Don't turn this guy into some kind of sadistic saint.

Wrong, again. Galleries don't usually pay artists, they take a commission on sold works. Please show me anyone who would want to buy this exhibit. And while there are a few artists that make great money, most don't. Accusing artists of "doing it for the money" is one of your worst arguments yet, especially when they're making unsaleable pieces.

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

Although the miscarriage girl turned out to be a scam, you honestly think that her little publicity stunt saved lives? That makes even less sense than your other posts thus far.

And this one turned out to be a beat-up, too. I think Vargas succeeded in showing our hypocrisy, thats for sure. The whole world getting all worked up about a dog that didn't even die, even BlindIo.

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

As for the Harry Harlow, today those experiments would never be approved by the review committee.

I posted that one because it was pretty interesting. Wouldn't pass review committee these days? There are those shifting sands of societal norms. Feel yourself sinking?

But he'd probably get along just fine these days...

In 2004, German journalist Friedrich Mülln shot undercover footage of staff in Covance, Münster, Europe's largest primate-testing center, making monkeys dance in time to blaring pop music, handling them roughly, and screaming at them. The monkeys were kept isolated in small wire cages with little or no natural light, no environmental enrichment, and high noise levels from staff shouting and playing the radio[153] (video). Primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall described the living conditions of the monkeys as "horrendous." Primatologist Stephen Brend told BUAV that using monkeys in such a stressed state is "bad science," and trying to extrapolate useful data in such circumstances an "untenable proposition."[153] Covance obtained a restraining order preventing Mülln from performing any further undercover research against the company for three years, and required him and PETA to turn over the material they obtained from Covance. PETA is further prevented from attempting to infiltrate Covance for five years.[154]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

However, animal testing is for a specific purpose, to develop drugs and techniques that will save lives and improve the quality of life. I know scientists who do medical research and they don't like having to do animal testing, but understand that it's necessary in our search for cures for cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and other afflictions. The animals are not being needlessly harmed or put on display for the amusement of others.

Wait, did you just claim the experiments were done purely for selfless reasons? You almost used the word altruistic. Those cash starved pharmaceutical companies sacrificing themselves for the greater good! Man, I don't even need to argue, you contradict yourself at every turn. Do you get away with this at College?

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

- Vargas' actions were not altruistic, they were selfish.
- There was no intended benefit for anyone other than himself, and his actions cannot be equated to scientific studies because there was no science or seeking of knowledge.

Says you, with no proof. He has clearly stated himself that he did not intend to cause (and did not cause) any undue suffering to the dog. The dog was left in its natural state for 3 hours. Its not science, its Art. Comparisons and parallels can be drawn between just about anything, regardless of name.

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

- Bad things happening elsewhere in the world does not excuse someone committing senseless acts of cruelty. These two things are independent from each other. While Vargas' actions are not "as bad" as genocide in Darfur or other atrocities, that does not excuse his actions. By that same logic I could go out and kill 10 people and just say, "Well, at least it wasn't 100,000! Right, judge? I mean, ten people, that's nothing in today's world."

Wrong again. He didn't break any laws. He didn't torture or kill a dog. Just because the dog was in an art gallery instead of the street, we should help it? Failing to render assistance to a starving dog in an art gallery = punishable by starvation, failing to render assistance to the tens of thousands of dogs that starve each year on the street = business as usual. This is the hypocrisy that was exposed. He did nothing that the entire population doesn't do on a daily basis, he didn't feed a stray dog.

[Blind_Io]

How about from now I I just say "OK" and post this:

[Donington]

[No Boss]

LOL INTERNET!

[hansvonaxion]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

How about from now I I just say "OK" and post this:

I thought you were trying to make a clever point, by posting nothing, until I clicked "reply" and saw you were actually trying to post a picture.

But yes, posting nothing would serve you best.

[Blind_Io]

Yeah, because I'm sure you have never had a broken link before.

In any case:

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

OK.