This is both horrifying and disgusting.
South American artist Guillermo Habacuc captured a dog in the streets of an economically depressed neighborhood with the interest of tying him up on exhibit to be starved to death. The outcome of the project to be: Several days of instructing visitors not to feed the dog- so that they will see him pass.
This image is deeply unsettling, the museum visitors casually perusing, the dog's head lowered. He's slowly being murdered and people are complying. I simply cannot comprehend this. There are many cries- blogs- newspaper reports and even explanations that it was all a hoax to prove that people are "sheep." Why didn't anyone attempt to step in? Or punish the Habacuc? Is it true that feeding him at night? Habacuc stated that people watch stray animals starve to death on the streets- and therefore taking notice in the enclosure of a museum exhibit - then pointing the finger to him is hypocrisy.
Regardless of whether or not the dog did die in the museum ( I have read conflicting literature) there is a petition online.
1 comment:
:(
this is congruent, in a polar way, to Kevin Carter i think. some types of photography are the inverse of this action but carry the same moral missteps.
the difference lies in how he took the dog out of the negative element and produced similar pain in its new environment.
whereas in documentary photography, if the subject is removed from it's negative element it is normally not subject to the same effects--you wouldn't take a starving child out of a tiny wartorn village to bring into a museum and watch them starve more)
the artist could have created a fake dog and had the same point.
Post a Comment