Deadly Arts

As if people aren’t becoming desensitized to death enough over games, movies, media, not to mention little things like a middle-eastern war, human-rights violations and so on. I think it’s ridiculous to assume people need to be reminded that death is a part of life. I think lately almost everyone has been touched by death in one way or another. The last thing we need to do is condone an indifference to life, which is exactly what I think this ‘art’ showcases.

Well put Brad. Things like this stupify me.

Death can be art. Agreed. But purposed killing is NOT art. You can’t do anything just in the name of art.
A picture of a starving dog  in the streets (no interruption of the natural time of death) could be art but a planned watching of a dying dog is just not right. Even if the dog is not dead, there are no excuses “in the name of art” by doing that. I could kill half of the african inhabitants  (because they would die in a starving death anyway, right?) with a shotgun (why to extend the process?) and call it art. Then the humans should start to think about the poor ones and the world received a great lesson from me. Right?
And a Gregor-Schneider-dying-man is something different. The person agrees and decides itself (the dog not) to do that…

I just hope he puts himself in an exhibition same as the dog one day, the sick SOAB!!!!
 

This article was very interesting, though I was confused by the insinuation that Van Gogh cut off his ear in the name of art.  I don’t think that the comparison of Schneider’ s intended work to Van Gogh’s absinthe-fueled psychosis works. 

As for the art, I think it could be interesting.  If the people want to volunteer to do something like this then I don’t see the issue.  It’s validity lies in whether or not people will go to see it.  If they’re offended then no one is going to make them go and the volunteer is not being forced to do anything they don’t want. 

The dog piece was sad, but I don’t know if it makes the artist a horrible person.  Whether or not the dog died the truth is he would’ve died fairly soon out in the streets.  Don’ get me wrong, I’m a huge animal rights activist, but the artist made the dogs situation no worse, all he did was use him to make a point.  He is only guilty of letting people ignore him in a more prominent place than he was being ignored in before . Should he have done something to help him? Yes probably, but maybe his goal was to cause other people to think about these kinds of things. 

Gravis, I agree with you 100%.  To willingly do it is one thing, but to aid in killing something in the name of art is down right despicable.  The dog might have been starving  and yes was going to  probably die from it, but it still had a chance to be fed or even SAVED from the position it was in.  Rachel, how can you say he is not  a horrible person? To me, horrible is an understatement to describe this artist or anyone who agrees with his view on this matter.  And lets talk about the ones who went to see this “exhibit”, where is the compassion? How can you watch this and not feel obligated to help.  It just feels like  our society has become completely numb.

This whole idea of using death as art is as old as the word itself. This type of thinking is not profound but extremely common.
In the example of Guillermo and the dog, this is life happening and the artist should not be granted recognition for what nature is doing.The artist had absolutely no imput into this slow decay of life. It is a lazy path from a dull mind who finds more enjoyment from suffering than kindness. Even if the artist had nothing to do with the sickness it still makes them as vile as the person on the street who walks by and ignores. Calling oneself an artist gives one no more liscense to be immorral than the priest who abuses in the name of God. Beauty in death is not about the weakness of dying. My goodness!
I not only take issue with the artist but the writer as well. When the writer states, “All the taboo around…may be unwarranted..” well of course it is not unwarrranted. It is likely that this is what the suppossed “artist” was hoping for. Controversy in place of Art. When an artist has to reach so far as to call the sheer existence of death an art form, then they have truly lost their own sense of importance and are groping at any shock value they can muster in order to keep the idea of themselves alive. The only thing they have left to console themselves with is the transparency of the audience that would applaud this kind of behavior in the name of Art. A display such as this is totally about the ego of the artist and any one jumping on the band wagon is not a shrewd thinker at all.
I again take issue with the author in the closing paragraph. Viewing an art form and appreciating what the “artist” is saying about death is not the same as witnessing death right in front. This acceptance in observing death is evil in one of it’s purest forms. This type of thinking, even unwittingly, perpetuates an opinion that it is ok to observe death from a distance even though you could help. Yeah,,,we just can’t get enough of this type of thinking.
Sometimes it is best NOT to know what another person is thinking. I am surprised that the petition is to remove the art rather than the artist. That would be the best idea.

Life and death are only the beginning and end of one particular individual. Their own physical dying signifies the end of all that is within them. However, left in the images of death as seen by others, this death takes on a new life of its own and transforms something so real into something to be understood rather than hidden from. Humans naturally shy away from death until we are able to face that fear.

Amazing isn’t it?

First of all we know nothing of death. So how can we have an opinion of whether it is a positive or negative thing? Do we even know if good/bad are any more than opinions?
Well Brad MaHaffey, Jason Biggs, Gravis, Paul and missniki82. I would say that your opinions are rather strong considering the above point of ignorance. It is strange how billions of creatures die every day and you offer not a whimper yet if one were to put a single dog in a gallery you cry rivers and accuse the artist of atrocities. I think you were wrong, Mr MaHaffey when, if I may quote from you, you said “I think it’s ridiculous to assume people need to be reminded that death is a part of life.” I think that statement is incorrect based on the responses of the aforementioned people. After all if such responses as describing the artist as “horrible is an understatement” (missniki82) and “sick SOAB!!!!” (Paul) actually represented the average or normal person then it seems that people do need to be reminded of a natural physiological process called death.
On the concept of suffering perhaps you should remember the words of Schopenhauer: “Life without pain has no meaning.” Did Natividad suffer? It would seem so yes. Did Natividad suffer any more than (s)he would have on the street? That is a question who’s answer can only be speculated. Perhaps you will accuse me of being a Nihilist.
I do wonder if and then why people fear something they do not know anything about. Surely a ‘trip’ into the unknown is an interesting thing not something to shy away from? Perhaps and perhaps not. Perhaps someone here can tell me. I will certainly check back to this page from time to time for a possible response.
 
A morbid curiosity and inclination to view and to express his views on death is all that these artists are displaying. They are not, and I will repeat that, they are not a “sick SOAB!!!!” as you Paul exclaimed. Perhaps you will find my extended agnosticism offensive. Good, because if you do you might actually reconsider your own opinions and analyse them from multiple viewpoints.
 
Still, I wish I attended art galleries more frequently. If I saw a dying dog I would actually do something about it. That brings up an interesting thought: Were any of you that read this article there? Do you have negative views on the context of a starving dog in a gallery? Did you do something about it or just simply walk by? That would certainly be interesting to talk to someone who was there.

Anonymous,

I think a long drawn debate on this may be meaningless, as it seems you’re missing a vital aspect of human compassion, and a promotion of indifference within these types of exhibitions. I’ll leave you with a quote however, take it however you like. Oh, and thanks for your thought-filled response, we need more of them here at ArtCulture.

“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference.”
– Elie Wiesel

My point was simply that the artist used the dog to show the indifference of all the people who had passed it everyday in the streets and of the people who saw it in the museum.  Is it wrong, but no one came screaming out of the museum declaring that someone put an end to it.  I would have never been ever to see such an exhibit, but how many people did? How many people see starving animals every day and bypass the older less desireable ones at the pound for cute designer puppies?  We can whine as much as we want about how wrong we think it is, but how many of you can honestly say you would’ve stopped in the street and helped this poor flea covered, bleeding, skin-and-bones, smelly, and obviously diseased dog? I say good for him for making the rest of us feel ashamed, because most of the time the things we choose ignore are shameful. 

The only shame I feel is for the ‘artist’. Couldn’t disagree with you more, can barely comprehend where you’re coming from.

Ohwell, that might be a good thing

Many interesting points of view here.

The dying volunteers are just that–volunteers. So I have no problem with that, as long as their rights remain unviolated and their dignity and safety remain intact.

As for the dog thing…

I agree whole-heartedly with Gravis, Valerie, and Mahaffey. This dog thing reminds me of an even creepier piece entitled “The Physical Impossibilty of Death in the Mind of Someone Living.” You know–the dead shark floating in a vat of greenish liquid. It’s creepier because Damien Hirst and his helpers actually killed the shark to display it as “art.”

But the article says it’s unknown if the dog died or not. Hopefully not because if the thing on display had to DIE to be considered artful, it is not art, it’s cruelty!

Anonymous Coward, I believe you have a point when you say people perhaps do need to be reminded of the horror of death. But to use an actual living being with rights and the ability to suffer–that’s ignorant, sadistic, and cruel. I was not at the gallery, but I do think I would have done something (because I have done such things before). I wonder why no one said anything or offered to adopt/get veterinary care for the dog.

Its difficult for myself not have a immediate negative reaction to the proposal of an exhibition of actual death. Reading the artist’s reaction to other people’s reactions to his proposed work (The Guardian) I find myself less disgusted but at a similar place in mind. Gregor Schneider may have honest and socially positive intentions for this piece but in the end I see the dislocation of what is happening being as distorting a factor, much as watching people having intercourse is to understanding healthy sexual activity. The context will most likely not attract minds receptive to learning anything about death in the contemporary world, but rather spectators who wish to experience a sophisticated thrill. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it.

As far as the starving dog is concerned, I wonder how many people who viewed the animal actually knew what they were seeing. Is this a dog off the street, or the artist’s dog? Was it fed or allowed to die? From what I have read, it seems that the dog was fed when not being exhibited as a pretentious form of social education by the gallery owner. I have fed starving animals and do not find this kind of statement tactful or provocative, but to each their own if I am not there to do anything about it.

I do not think ‘good’ art needs to provoke thought, in fact I find art that transcends thought and instead provokes complex emotions to be far more interesting and socially relevant. Death is what it is, and I suppose we will all experience it in some fashion. But to suggest that society as a whole can or needs to be educated concerning death (through what would surely be an obscure exhibition) because someone believes he has observed the necessity seems questionable to me at best. Cheers.