However when metaphoric images give away to the torture and killing of actual living creatures, should artists or the institutions that display their work receive preferential treatment or be held above the law? I believe no matter the intention of the artist an unlawful action should not be allowable. In this essay will be outlining how animals are tortured for fame; not art by demonstrating the work of Guillemot Barras, how animals have become an object for the art society; by providing an example from our lecture, and why animal cruelty should be outlawed no matter the arena.
Any art museum directors and gallery curators (and some artists) often use the “art above Ian/’ argument in defending controversial exploitative exhibits when it is more than obvious to see that their real motivation is to attract publicity, drive up the value of the art, and promote sales. In the case of museums, the increased media attention drives up private and public funding. The impetus for exploitative art isn’t free speech, its profits. An example would be Guillemot Barras. A 32-yearned artist from Costa Rica created a stir during an exhibition in Nicaragua.
He reportedly tied up a starving dog to a line with the title of his exhibit Ares Lo Queue Lees You Are What You Read spelled out in dog biscuits, out of reach of the animal, The artist will not say whether the dog lived or died; only that he received death threats as a result to the shove, According to the gallery owner, the dog was well cared for and eventually escaped. This exhibition was supposed to showcase that there are millions of starving stray dogs that no one pays attention to, yet we are appalled by this one dog who is starving in the gallery.
Of course the truth is undetermined about what happened to the dog. Barras has been selected to represent Costa Rica at an upcoming exhibition in Honduras. Barras, who specialized in non-controversial works before his canine period, plans on reprising another starving dog exhibits. Therefore, rather than appreciating the art, the publicity that he received was more appreciated. What Guillemot Hubcap Barras has done is appalling. He may have wanted to show the plight Of street dogs and their suffering in fact he has created a lot Of debate and maybe has increased the number of donations and help available to them.
However, think deliberately showing this dog chained up in an art gallery does not allow the animal any dignity; which I’m sure he will argue that the animal had no dignity on the streets but the dog remained free from public viewing. Am amazed that Barras chose not to feed and better the dog; maybe a better way of dealing with his plight would be to attract the public to improving quality of life through simple acts of kindness. At what point do we say that art crosses over to absolute indecency?
Do we have to remind Barras that there are plenty of starving children in the world, that malaria is one of the biggest leers that AIDS victims in Africa need help, that soldiers lay dying? This does not mean that the only way to signify these issues is to capture a child from a third world nation and starve it for people to see. This reminds me off point that Professor_ Vickers made during a lecture when a question was raised in a tutorial about pigs being tattooed by Wimp Delve. The question was about the humanity aspect involved with this concept of tattooing pigs, then raising them for slaughter to be hung on a way.
Professor. Vickers then stated that “these gigs are raised with extreme care, better than a factory farm? ‘ I personally don’t believe that Professor. Vickers answered the question properly. Whether they are being raised well or not, they are being raised for slaughter to be hung on a way. This is objectifying a living creature which believe is inhumane even though apparently they may be raised With good care. Art at this point needs to be a little more considerate and a little less controversial. There are plenty of things that should be changed about the world, animal cruelty being one of the top of the list.
Small acts of kindness that go UN-noticed make a large difference, artists like Barras need to take note of this and realism that, creating outrage may highlight street dogs suffering, but maybe to be a better human being, he should have chosen to do this in a more positive light. All Barras has done is display this dark form of “art” at the expense of living creatures. Why, then, are the rights of other defenseless creatures not protected by law? The inhumane treatment of animals must be outlawed, whatever the situation may be, artistic or otherwise.