Cruelty and Art

[McCloud]

http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/2341_no_excuses_for_cruelty.cfm

In this article, the WSPA (World Society for the Protection of Animals) addressed a controversial story from .Nicaragua. An artist named Guillermo Vargas took a dog from the streets and put it in an art gallery, tying it and allowing it to die there. When questioned as to why he did it, Vargas responded that he was shedding light to the hypocrisy of letting animals die on the street but not in an art gallery.

Of course, the story is quite controversial and lacking in evidence, and despite my research I have not been able to find distinctive sources that prove Vargas' point that the dog was well fed, or disprove that the dog actually starved and died. But the exact circumstances are not what matters in this discussion.


Animal rights and cruelty is indeed at play here, but I would like to turn attention more towards defining art. Namely, is it ethical/moral to allow suffering for the sake of art?

and.. Yay first thread in a long long time.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

The guy raises a very deep, interesting point; however, since if he let the dog die, he fails. If the point was to draw attention to animals dieing, he fails in that he let an animal himself die (deliberately, even.) I'm fairly dissapointed to see how one-sided the article is.

I think the *idea* of suffering is ok in art; however, if torturing an animal (or higher) is present in the art medium or while the art was created, I do not think it is a productive or beneficial thing.

However, art is a self-fulfilling prophecy- what defines art is in the eye of beholder. It can be considered art is someone enjoys the dog dieing. I do not condone this kind of thing, of what I will call 'snuff art' from now on (or atleast until someone provides a more common name for it), even though it is considered art.

If that's censorship, fine; if we allowed the production of snuff art in general, that would be forfeiting our own rights to life.

In short, I do not think it's right to be cruel for the sake of art.

 

[RBinator]

Before even getting into the moral and ethical issues, why would a living being need to suffer for the sake of art in the first place? What couldn't have been gained had the being not suffer? Some kind of fake couldn't be used in the place of a real being? From what I understand, when it comes to movies, real animals are never hurt or killed for the sake of the movie. So if the point can be gotten across in a movie without actually hurting another being, then why can't an art gallery do the same?

As for ethical issues, I can see why this certainly falls under animal abuse. I never really got much into animal right issues (like hunting and wear fur), but I don't see how any good could have came from this. I don't see anything that could have been gained out of a real animal being on displayed to suffer, then if some kind of other way to display something similar was used. Really, I just don't see any gain from the suffering of a real animal then if a fake way was used. Again with movies, if it's unethical in that case, why would other art forms be any different?

If Guillermo Vargas' reasons were really related to what was posted here, then I fail to see what was artistic about it. It sounds more like he was trying to prove a point, which I think was a rather poor and cruel way to go about it.

Then again, there might be more here going on that I just don't know about or understand yet. Otherwise, I wonder why this topic is here in the first place.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Some people enjoy art based on pain, loss, etc. There are a fewer number who enjoy authentic, real-time suffering, loss, etc. It is beneficial to them, perhaps, but not to the rest of society (very much not!)

The rights system comes into play here, as well; humans are tortured for the sake of art, too. Like I said earlier, allowing for the priviledge to produce snuff art/films involves giving up a fundamental right (life.) Because I value life, I find snuff art repulsive.