Museum pulls controversial animal art due to threats

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Nobody is disagreeing that using threats of violence in this case might be going too far. But anyone with an heart should find putting dogs through abuse offensive.
We use threats of violence on other countries that commit human rights violations.

a reply to: fiverx313

So as long as the animals aren't screaming at each other, it's okay?

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: fiverx313

So because my interpretation of the art didn't affect me on such a level that i felt the need to protest it, means i don't care about animals?

You ever been to a zoo before?

have you ever been to a zoo where they caged aggressive animals within sight of each other so they could get upset?

Have you ever been to a show where they are displaying betta fish?

They put them in small, clear bowls and put males right next to each other so they will display and threaten through the bowls.

It makes them keep their fins flared for better display and judging.

The fish are not harmed, and it's the purpose of their finnage and gill frills -- display against other males.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

That's the problem. All of you are assuming the dogs are being abused. Maybe that was the artist's intention.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Deaf Alien

That's the problem. All of you are assuming the dogs are being abused. Maybe that was the artist's intention.

How about erring on the side of caution?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

There is a difference between finding what you see in the video to be wrong for the dogs, not because putting a dog on a treadmill is wrong (it's not you can use it to exercise your dog in bad weather) but because the dogs are basically being teased with a fight they won't get. Don't delude yourself into thinking the dogs fear the fight either.

The concept of the dog fight is almost certainly what is so upsetting to so many more than what you see here.

But it should be.

However, is that alone enough to threaten violence because this piece was displayed, especially in a society that displays other things that are just as offensive in their own ways?

Remember, none of this actually hurt the dogs.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well at least you slipped up a bit and said that they were teasing the dogs.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I don't function on emotions alone. I'm not going to suppress another persons art because I just want to "err on the side of caution". I would put my trust in the artist and the museum.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Deaf Alien

I don't function on emotions alone. I'm not going to suppress another persons art because I just want to "err on the side of caution". I would put my trust in the artist and the museum.

That's a lot of trust.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko

Well at least you slipped up a bit and said that they were teasing the dogs.

How is that even a slip up? I could almost guarantee you behind closed doors, these dogs are like a family. You really believe they were trying to kill each other?

lol..

a reply to: ketsuko

Fact is, write or wrong, good and evil are very Human constructs along with the art really. Something to consider before dispensing threats of violence i suppose.

What some people find offensive others find intriguing, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

I think it's a fair question to ask is this actually art, or just people who call themselves an artist stooping to a new low to draw attention to themselves by shocking people? I think it's more that than anything else.

I find it sad that art has devolved to the level it has and that displays that require no talent to produce and are solely to shock people are even called art.

Is the world a better or worse place without this display? I think it is better, although I don't like the idea that violence was threatened to force the removal. That is very wrong.

I love art and museums, but this is the sort of thing that makes me not want to visit the Guggenheim and encourage more of it. That is sad, but not patronizing is the correct way to protest what they offer, not threats of violence.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

You really believe they were trying to kill each other?

lol..

Maybe you should take your own advice and don't assume.
You really believe that I thought that?
Lol.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I don't know, but you're all screaming abuse and torture because they are barking at each other.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Deaf Alien

I don't know, but you're all screaming abuse and torture because they are barking at each other.

No. I said that that dog seemed distressed at 2:10. To me it looked like he was begging for it to stop.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I think it is a fair question to ask, but ultimately I believe "art" is within the creator. Just because we don't like it, or consider it art, doesn't make it so. Eye of the beholder right?

As for the no talent part, i agree. Something like this doesn't take much technical talent, if any at all, but maybe it's the message that was important to him.

Whatever the message is.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko

Well at least you slipped up a bit and said that they were teasing the dogs.

You think that was a slip? It's what I intended to say. It's what they're doing.

Do you watch random cat videos on the internet? What do you think people are doing in half of the scare videos? They're teasing their cats. Do you write threatening comments on those video streams?

I haven't said I am defending this piece as wonderful, only that I don't see where the extreme outrage comes from. The dogs are being teased, not beaten or abused. I would assume those training them to fight in this manner would call it "motivating" them.

But I question what this piece is being used for. People like yourself think it's intended to take pleasure and enjoyment from what is happening to the animals.

But it could also be that you are supposed to feel bad, that the piece is intended to raise awareness of their plight.

I'm sure some people are horribly offended by Holocaust pictures too, but we shouldn't take those down because the people in them suffered horribly and starved to death in many cases.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

But that's just you assuming again. Watch the end of the video, the dogs calm down almost instantly when told to stop. They don't seem too distressed.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Deaf Alien

But that's just you assuming again. Watch the end of the video, the dogs calm down almost instantly when told to stop. They don't seem too distressed.

Well I suppose we both are assuming from different points of view. So in essence we both don't really know.
Although we both agree that threats of violence might be going too far in this case.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yeah, that was exactly my point. None of us actually know, so all the screams of abuse is just emotional projection.

And just to be clear, I am not even a fan of this piece. There are much better way's to be an artist, but who am i to judge someone else's art?

eye.. of.. the.. beholder.