In 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas "Habacuc", took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope in an art gallery, and starved him to death.
For several days, the 'artist' and the visitors of the exhibition watched emotionless the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, until he eventually died.
This is not all... the prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of the Central American decided that the 'installation' was actually art, so the 'artist' has been invited to repeat his cruel action for 2008.
Now, I'm not entirely sure what happened there.....someone said this story popped up on Snopes and several others have said the dog was either fed every 3 hours or released after a day and supposedly the artist refuses to tell anyone if the dog died or not.
To me this is just cruel and wrong on so many levels, but what if it brought attention and help to the strays in the area (which supposedly it did)? At least the dogs death might've done some good as oppose to him dying on the streets where no one would care.
I don't in any way, shape, or form support this. Yes it shocked everyone and brought attention to all the strays roaming the streets, but was that a necessary way to go about it?
I think it's downright cruel for him to repeat it since people know what's coming and it's not going to have the same shock effect.
Here's a link to where you can find more information:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Guillermo+Vargas+animal+was+fed+every+3+hours&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
and a video of the dog on display (all the text in the video is in a different language, but it shows several scenes of the dog):
as well as a link to where you can sign a petition to stop the artist from doing it again:
http://www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition-sign.html
