Pugwash Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 By the way, the humane society has a statement on this event. It does seem as the whole event has been exceedingly overplayed. If you bayed for the artist's blood, well done - you're part of the exhibit. http://www.hsus.org/contact_us/humane_soci...ml#Q_dog_artist Q. Is it true that a Central American artist used a starving dog in an art exhibit? We are aware of this story and have asked our contacts in Central America for more information. According to local animal welfare organizations, the dog was in a state of starvation when he was captured from the street for display in the exhibit. We have also been informed that the dog spent one day in the exhibit and later escaped the gallery. We do not condone the actions of this so-called "artist," and condemn the use of live animals in exhibits such as this. An animal welfare organization in Honduras, where the next art show will be held, is keeping close watch on the case and assures us that the artist will not repeat his objectionable exhibit. Sadly, thousands of street dogs in Central America are in as poor shape as this one. HSI works throughout the world to prevent the circumstances that allow such a tragic event to take place. We encourage you to learn more about our street animal welfare programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Thanks Puggy I knew if I waited long enough you would come up with something that would make me feel not quite as bad about this. Also on the bit about the tats on the pig's, yes it's wrong but I seriously doubt they feel much (if any) pain from the process due to their thick hides, I think people are equating it to the pain a human feels but for the pig's it is probably more like scratching an itch. It also looks like those pigs are living a pampered life, will they in fact even be slaughtered? Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Thanks Puggy I knew if I waited long enough you would come up with something that would make me feel not quite as bad about this. Thank the Humane Society, who actually got in touch with local animal welfare societies instead if just baying for blood and wishing death and torture on someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryyannon Posted April 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Umm, so let's see here: someone somewhere calls someone else somewhere who says that someone else says that the starving dog 'escaped' from the gallery the same day. Whew! For a moment, I was really worried about the mutt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Umm, so let's see here: someone somewhere calls someone else somewhere who says that someone else says that the starving dog 'escaped' from the gallery the same day. Who do you trust? On one hand you've got the Humane Society who have contacts at the local animal welfare centres and on the other, you've got the media picking up the story over a month after it happened. If you feel the need to be outraged, believe the version that allows you to get angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryyannon Posted April 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 1. Sloppy journalism: not one verifiable reference. 2. Media picked up on story immediately. 3. Angry? Me? 4. Where's the Peanut Butter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 1. Sloppy journalism: not one verifiable reference. 2. Media picked up on story immediately. 3. Angry? Me? 4. Where's the Peanut Butter? I never suggested you were borderline hysterical, but ... "I would look to see the same done to him and see how he likes it." "Someone should chain his @$$ up and let him die of starvation." "How about a slow public hanging of this bastard [...] After I beat the living sh*t out of him." The media didn't pick up on it immediately. It happened last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratchpot Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 I love dogs....and I agree with what Pugwash has said in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 4. Where's the Peanut Butter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Also on the bit about the tats on the pig's, yes it's wrong but I seriously doubt they feel much (if any) pain from the process due to their thick hides, I think people are equating it to the pain a human feels but for the pig's it is probably more like scratching an itch. It also looks like those pigs are living a pampered life, will they in fact even be slaughtered? Ken I wouldn't be so sure... I understand that pig owners have to apply suncreams to their backs so they don't get burned. If they were more tollerant of the pain/heat (such as cats are more tollerant of higher temperatures than Humans) there wouldn't be much need to give them the suncream. The pig also moved about a bit, so it was clearly in some manner of discomfort. The thing that disgusted me most about that, is that the pigs have no choice in what is being done to them. I suspect that if someone was to tattoo someone else, without their permission, then they would receive a stiff penalty. I remember reading on one tattoo forum, where someone once fell asleep at a birthday party, where the birthday boy had got a tattoo machine for their birthday... When they woke up, they had a load of tiny 'bats' tattooed across their shoulder, so in need of coverup work. I'm not sure if they actually pressed charges, but, there was a lot of encouragement for them to do so. The pigs don't even have that luxury... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryyannon Posted April 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 "> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 The thing that disgusted me most about that, is that the pigs have no choice in what is being done to them. Pigs are tattooed for identification as part of the normal farming procedure. They are also used by tattoo artists to learn the trade as pig flesh is very similar to human flesh (same subcutaneous fat layer). Nothing new here. What about branding cattle and horses? That's normal practice too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 i think the people visiting this cruel show of human depravity is just as guilty as the "artist" .. if you see a child or animal suffer and do nothing then your just as bad as the person doing the deed. I just read the first page of the thread but this comment by Dani just says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 As for the media, they did pick up on it much earlier than the petition. On the other hand, I could be wrong - but at the moment, I'm too distracted to try and do the necessary research. The articles you posted were from March 2008, when most of the media picked up on it. The 'event' itself was in October 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 I just read the first page of the thread but this comment by Dani just says it all. People didn't go there to enjoy it. They went to an exhibit and were shocked, which was the expected result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryyannon Posted April 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 The articles you posted were from March 2008, when most of the media picked up on it. The 'event' itself was in October 2007. C'mon Pugs...give me a break: I know how to read dates. Went to school 'n everything.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Pigs are tattooed for identification as part of the normal farming procedure. Note the emphasis there. While it could be argued that those tattoos would 'identify' an individual pig, the tattoos applied are definitely more 'decorative' than something applied for simple identification, ie: 000001, 000002, 000003 etc etc... They are also used by tattoo artists to learn the trade as pig flesh is very similar to human flesh (same subcutaneous fat layer). As I said before, not while the pig is still 'wearing' the skin... What about branding cattle and horses? That's normal practice too. What about it? The video was not about cattle or horses being branded for identification purposes. Branding cattle and horses is not the issue here... Also, there is quite a difference, as with tattoos, between brands applied to identify an animal, or show ownership, and artistic brands applied for decorative purposes, as is the case with Human Brandings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 C'mon Pugs...give me a break: I know how to read dates. Went to school 'n everything.... I know that, but you also said the media picked up on it at the time. You've been a calm voice throughout this, posting good stuff without hysteria, but you're not one of the ones I'm talking about. Stop reading my comments about fevered hysteria and assuming I mean you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Whats more it was only one exhibit, if you look at the vid most people seem to be steering clear of it altogether. Yes TJ pigs need sunscreen as they don't have fur to protect their skin from the sun but as one that has lived on a farm I can tell you that sunburn (other than itching) doesn't bother pigs it is more the concern of skin cancers and such that makes the farmer use the cream. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryyannon Posted April 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 You've been a calm voice throughout this, posting good stuff without hysteria, but you're not one of the ones I'm talking about. Stop reading my comments about fevered hysteria and assuming I mean you. I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF BEING CALM! DO YOU HEAR ME? ENOUGH!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 People didn't go there to enjoy it. They went to an exhibit and were shocked, which was the expected result. I know J.. I am a conceptual artist myself exhibiting in galleries.. I can somehow understand his point of view.. Sometimes artists are going to extreme measures to show their point. Other times they just try to shock to attract attention to their names. Conceptual art has proven that many times in the past. It seems he succeded whatever was his intention. Bad publicity is still a publicity through the myriads of artists out there. Back to the visitors.. except the shocking.. they should have had a reaction. Intelectual people should also REACT and not just follow and eat whatever they feed them like sheep. They should have done something if they thought the act was cruel. But unfortunately a big majority of the people going to art galleries are just that.. sheep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Whats more it was only one exhibit, if you look at the vid most people seems to be steering clear of it altogether. Yes TJ pigs need sunscreen as they don't have fur to protect their skin from the sun but as one that has lived on a farm I can tell you that sunburn (other than itching) doesn't bother pigs it is more the concern of skin cancers and such that makes the farmer use the cream. Ken Ahh, that's fair enough. Beyond the most basic form of identification, I don't agree with tattooing anyone/anything without their/its permission. To me, that looked like someone practicing to become a tattoo artist, but not wanting to wait for the pig to expire before 'getting down to work'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 They should have done something if they thought the act was cruel. But unfortunately a big majority of the people going to art galleries are just that.. sheep In a country with no animal cruelty laws and stray dogs everywhere, rescuing the dog would be bad for you. You're stuck with a stray dog and a criminal record. You're better off quietly taking in a stray if you were that offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 In a country with no animal cruelty laws and stray dogs everywhere, rescuing the dog would be bad for you. You're stuck with a stray dog and a criminal record. You're better off quietly taking in a stray if you were that offended. Well you have a point there.. country and their behaviour to animals should be a parameter to the whole story. But then again if this exhibition was happening in UK for example no gallery would have allowded that kind of 'exhibit'. I am sure if the same thing happened in Greece with no cruelty laws and stray dogs and cats everywhere as well, someone would have done something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryyannon Posted April 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Gas everyone and everything. Screw the pooches. NO IRISH NEED APPLY! Eye Nadine: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now