Monday, April 14, 2008

Dog Murder Art

Below is a letter I received from my friend Philip expressing a grave concern about animal cruelty by a sick conceptual artist:


PHILIP Rubinov Jacobson

dateSun, Apr 13, 2008 at 9:31

Why an Art of the Spirit still Struggles to be seen ....:"DOG MURDER ART"

Dear Friends,
I am sending this to key people in the fields of art, consciousness, humanitarian efforts, and animal activists...that you may pass it on.
In my next book, PROMETHEAN FLAMES, I use the term "deadstallations" to describe the vacant and dead art of "installations" today in galleries, museums and events. I did not expect my term to become literally TRUE. In 2007, the so-called '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 to the exhibition watched, emotionless, as the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, eventually killed him. The walls were decorated with words made of dog food.
But this is not all... the prestigious Visual Arts Bienniale of Central America decided that the 'installation' was actually art, not only calling it "art" but AWARDING him the prestigious FIRST PRIZE. Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the Biennial of 2008.



sign the petition to stop this asshole by going to:

It is no wonder that genuine artists who are deeply involved in expressing an integral and spiritual vision are beset with great challenges in the business of contemporary art. All in all, deep works of art are not likely to be found in the modern art museums, galleries and Bienniales, which are the contemporary counterpart to the palace in the fairy tale The Emperor’s New Clothes by Hans Christian Anderson. Contemporary museums prefer to literally buyand exhibit Manzoni's ‘canned shit’, piss aquariums with Christ inside, blood and guts on the floor, morons muttering nonsense on a video screen or puke-filled bottles lit up from behind.

David Lee, editor of Art Review magazine:
“Last year’s Turner Prize winner, Chris Ofili, used elephant dung in his painting. Damien Hirst won the prize in 1997 for displaying the severed halves of a cow and calf in formaldehyde and artist Tony Kaye tried to submit a homeless steel worker for the prize. The judges’ bluster about Epoetry and the other all-purpose drivel they trotted out in defense of their choice is unhelpful to those of us who remain bewildered. It would have been educative for the entire nation to be flies on the wall of the Tate director’s office when the judges were deliberating. We would have learned the criteria used for judging such work and not have had to take on trusting the mindless paeans, more drivel uttered by those snake oil salesmen from the Tate’s Department of Interpretation. As it is we are none the wiser. Is itart? It might be but it does not look like it to me . . .”

With little or no change, just a few years ago, the Tate Gallery in London once again held its annual Turner Prize Awards, a cultural event that supposedly presents what is considered to be the highest and most valued art being created today. It is the ‘very latest’, what is on the cutting edge of the contemporary art scene and in their mounting of this exhibition they revealed their conniving and irresponsible behavior yet again. The exhibition consisted of works composed of bones, blood and guts, absurd assemblages and installations of garbage, virtually all of it vile and grotesque. To this, on the other side of the world, now we can add the murder of a dog as an exhibition in 2007 with a scheduled re-appearance in November, 2008.

Oy vey, if I could only get my hands on this bastard-excuse for a human being, and make him part of my next what would that look like???


Additional Information:

No comments: