[Epiphany]

Scoot down about half way down the page...

Starving dobermann... art?

I am not sure whether I should be disgusted or not. It looks like taxidermy to me. I don't see the 'art' in it. Its along the lines of other shock 'art' around. It has no purpose other than to impress and scare people with its realism.

 

[PatchworkRobot]

I don't understand this kind of art but I was glad to see that it wasn't a real taxidermied dog.

 

[Cliff]

I don't see the problem with it. There are many forms of morbid art. I recently saw a real human head, removed after an autopsy, which had been cut in half, and either half was posed as if it was kissing the other. What may be gross and disturbing to one person is a thought-provoking art form to another, as art is subjective.

 

[*Wrigley*]

Yuck! I really don't get it...

 

[Epiphany]

Its not that it is possibly taxidermy made to art... its that it is modeled to look like a starving dog, breathing and all. What would poses someone to think a dying abused dog is art?

Patchworkrobot... I couldn't find any other references to it, but if you look carefully it does appear to be taxidermy. Though there are no better photos, no artist website, no links to other work by this artist. So I can't research the truth about it other than one photographers opinion.

 

[Reptilehoundz]

It depends on how you define "art"...this is sad to me, but a cruelly realistic portrayal of life, or what it has become. I find my heart aching for all dogs in that state or anywhere without a loving home, but I can see what Mou Buoyan might have been intending. It is thought provoking to me, and deeply saddening. Then again, when is the human race not saddening?

To the OP, definition of art: 1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
2. Works produced by such skill and imagination.

So, I don't think it's art...it is shocking, repulsive, and thought-provoking, but not impressive.

EDIT: It didn't strike me as taxidermy...but the caption says a "realistic" Doberman...what does that mean?

 

[PatchworkRobot]

I'll be honest, it doesn't look completely realistic to me. The texture is off regardless of if the dog (who is hypothetically real right now) was well cared for or malnourished. The coat texture and luster is off.

However, waht really made me say that I was glad to see that it wasn't a real taxidermied dog were these quotes...

Driven by an air compressor, this realistic Doberman looks like it’s drawing its last breaths.

Driven by an air compressor, the realistic Doberman looks like it’s drawing its last breaths. On opening day, several people were overheard exclaiming, “It’s real!”

They aren't saying that it's real, they're talking about how shocking it is that it looks so realistic.

Anyways, my opinion is the same as Cliff's - there are many forms of art and what one person finds disgusting another might find beautiful and there can be various reasons for this. I would not appreciate looking at this and would probably avoid it but I know some people who would, sure, feel very sad to see it but would also ponder it's meaning and whatnot.

 

[Audrey1]

You can argue about whether it is 'art' or not. But it makes me sick. Especially since I think China can use a lot of educating about how to treat animals. If people are going to this exhibit and thinking it looks cool rather than depressingly sick, then we have a real problem. And from the looks of things in China, I'd say there is too much 'chasing after what they think is fashionable' rather than looking deeper. In this case, in this place (China) I think it would be better if a politically correct attitude were taken and meaningful discussion could come from a piece of 'art' like this.
Meaningful discussion, as in discussing the state of the fate of dogs in China. There are some real dog lovers but they also do lack access to information...and those who really don't know any dogs have no idea how to treat a dog, etc.

 

[Q734]

Yuck. Even tho I'm a former fine art major I'm not feeling that.at.all.

Like any group, some people feel compelled to "out punk rock" each other and then you get **** like this. E.g. to avoid being labeled derivative the inevitable "No one's ever done this", "it's not derivative" blah blah blah=shock art.

Whoever that is wishes they were someone like a Jessica Joslin, but will never be. ETA: <-(because it's already being done)

 

[Epiphany]

Yuck. Even tho I'm a former fine art major I'm not feeling that.at.all.

Like any group, some people feel compelled to "out punk rock" each other and then you get **** like this. E.g. to avoid being labeled derivative the inevitable "No one's ever done this", "it's not derivative" blah blah blah=shock art.

Whoever that is wishes they were someone like a Jessica Joslin, but will never be. ETA: <-(because it's already being done)

This was my exact thoughts. This was created to shock, not to be thought provoking. A commentary on animal abuse/neglect would have had a written portion or some other visual push to move viewers thoughts to that direction. The dog is lying on tiles, its head over the edge of the flooring another part of the piece carefully manipulated to add to the shock.

I agree... this is not art.

I tend to disagree that it couldn't be taxidermy based on the photographers one line on the entire piece. That is unreliable as evidence, I would be looking to go straight to the source or see it with my own eyes. Unfortunately searches did not bring up even one other article or website that so much as mentioned his name.
What lends me to believe it is possibly taxidermy is the detail and shape of the feet, the colour distribution of the hair and variation in hair density in relation to body region etc. If this was not taxidermy, the amount of work that would go into threading those hairs, getting the shape of the feet and textures and shapes of the pads and nails... this work may have taken more than a solid year of work... for a piece he likely would have not earned enough money from and that would likely not earn him a name the way other shock art has for others. Unless he is an already rich artist, I tend to believe this is taxidermy over a very long toiled over piece. It wouldn't be the first "artist" to use taxidermy.

I would like to be able to look up the artist further. Get to see his other work and find out why he thought this was a good display piece.

I also agree that displaying such a thing in China would be risky if his message was regarding neglect, he did not portray it well enough and likely his message would have been lost.

 

[Epiphany]

Well now this really is sad

Actual starving dog as art

 

[Q734]

I have to say if that was actually a taxidermied dog, depending on the circumstances of how it came to expire and how it was obtained, is actually a techinically well done piece and might shift my view of the whole thing as a definite statement piece.

Somehow it being said to be completely fabricated bothers me more than taxidermy, but the words or logic to explain why escape me now.

I once had an opportunity to apprentice w/a top taxidermist, a really neat lady too, one of the greatest regrets of my life that I wasn't able to take the offer.

 

[Salamander]

Scoot down about half way down the page...

Starving dobermann... art?

I am not sure whether I should be disgusted or not. It looks like taxidermy to me. I don't see the 'art' in it. Its along the lines of other shock 'art' around. It has no purpose other than to impress and scare people with its realism.

It's also shamelessly/pathetically derivative.

snopes.com: Guillermo Vargas: Dog Starved for Art Exhibit

To this day, it is not known whether the dog survived its stint as "art" or not.

I find the starving Dobe exhibit disgusting and a desperate cry for attention, even if the attention presents itself as howls of outrage and disgust.

I pity the "artist".

If "shock" is all he's got for "talent", he's screwed.

.

 

[Salamander]

well now this really is sad

actual starving dog as art

gmta

 

[Salamander]

It depends on how you define "art"...this is sad to me, but a cruelly realistic portrayal of life, or what it has become. I find my heart aching for all dogs in that state or anywhere without a loving home, but I can see what Mou Buoyan might have been intending. It is thought provoking to me, and deeply saddening. Then again, when is the human race not saddening?

To the OP, definition of art: 1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
2. Works produced by such skill and imagination.

So, I don't think it's art...it is shocking, repulsive, and thought-provoking, but not impressive.

EDIT: It didn't strike me as taxidermy...but the caption says a "realistic" Doberman...what does that mean?

But the article referred to it as "funny".

 

[Cliff]

I doubt this was intended to look 'cool'. When I looked at it I saw a bleak depiction of the state of living things in this industrialized world... starving and withering away, barely clinging to a miserable life. I doubt the artist created this- and it is VERY well done- with the intention of it looking 'cool' and I doubt that people view it and think it looks 'cool'.

Whether you like it or not, it has done its job- it has provoked thought. You took the time to look and comment. It made you think.

Something doesn't have to be pretty to be art. Art is everything. Art encompasses both the beautiful and the sickening, ugly. If it makes you throw up in your mouth and exclaim how disgusting it is, it's created a reaction. Just because a work touches on a disturbing subject does not detract from its artistic merit.

 

[Cliff]

In fact... I would hazard to say that all of my favorite artworks make me uncomfortable to look at.

 

[Epiphany]

Cliff... it isn't provoking positive thoughts (as in either a fluffy happy thought OR provoking thought targetted at animal abusers), its merely making me ponder who the artist is and THATS where I have the problem. Shock art such as this is usually done just to make a name for the artist... taking a heck of a lot from the original idea of art and throwing it out the window... placing this 'art' in the bracket of marketing. Any time someone uses an animal to promote their own fame... whether its a real animal or fake... I feel a sort of disgust. Not a vomit or sick kind of disgust... a lack of respect kind of disgust.

 

[widdam]

ART??? Not my first thought. Would rather have a nicely framed oil hanging over the fireplace that I can enjoy rather than losing sleep over that image. Sorry didn't mean to hit the THANKS button on a previous post.

 

[Toby'shuman]

If that isn't a real Dobe the artist is a bloody genius, it sure looks real.

To me this is not art. Neither is plasticised human beings, animals etc in various poses.

I get ART is subjective, but to me the boundaries between decency and what is thought provoking are too obscure.

Give me a fantastic vista, a picture of giant redwoods or a Dobe sniffing a rose anyday to such shocking images.