Do you think that Guillermo Vargas controversial work of a starving dog is art?
Yes, and it’s also animal cruelty. On the one hand, Vargas should be punished for doing that to an innocent animal, which is a terrible crime. However, that does *Not* mean that the statement made by her work should be ignored or seen as any less. I find it atrocious that someone would actually do this. But when I think about it in context on a macro scale, the whole thing does have a very grim sort of comic irony to it, which also seems to have been the artist’s intent, allbeit misguided: There are dogs much like Nativity starving all over the world through human cruelty, abuse, and simple negligence, and yet it takes a disgusting, carnal tableu of this stature to inflame people’s outrage and get them to act as much as they have against Vargas. People see images and hear news of animals and even people dying terrible deaths every single day, and for the most part they take it in stride. But the starvation of this *One* particular dog is so outrageous and significant, why? Because some
