Animal Cruelty – A Darker Side of Art

As an art enthusiast I enjoy almost all forms of art, no matter what kind, by who, or even what level of talent an artist has when developing a piece. I appreciate all pieces of artwork for what they are, not how much they cost or who created them.

However, there is one form of “art” that has been going on for some time that makes me appalled and ashamed of the art community. This so-called “art” is a form of Animal Cruelty. Some how, this horrendous act has made its way into the art community and while it is greatly disapproved of by many viewers, artists, and especially animal activists, some how it still goes on because not everyone is disapproving.

Animal Cruelty is defined by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) as; Neglect or Intentional Cruelty. Intentional Cruelty consists of “Intentional cruelty is when an individual purposely inflicts physical harm or injury on an animal. (The ASPCA and other organizations with cruelty investigation authority have arrested individuals who have deliberately maimed, tortured or even killed animals.)”

Studies have shown that people who show forms of cruelty to animals often go on to harm other people in a similar form. John Locke once wrote of children that “…tormenting and killing…beasts, will, by degrees, harden their minds even towards men; and they who delight in the suffering and destruction of inferior creatures, will not be apt to be very compassionate or benign to those of their own kind.” It is because of this connection that animal abuse can often predict future abusive behavior, not only towards animals but towards people as well.

If this is the case, then how is it that these forms of, quite often extremely abusive and cruel treatment towards animals can be accepted as “art” and not investigated into further; if not for the animals sake than for the general populous who may be in danger from the individuals creating this “art”.

Many “artists” who create the cruel “artwork” claim that their reason behind it is that it evokes great emotion in the viewer and even opens their eyes to the reality of cruelty to animals, and humans, going on in the world. Yes, the point of artwork is to create emotions in the viewer and open them to ideas they may have never felt or thought of before. This can be accomplished in many forms of art that do not involve torturing innocent beings. Also, two wrongs never make a right. By the logic above, I could teach “Little Johnny” not to hit others by slapping him every time he hits another person. Does that make sense? No. Does it teach Little Johnny the message I’m trying to get through? Maybe, but it also makes him fear me and makes me a complete hypocrite.

An example of this “art” happened in 1996 when a college senior, Vincent Gothard, at the University of Florida dipped 40 live baby mice into resin, then cut them into cubes for an art project. Gothard was charged with animal cruelty and received up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 US fine.

At the Trapholt Modern Art Museum in 2000, when an artist named Marco Evaristti displayed live goldfish swimming in blenders. The object of the display was to test the viewers sense of right and wrong, and they were given the option of whether or not to press the button to purify the live goldfish. Two goldfish were killed by this act. The Danish association Friends of Animals filed a complaint against the artist and the director of the museum (Peter S. Meyer) for cruelty to animals. Meyer refused to pay the fine (2, 000 kroner = $315 Can) and was taken to court over it. The courts acquitted Meyer after a technician employed by the blender manufacturer and a veterinarian both testified that the fish did not experience any suffering or pain due to the blenders’ high speed.

In Australia, May of 2003 an art student at the Victorian College of the Arts killed a live chicken as part of a performance piece done in front of his class. The student was reported to the RSPCA and Sue Baker, head of the arts department, stated, "We've come down hard on this student and said, 'You don't do this for art, you do it for food, and it is offensive for anything to do with cruelty to animals to be portrayed as art.'"

In my own home province, British Columbia, an internationally-known “artist” named Huang Yong Ping had his gallery at the Vancouver Art Gallery shut down by The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in 2007. It was titled the “Theatre of the World” and was a live sculpture displaying lizards, scorpions, tarantulas and other animals together in a cage, meant to battle together to the death.

In early 2008 the San Francisco Art Institute exhibited six different television sets with six different animals being beaten to death with sledge hammers by “artist” Adel Abdessemed from Paris. The Art Institute supported the gallery and it remained on display from March until the end of May.

Perhaps the most wildly known form of “Artistic Animal Abuse” recently was in 2007 when “artist” Guillermo Vargas Habacuc chained a starving, diseased and dying dog to a wall in an art gallery in Nicaragua. Vargas paid some kids to capture the dog off of the streets and then chained it to the wall in the art gallery where he was gawked at by viewers. It was reported that some people protested and demanded the dog be fed and released but Vargas refused. Instead the dog sat in a heap of mange-ridden fur, skin and bones until he died of starvation the next day. As if to torture the poor thing, a sign was created on the adjacent wall which was composed completely out of dog kibble that read “Eres lo que lees” (“You Are What You Read”).

It is foggy on whether or not the dog actually starved to death, and there are several sources that will tell you all different stories about the same thing. However, regardless of whether or not the dog was fed, given water, and/or eventually died at the art gallery it is still a form of animal abuse. Intentionally capturing a starving stray dog and putting him on display is abuse. The right and moral thing to do would rather be to give the dog medical treatment and/or put it out of its misery in a humane way. NOT display it for the world to watch it’s suffering.

There are also several different reports on what the “artists” intentions were. Some sources quote him saying he did it for pure shock value and to get the viewers to think, others say he did it as a tribute to Nicarguan Natividad Canda that died in 2005 in a factory in San Jose, Costa Rica where he was attacked and killed by two Rottweilers. The starved dog was named Natividad, so my suspicion is that this is the original, real reason for the “artists” cruel display. Other sources will quote Vargas saying he did it to open the eyes public to the gross over population of dogs in Nicaragua that are starving, diseased, and dying every day in the streets. However, most articles quoting this statement were written after the news spread like wildfire.

These are just a few of many, many cases of animals being tortured for the sake of “art”.

Art should not be about shock value. Art should not inflict pain on any living creature. Art is a form of emotion and should be expressed in a way that does not involve cruelty. Any “artist” claiming to be displaying such “art” for the sake of the animals (exposing their harsh worlds to the public) is not a true artist and obviously has never heard the definition of hypocrisy.

What can you do to stop such inhuman acts of cruelty? Speak up. Spread the word. I’m sure there are enough people in this world, opposed to it, that can gather together and let their voices be heard any time these atrocious acts are committed to stop them from happening and put the “artists” behind bars where they belong. If the viewers of Vargas’ “art” had spoken up to authorities it would have been shut down and Vargas would not have been invited to display the same theme again (yeah, that’s right… he was invited to the prestigious Central American Arts Festival AFTER his cruel display).

This goes for any form of abuse, really. If you witness abuse and stand by and do nothing then you are no worse than the person inflicting the abuse. Stand up. Use your voice for something productive rather than destructive.

Animal cruelty laws have come a very, very long way since Richard Martin first established the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1824 after the first animal welfare act was passed in 1822, and later when the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was established in 1866 by Henry Bergh. However, they clearly have not come far enough. One must choose their battles accordingly and fight for the rights of animals over situations that may immediately affect their welfare.