Flash Points

You Are What You Read

Guillermo Vargas, "Exposición No.1," 2007. Galería Códice, Managua, Nicaragua.

What are the ethical implications of using live animals in art?

In 1974, Joseph Beuys caged himself with a live coyote for a performance piece called I Like America and America Likes Me. The artist spent a week living with the coyote, eventually learning how to co-exist with the animal. His intention was to highlight the strained relationship between the coyote and European settlers in America, and its representation of the damage done to the continent and native cultures.

Joseph Beuys, "I Like America and America Likes Me," 1974. Photo: Caroline Tisdall. Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York.

In 1993, Damien Hirst presented In and Out of Love, filling a gallery with hundreds of live tropical butterflies hatching from white canvases, feeding on sugar syrup, mating, laying eggs and dying, to illustrate the brevity of life and the inevitability of death. Years later, the artist had a tiger shark killed to be used in his work, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living.

In 2003, the graffiti artist Banksy painted live animals from head to hoof in an exhibit called Turf War, causing an animal activist to chain herself to railings surrounding a decorated cow, despite the animal’s conditions being approved by the RSPCA (The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).

In 2007, artistic freedom and expression was challenged in an exhibition by artist Huang Yong Ping, entitled Theatre of the World at the Vancouver Art Gallery. Lizards, scorpions, tarantulas, and insects were exhibited in conditions deemed improper for the animals by the SPCA, an organization whose mission is to advance the well-being of animals. The artist decided to remove the animals from the exhibit in protest, in order to maintain the integrity of the artwork.

As much as these works outraged animal rights activists, perhaps no other exhibition has caused as much controversy over the ethical use of live animals in art as Exposición No.1. A show of work by Guillermo Vargas, a Costa Rican artist also known as “Habacuc,” took place on August 16, 2007 at Galería Códice in Managua, Nicaragua. Written in dog food on a gallery wall was the statement, “Eres lo que lees,” meaning, “You are what you read.” The center of attention was a sickly-looking street dog tied to a metal cable bolted to the wall with a short rope. The animal was supposedly captured in the alleys of Managua by some children who were paid by the artist. According to hundreds of blogs and news articles circulating on the Internet, the artist intended for the dog to starve to death during the course of the exhibition. Vargas intended to raise awareness of the public’s hypocrisy by comparing what happened to this dog to a burglar named Natividad Canda Mayrena, who was mauled to death by two rottweilers in Costa Rica while the police and onlookers watched.

The outrage that ensued over the Internet and via mass media outlets culminated in a petition that was signed by over four million people worldwide, calling for the artist to be boycotted from the Central American Biennial Honduras 2008 and for criminal charges to be filed against him. Filled with outrage, I signed the petition as well. Later I read that Vargas also signed the petition, claiming that an artist always signs his work. This seemed curious to me, so I decided to investigate the facts behind the exhibition and was surprised by what I learned.

Guillermo Vargas, "Exposición No.1," 2007, Galería Códice, Managua, Nicaragua.

Guillermo Vargas, "Exposición No.1," 2007. Galería Códice, Managua, Nicaragua.

It helped that I could read in Spanish, as I soon discovered that not one blog or news source that covered the exhibition could confirm whether the dog actually died. The outlets were getting their information from the same source, a blog published by a friend of the artist, called “El Perrito Vive,”or “The Dog Lives.”

Throughout my research, it became clear that this work was part of an Internet art project. Exposición No 1 is one component of a larger work of art called Eres lo que lees, which employs misinformation and manipulates mass media via the Internet. One of the aims of this project was to demonstrate the hypocrisy in real world and art world ethics. Take a dog off the streets and put it into a gallery and it becomes an ethical phenomenon, while stray dogs and most real human suffering are ignored or given minimal attention.

Another purpose was to incite a reaction, making the spectator, like the dog, an unwilling participant in the work. This illustrates how easily we can be manipulated into believing what news outlets want us to. The title, “You Are What You Read,” illustrates this point very well. If one artist can manipulate over four million people around the world, imagine the ability that governments, corporations, and religious entities have to do the same.

According to the gallery owner, the dog was in the gallery for nine hours a week, and was well-fed with dog food supplied by Habacuc. One night after being fed by the night watchmen, the dog escaped by passing through the iron gate at the main entrance. In an interview, the artist clearly states that the dog died in the artwork, but he never said that the dog died in real life. Ambiguity was his intention.

The use of live animals in art has raised many ethical questions regarding what art is and what art should be. Should live animals be used as art objects at all? An art object may have aesthetic value regardless of whether it is ethical or not, but an artist should be held accountable if it can be proved that his or her actions deliberately caused inhumane suffering.  Through the image of a starving dog, Guillermo Vargas’s artwork Eres lo que lees opens our minds to the hypocrisy of real world and art world ethics, and the lack of attention given to both human and animal suffering.

David Yanez an Ecuadorian-born artist who lives and works in New York City, NY.

  1. David Yanez says:

    According to the gallery owner, the dog was in the Gallery for three days of which it was only tied for three hours during the exhibition. (This is the correct information)

  2. Mira says:

    I remember the whole fiasco regarding the dog, and I too believed what I read online about it. This is illuminating and profound. Thank you so much for writing it.

  3. howard bloom says:

    fascinating, and very thought provoking. h

  4. Pingback: The Digest. 03.05.10. « C-MONSTER.net

  5. Tracy Savage says:

    Great writing and kudos on your investigation on Vargas! I ordinarily tend to recoil at the use of live animals in these pieces due to the exploitation factor and it seems somewhat disingenuous in that the artist’s work is not actually the presentation, but take credit for the animal and its behavior within the context of the piece.

    One example I did think of was the same as you noted- with live animals- Banksy in England. He is popular with his “cow art” as it didn’t seem to phase the cows. He has made quite the impression already by coloring up otherwise drab neighborhood standards with his other non-livestock pieces, but what is the statement he is making? And why cows? Who knows- it is whimsical on the surface and doesn’t seem to be intent on hurting the cows- if he is using the cow as a live canvas for a temporary piece, to each his own I suppose as long as the cows aren’t harmed for it. It seems humorous, and within keeping with the impermanent attitude of the body of his work.

    But in this story- Vargas was using a deceptive ploy to get one to see how humans jump to conclusions without first investigating the facts. This happens all the time in the media and in our personal lives- he is right on target with that. It is how we market ourselves and what product we are selling- the internet is ripe with rumor and this is why SNOPES is so popular, we get upset when we find out we are duped. The same thing happened here- not only were people outraged, I would also think be more pissed that he got one over on them…. See More

    Is it ethical to use live animals in art? It is not ethical in any circumstance to injure them FOR art in my opinion. But then when we see a great work of artistry in a culinary dish, but that is for biological consumption (an argument that I have heard before). We see fashion pieces all the time that use animal flesh specifically gotten for adornment. Vargas’ Exposición No 1 seems to be along those lines of the second example, so in art so does the end justify the means? The illusion: the dog died due to mistreatment, then I have to say no it does not justify the piece, but if it is true the dog was fine then no harm, no foul. He proved his point without killing the dog- but the image he portrayed was that the dog died, sending people into a state of emotional reaction. SO who is being abused here- it is the human mind and compassion for the animal that was involved that is prodded into an exploitive reaction. If people got outraged then I say humans passed the test with regard to his objective- if he was trying to see if people would react in this manner, and to demonstrate that they need to check the facts before judging a book by the cover.

    But I stand by my original statement: I really have an uncomfortable factor with the live animal used it art, since the artist is not actually creating the piece, it is the animal that is responsible for the execution. Seems a bit pretentious to me, a perpective pieces aside. Who knows, maybe I am more conservative than I thought in interpretive art lol

  6. Tracy Savage says:

    ACK! Please excuse the typos- just finished a long day and was going on fumes here lol

  7. Pingback: Practical Uses for Metal Cable Ties

  8. Pingback: What’s Cookin at the Art21 Blog: A Weekly Index | Art21 Blog

  9. Pingback: Oh, for real? « Vshusd's Blog

  10. David Yanez says:

    I did not write that the dog was in ‘the dog was in the gallery for nine hours a week’ The editors of this Flaspoint blog took my original article and changed it to their liking. I did not approve their final draft. This is what I included in my version of the article. It is a quote by the gallery owner Juanita Bermudez;

    ” The dog was in the Gallery for three days, as of 5:00 pm Wednesday, August 15. It was untied all the time in the patio except for the three hours the exhibition lasted, and it was fed regularly with dog food Habacuc himself brought in,” On the morning of Friday the 17th the dog escaped passing through the iron gate of the main entrance while the night watchman was cleaning up after just feeding the dog.”

    Why the editors of this blog chose to ignore and change my original material is beyond me. I did not approve this change and am pretty disgusted at how they can ask people to submit original blog posts and change them to their own liking. Would Art 21 try to edit and change the art it promotes? No, I don’t thinks so. So why does it edit and change a quest writers work. Writers are artists as well. A guest blogger does not receive any money for their submissions and should not have to be edited and their work changed. For the record I did not approve their final edited draft of my article.

    My original intent and the reason I wrote the article was compromised.

  11. Pingback: Jason Alba (al – buh)» Blog Archive » Influence: Art, Religion, Government, You

  12. C says:

    You really have to be an idiot to believe that b.s. fro the gallery – an excuse that contradicted other excuses & came ONLY after the international uproar. Yeah, the dog sure looks like he ws fed!!! Are you blind? Or just an apologist for egotistical sadists everywhere?

  13. Pingback: Ejects I, Graph I; Natividad « Paresthesiac

Leave a Comment