Ohh, that made me sick.

Not quite a dupe, but I know this has been posted before. Also, the date on the article is Oct 2007, a long time ago. I think the dog was left there and died, AFAIK

That is the saddest thing... that man is not an artist, he is a monster

...and so are the people observing this 'art'!

Now, if they did keep it well-fed and everything, and only made people think that it was being neglected...I think that the artist's point was pretty well-founded.

From this article and what research I did quickly I don't think it was at all intentional to hurt the dog. I know if there were starving dogs running my neighborhood and dying in front of my house I would want the city to take action. This is a way to do that. People only see what they want to, until they are forced to see the truth. He picked the dog up like that in the street, he didn't starve it to that point.

The question here is not if it is art or not, it is if it constitutes animal cruelty.

Reminds me of this thread.

My stance here is similar. People are hypocritical. They don't give a sh*t about thousands of dogs starving to death in the streets (well, most of them at least), but of course it's easier pointing fingers at those few who have the courage to drag the inconvenient truth into the very focus of public attention, than caring for a stray dog themselves.

It doesn't matter whether the dog starved to death. It doesn't matter if it constitutes animal cruelty. One might as well say, one dead dog more or less won't bother anyone. And in fact, hadn't the artist made that project (real or not), none of you had thought about the problem for a minute today.

Because I don't spend my days worrying about the stray dogs does not make it OK for this asshat to starve one on purpose.

Is a seriel killer making the point that you should train your daughters on how to kill with their bare hands or that you should go save a junkie hooker?