I have very mixed emotions on what I'm about to talk about. I'm not sure if anyone has heard about this. Apparently, there is an artist in Honduras, named Guillermo Habacuc Vargas, who for his last exhibition caught a street dog, tied it up in a corner, told people not to feed it, and let it... die. (There is an article I've posted below that includes pictures as well.) Supposedly the point of the whole '

iece' was to show just how willing to follow ridiculous rules people have become, though I couldn't find anything from the artist that said specifically that was his concept.
Obviously, this story has had huge impact on a lot of people. Some have said that was what he was aiming for--to make a point, an example, if you will, out of the dog about how people are sheep and aren't as willing to reach out and help as they should be--so it can be called successful. In which case, I think his overall intentions may have been good. You could possibly say he was trying to educate people in the hopes that, if they were ever in such a situation, they'd do something as opposed to nothing like the viewers at his exhibition. It's a good point to make.
However, this raises a very key question: Is starving a dog necessary? Not really. You can argue that hundreds of thousands of human beings and other animals die every day all you like. That's true, and that's very sad, so kudos to the people who are trying to stop that. (I for one an am avid supporter of many orginizations to end hunger, as well as a supporter of the ASPCA.) But why should this particular dog have suffered? Even if it is also true that he was already sick, shouldn't they at least given him the honor of dying in a more natural--and, while maybe not less sad, more comfortable--way?
Of course, there's also the possibility that the dog WASN'T sick. In which case, my opinion is that this so-called artist could have made just as large of a point by perhaps still including him in his 'artwork' but showing the difference a bit of god care could make. The pictures of the dog in his worst state are heartwrenching to say the least and could have very well had the same impact-- without the death of the poor animal.
Also, for the people saying sarcastically that, if this is art, doing the same to another person should also be considered art, I'd like to point out that while a human is able to, in most cases, avoid such treatment, and even if they were to put up with it it would be by free will, this dog could not. It would be like doing it to a child. Who would allow that? Certainly, seeing a dying, starving child tied to a wall or pole would have impact, but it would not make it right.
And as for people saying that they don't understand how you can '

ity this dog so much and then go eat a chicken', I feel that (even though I have a very hard time eating meat myself at times) chickens are raised as livestock, and not treated half as badly as this dog. Their lives aren't as full as an adorable little chicken's life could be. (=o) But they also are not tied up and starved to death.
I suppose I stand somewhere in the middle of the 'ZOMG THIZ GUY IZ A MURDERER' spastic fanatics and the 'you idiots, this is art!' heartless people. Like I said, I think this was a good point to make. Even with just a dog in this particular situation, people could and possibly would look at it, go, "hmm.. dying.. I should help.." and then turn around and feel the same way about other people and children. But I still strongly disagree with the method he has used and hope that dogs do, in fact, go to heaven.
Link:
[link]More:
[link](I would bet my arse that no one actually reads this xD But it wa a nice rant I needed to have!)