Another way of looking at this is cruelty is an intentional act. If we didn’t know about this dog, it wouldn’t have been cruel if it starved (as so many animals do regularly), but because we are aware of it, it is cruel. We are blinded to cruelty because if we knew of the hunger around the world we would be indicted for not caring, but since we are blissfully unaware, we are free from guilt.

I think it is art in the strongest sense, when viewed this way. Art not for entertainment, but art that changes the perspective of the world.

Kris,

I checked, there wasn’t much I didn’t have here. If it’s true that the exhibit was promoted as being a starving animal, that doesn’t exactly make the artist look good – but my point is just that the sorts of horrific things being attributed to him are apparently not true. That still doesn’t necessarily mean that what he did was appropriate – there’s not enough reliable information to make that judgment so far as I can see. At any rate, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of tying a dog up as an art exhibit, starving or healthy.