interesting. there's been some uproar lately about the starving dog exhibit in which artist guillermo vargas "habacuc" supposedly tied a dog up in a museum and let him starve to death to raise awareness about the problems of stray animals.
turns out, the whole thing was a hoax. the dog was fed and given regular water, and ultimately allowed to return to his home on the streets. the artist demanded that the IMPRESSION of starvation and death was necessary to make his point, however.
what do you think?
is it acceptable to use seemingly shocking, cruel displays to raise awareness for otherwise ignored shocking, cruel, realities?
i've had similar debates with myself, especially over displays like the hundreds of small graves set up in white plaza at stanford on the anniversary of roe v. wade (although that, of course, is a slightly more contentious issue, i think). food for thought; let me know yours.