The answers Habacuc has given about why he did such an installation have varied, but the one with most merit is as follows: "The purpose of the work was not to cause any type of infliction on the poor, innocent creature, but rather to illustrate a point. In my home city of San Jose, Costa Rica, tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the streets, and no one pays them a second thought."

If in fact this is the reason for the artist's installation, then he has already called plenty of attention to the subject, and there is no need for a repeat.

This action/art installation throws many questions into my mind: Why not depict the starvation of a dog instead of actually killing one? Habacuc is an artist, so surely he can draw or sculpt (giving him the benefit of the doubt). Or, why not starve himself instead of a dog?

Can it possibly be true that an artist starved a dog to death as art? After careful consideration and research I can't actually be sure. Habacuc has stated both that the dog died and that it did not. Regardless of the true fate of the dog, it is known that at the very least the dog (named "Natividad") was tortured and treated cruelly in the hands of a man who had the ability to appropriately care for him.

Habacuc's rationale that the dog would have died anyway poses many more conceptual questions. Is the artist saying that he rescued Natividad from death, therefore to kill him later is okay? Is it ever legitimate to torture and kill any sentient creature, even for the sake of art?

The amount of secrecy involved in this art installation is astounding. Habacuc refuses to comment, and everyone around him is saying something to contradict one another, making "the truth" almost impossible to find. If the best answer is usually the simplest, then by Occam, it's not hard to see that this was wrong and does not constitute art.

Art itself has taken many steps forward in the last 30 years, and these steps seem to have left it in a realm where fine lines, rules, and a conception of right and wrong do not exist. But if art is going to be played out in a society with rules - and lines drawn between wrong and right - then the art and artist must play by those rules. Pushing the envelope is hardly a bad thing, but going too far is, well, going too far.

As a working artist, I often ask myself how my art projects sound before I begin them. The process of conceptualizing art is important to all artists. I am lucky enough to know an array of artists in several media who take their work very seriously. Whether they are the type of artist who considers the public, or one who works for themselves, all take the interpretation of their art as an adjunct of their reputation as artists. All Habacuc would have had to have done is ask himself, "Is it okay to display an emaciated dog to the public and refuse the dog food and water?"

If in fact he has done this to bring attention to the strays in his country, what has been done to help the strays? Has he donated the proceeds of his installation to the local Humane Society? If so, there's been no publicity on this point, as one would expect.

As an artist, one holds a certain responsibility to the people that one serves, even if just serving oneself you must serve your own reputation. That is what I believe Habacuc was doing. He was simply serving his own reputation by doing a crazy artistic stunt just to build himself some notoriety which, unfortunately, he was successful at.

There is a petition against Habacuc's upcoming installation where he will re-enact the original installation. If you are interested in signing this petition, please go to http://www.petitiononline.com/13031953/petition-sign.html.

Tell us what you think. Write Spectrum at editor@mcckc.edu.

Copyright 2008 Metropolitan Community College