Nobody said art wasn’t supposed to be controversial, but where does one draw the line between the avant-garde and base exploitation? Costa Rican born artist Guillermo “Habacuc” Vargas is helping us make the distinction between the artistic and the sadistic that much clearer. Vargas, who gained notoriety for a Nicaraguan exhibit in August of 2007 for tying a stray dog to a wall in an art gallery and starving it to death, believed his exhibition was a tribute to a Nicaraguan burglar who was killed in Costa Rica by two guard dogs.

When questioned about the exhibit, Vargas told reporters, “I won’t say the dog died. The importance to me is the hypocrisy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death.” He also explained that the dog had an ailment that caused it not to eat, stressing that it would have starved to death in the streets had it not been subjected to this cruel exhibition. But perhaps more disturbing is the fact that Vargas has been asked to repeat his exhibition at the Visual Arts Biennial of Central America in 2008.

Artists have been pushing the boundaries of censorship since the dawn of organized government, and it has recently become chic to advocate for complete artistic freedom of expression. However, freedom, to paraphrase President Bush, does not come without responsibility. In this vein, it seems ludicrous that such a blatant act of animal cruelty should be hailed as artistic - even more atrocious that the artist responsible should be asked to repeat this evil deed. Even if the argument could be made that the subject matter carries a potent political message, is it not the job of an artist to portray that message in a way that is aesthetically pleasing? No one would object had Vargas simply painted the image of the dying dog, or possibly portrayed it artificially on video.