All information on the dog-starvation piece, "Eres lo que lees" (You are what you read), comes from sites protesting it. There are many of these, as well as petitions, long diatribes, etc. The artist's statement accused those indignant of hypocrisy: why do you clamor for one dog among so many, why (one supplies) bother about dogs among so much human suffering. It was often written by detractors, 'this is not art'1. In typical form, the evaluation lacked explicit criteria. Those with the strength are free to reenact debate.
The strange complement to many of these texts (blogs, message boards, etc) was the appended disclaimer that none of it might have happened (this is the way many pages ended, with an afterthought about the possibility of its being a 'hoax'). Conflict focused on endowing the event with profundity or stripping it away; very little elaborated the clues about whether it had actually taken place.
In fact the possibility of the event came into being (in the absence of originary information) as a byproduct of a controversy about it. The idea that "it doesn't matter what it means, it shouldn't have happened," rebels against the necessity of a real precedent despite being literally predicated on one.
