It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Sculptor Who Shot Dog ‘for Art’ Receive $750K in Public Funds?

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Back in 1977, Brooklyn-based artist Tom Otterness made a film of himself shooting and killing a dog he'd adopted from an animal shelter. It's art! But it's also evidence of an act of animal cruelty, which is why some San Francisco residents don't want Otterness to receive $750,000 in public funds to make statues for a local subway station.


So San Fransisco residents are up in arms about this, and in my opinion rightly so. Giving money to someone who shot a dog and recorded in the name of 'art' seems like a real bad idea, and IMO even though it happened quite a long time ago the contract should be nullified. I'm not going to pretend to be a vegetarian or staunch animal rights activist; I eat meat, my car has leather seats and I have no problem with hunters, fur coats or the like. The one thing I can't stand are people that kill dogs and cats. Yeah, yeah, I'm hypocritical. I know. I love dogs and to me this act is inexcusable.

The other real beef I have with this story is that in a State like CA (ahem budget problems much?) people's tax dollars are going to fund '59 cartoonish bronze statues'. Are you freaking kidding me? How many people could that feed/clothe or educate? We need to stop shoveling money at artists. If you want art in a public place commission it yourself. It is a needless expenditure and it sickens me that a city would waste that much coin.


He's also apologized publicly for making the film—calling it "an indefensible act that I am deeply sorry for," "inexcusable," the product of "convoluted logic," and something he did out of "anger at [him]self and at the world."


That's just dandy and doesn't sway my opinion. Only a really sick ____ would adopt a dog just to shoot it. When you adopt an animal you have a responsibility to it.


Should he be regarded as "the artist who killed a dog once," or "an artist who brings happiness to people through his quirky creations"


I'm going to regard him as a scumbag that once shot a dog, and is now leeching off tax dollars. How about you guys?

Link




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Yup total scumbag imo too



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
If you'd let me make the decisision he would receive a bullet as well. I'm not advocating crime or murder. I'm advocating a legal death sentence.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 

uh if this isnt a joke
this guy would be in jail.
and if hes not i hope a local finds where he lives and gives a bit of justice to him
sick puppy



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


It happened in '77 and the artist has Apologized for it.




Some people have their priorities messed up. You want to give a guy a hard time for killing a dog that happened over thirty years ago...to which he sought forgiveness.


Dear god man, thousands of people are dying in political wars right now where no one takes responsibilities for collateral damage.


Where's our stakes and torches, let's burn this guy...


edit on 17-9-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





It happened in '77 and the artist has Apologized for it.


I was aware. Both of those facts are in the OP. I'm upset about the people dying in wars too. I can't be upset about more than one thing at once? If you think it ridiculous that I'm mad about the dog, then what do you think about the city spending 750k on comical bronze statues?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
If you'd let me make the decisision he would receive a bullet as well. I'm not advocating crime or murder. I'm advocating a legal death sentence.


For killing a dog? Should someone advocate murder for you for advocating the murder of another person? It is a simple fact that animals are killed everyday. And while we like to say that it is entirely purposeful, every time you throw out some meat that went bad in your fridge, an animal died for no reason.

Circle of life.


Not advocating the actions of the person. But as I already pointed out, he has made amends for his 30 year old actions. That is more than most people would do when confronted with their shortcomings.
edit on 17-9-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by boncho
 





It happened in '77 and the artist has Apologized for it.


I was aware. Both of those facts are in the OP. I'm upset about the people dying in wars too. I can't be upset about more than one thing at once? If you think it ridiculous that I'm mad about the dog, then what do you think about the city spending 750k on comical bronze statues?



I think it is excessive in a recession. In a bull market where there is extra funds, by all means, bronze the streets up and down for all I care.

But I agree on that point, in this current time, it seems frivolous.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Weak spot for dogs etc. They cant shoot back and dont understand if their life is threatened. I'm generally against death sentence but I can't quarantee what would happen if I'd meet this guy.

[Edit to add] And of those 30 years. How long he has made amendment for? 1h? 1 day? Not like he wakes up in the morning thinking "I should've really not shot that dog".
edit on 17/9/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Him asking for forgiveness doesn't stop the simple fact that he shot and killed a dog for "art". I'm not going to blame the artist for receiving 750K for some "art". Instead, I'm going to blame the government for yet another sign of utter stupidity. How many schools are there out there that would KILL for even a grand of that money for new schoolbooks or to fix various problems in their school?

What about the homeless who need food and shelter? But no, idiotic cartoon like statues are much more important!


If this doesn't showcase what's wrong with the world today, then I don't know what does.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 



As you must understand this is a very difficult and painful situation for me.

Thirty years ago when I was 25 years old, I made a film in which I shot a dog. It was an indefensible act that I am deeply sorry for. Many of us have experienced profound emotional turmoil and despair.

Few have made the mistake I made. I hope people can find it in their hearts to forgive me. Tom Otterness
*

Wake up every morning and think about it? Maybe not. But obviously it is something that has given the man a lot of thought, considering it is still being talked about today.

And again, this outrage might be better directed at nearly 1 million civilian deaths that recently happened in a war. Being that you are so empathetic to life.

Just trying to offer perspective.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Domo1
 


It happened in '77 and the artist has Apologized for it.




Some people have their priorities messed up. You want to give a guy a hard time for killing a dog that happened over thirty years ago...to which he sought forgiveness.


Dear god man, thousands of people are dying in political wars right now where no one takes responsibilities for collateral damage.


Where's our stakes and torches, let's burn this guy...


edit on 17-9-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)


So it happened in 77? How many serial killers active in CA since 77 and haven't been found and brought to justice? Yeah I think they should be investigating this sorry sack of soil.(And I don't mean dirt. I mean like soiling the underpants soil).
Heres one of the 1980s
Grim Sleeper



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Killing a dog now makes you a serial killer?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


I wish i could find this (not person)And strangle him with my bare hands



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Yeah put at least humans have instinct to survive or to defend themselves. I don't really have any feelings about wars cause I'm starting to get numb from the constant news. It's not like anyone is ever gonna stop the war industry.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
No different than that useless turd football guy (forget the name but he's unimportant anyway). Guy was convicted of numerous dog slayings in arguably a worse fashion. Today he's signed up with Nike and back in the football league, undoubtedly admired by the same ilk I'm sure.

brill
edit on 17-9-2011 by brill because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Killing a dog now makes you a serial killer?


Why yes, yes it is a predeterminate for serial killers, In case you did not know let me put a link here:

*Delinquent acts such as pyromania, theft, and cruelty to animals were present in the childhoods of most serial killers.

Serial Killer Characteristics
And also I would think what led to his act of cruelty would be the other things they mentioned. But this is just a short version, there's been full 3500 page research papers written on the characteristics which go way far into detail.

Actually this kind of attention to him could lead the FBI into looking back into some of the serial crimes in California and they might just get involved looking at him as a suspect.

I'd also venture to guess this probably wasn't the only time he has done something like this, and after that they "graduate" into human prey.*
edit on 17-9-2011 by ldyserenity because: * to add



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


I hate to be this guy but that link has some issues. Those are signature killers not serial killers (they mentioned Dahmer). Serial killers are people that kill 3 or more times with a cooling off period. Signature killer is what everyone thinks is a serial killer. Sorry pet peeve after dating a forensic psychologist.

You are correct though signature killers have a tendency to abuse animals/kill them.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity


Why yes, yes it is a predeterminate for serial killers, In case you did not know let me put a link here:

 


I already knew you were going to come back with that. Now please find me a case where it was done publicly as form of art.

Perhaps you have a serial killer reality show to refer me to?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Okay I only did a quick search but I have always heard this of many serial killers I didn't even know there was a difference between serial and signature, because most serial killers have a MOTUS OPERENDI which means they have all pretty much had a signature (Excepting mob hit men who have killed serially but they do it for money) but that is a whole nother type of animal (most of them are financially motivated).



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join