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

reply to post by Domo1

You are correct though signature killers have a tendency to abuse animals/kill them.

If you believe the following story, so do military officials:

“Soldiers can face immediate court-marshal [for befriending animals] and some even see their animals brutally murdered by a direct gunshot to the head from commanding officers who will not bend the rules.”

*

Again... I'm only trying to offer perspective...

reply to post by boncho


Who knows there was not always film and video. I don't know if anybody has done it on video. I know that the typical serial killer wants their victims to be seen/ found they actually take pleasure in making people uncomfortable so it doesn't necessarily not fit the bill. They like to also play mind games with the police and media. These things we do know about them.

reply to post by boncho


That's a little different. Sort of like comparing a signature killer with a turkey farmer. Turkey farmer is going to kill turkeys but not derive pleasure from it. I see that you are trying to get me to say that since he is an artist, he was just doing what he thought was his job. My issue with the dog killing part of the story is that it was a dog ( I completely admit to my hypocrisy here) and that it was a dog that he adopted. I believe when you adopt an animal that way you are making a commitment and have a responsibility to keep it safe, healthy and happy.

reply to post by ldyserenity


Want to point out the ones who made public apologies to public art displays?

You are grasping at straws. 1) Killing an animal does not make you a serial killer. 2) I don't need a number two.

“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.” Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: www.sfexaminer.com...

“What the f--- do I do with this?” he said. He grew visibly upset. “Certainly the scene it was part of, it was in the context of the times and the scene I was in.” He began again. “It is something I’ve grown to understand that nothing really excuses that kind of action. I had a very convoluted logic as to what effect I meant to have with that video. Whatever I had in mind, it was really inexcusable to take a life in service of that.” Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: www.sfexaminer.com...

reply to post by boncho


What's that the Islamic Armada? Or whatever they call it, That is totally NOT true at least not here in the USA, In fact MP's have dogs (K9) and so they have bomb sniffing dogs too.

reply to post by Domo1

I believe when you adopt an animal that way you are making a commitment and have a responsibility to keep it safe, healthy and happy.

I don't think those were his intentions when he adopted the dog to shoot it. It wasn't him going to the center thinking "I'm gonna take Rover home and feed him."


It was art. Bad taste, unnecessary art. He relives it every time he commissions something public. While the act is nothing to be condoned, if you treat people who are truly apologetic like crap, then tend to become disillusioned. And society tends to bring more problems on itself by making enemies of people who truly sought to change.

And instead of people focusing on others that are still doing unspeakable things (currently), they are distracted with things like this. It's very standard politics. And a little ironic.

reply to post by boncho

You are grasping at straws. 1) Killing an animal does not make you a serial killer. 2) I don't need a number two.

It certainly does not automatically mark someone as a signature killer, but it is accepted that a high number of people who are signature killers started out by torturing or killing animals. That's all she's trying to say. I hope.

reply to post by boncho


All I can say is it would not hurt for someone to scrutinize his background and maybe take a look at the tape of his apology, I don't know why but something made me get the ickys just reading that, like someone walked on my grave, I am just saying, I don't deny I could be wrong, but I really do think some deep investigation over both above mentioned things would be smart, let's just say that. A person that is real good at these things would know what to spot in the apology video that they could determine sincerety vs insincerety. Just saying.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by boncho

 

You are grasping at straws. 1) Killing an animal does not make you a serial killer. 2) I don't need a number two.

It certainly does not automatically mark someone as a signature killer, but it is accepted that a high number of people who are signature killers started out by torturing or killing animals. That's all she's trying to say. I hope.

Yet it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. As it is not evidence that the artist is a serial/signature killer.

reply to post by ldyserenity

I don't know why but something made me get the ickys just reading that, like someone walked on my grave, I am just saying

I suppose the authorities should investigate everyone that gives you the "ickys".

reply to post by boncho


Not saying that. I believe if they are seeing this guy in the news and they pick up on anything they'd probably do it anyway. They would be the ones to be able to spot the intricacies the little tell tale hints, and I am sure if they pick up anything they may just do that. In 1977 also, they probably didn't know as much as they do now.

reply to post by boncho

Yet it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. As it is not evidence that the artist is a serial/signature killer.

I don't know if I would call it completely irrelevant. Hell this is a discussion board focused on conspiracy theories! You called her out, she responded and now the thread is effectively derailed and all three of us were complicit in that

reply to post by Domo1

If I could only get my hands on this sicko, I'd gladly turn him into a work of art, and take my time while doing it!
I wouldn't ask for even a penny for my work either!

reply to post by Bkrmn

I wouldn't ask for even a penny for my work either!

Someone obviously isn't a real artist! I smell a trap!

reply to post by Domo1


Yeah.. or at least how about commission several young Cali artists. Why an old NY based artist, that is so hackney and shameful in his attempt to be controversial.

reply to post by Domo1


Simple: prosecute him and let him work on the project as community service.

reply to post by Domo1


How is he different than Michael Vic?

Not only should he not receive $750K, who ever suggests giving it to him should be fired and I think he should go to jail. (Abuse an animal - Go to jail) and all the art for the city should be donated art in these difficult economic times. I really think we would treat fellow humans much more compassionately if we had some place where we draw the line with animals.

On the one hand, I think a guy shouldn't be defined by the death of a dog which occurred over thirty years ago, and which he's clearly contemplated with regret in great detail.

On the other hand, if he were really that sorry, and had truly become more decent in himself, we wouldn't need to have this conversation...because he'd choose for himself not to take the money.

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.

YES ABSOLUTELY!

No normal person does a thing like that. Apology or not, only a psychopath would shoot a dog without thinking anything of it, filming it and presenting it as "art". That person is obviously nuts..and he certainly deserves "a hard time"..heck he does!