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: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Domo1
 


How is he different than Michael Vic?


Well, for a start, he only killed one dog because he was, by his own admission, young and stupid and thought it meant something it didn't, whereas Vick was involved in an highly profit-driven activity which grinds out dogs like cattle, and tortures them besides. Sorry, how is he the same as Michael Vick?

I agree he shouldn't get the money, because he has the nerve to ask for it or consider accepting it. If he can't say to himself 'what I did was so wrong it was worth losing any amount of money, because one dog's life is worth more than any amount of money' then his apologies, while I am sure he means them as best he can, probably don't indicate true inner change.




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by sepermeru

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Domo1
 


How is he different than Michael Vic?


Well, for a start, he only killed one dog because he was, by his own admission, young and stupid and thought it meant something it didn't, whereas Vick was involved in an highly profit-driven activity which grinds out dogs like cattle, and tortures them besides. Sorry, how is he the same as Michael Vick?

I agree he shouldn't get the money, because he has the nerve to ask for it or consider accepting it. If he can't say to himself 'what I did was so wrong it was worth losing any amount of money, because one dog's life is worth more than any amount of money' then his apologies, while I am sure he means them as best he can, probably don't indicate true inner change.


You don't have to be sorry, as far as I know, and he is the same as Micheal Vic in that he did not euthanize mercifully but heinously murdered a dog. I don't care about the profits. Moot point in my mind.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
for those saying he was just young and stupid.. he was 25, that may be young to you, but its not young enough to excuse being that stupid.

and the fact is, he didn't figure out that he was stupid for a couple years, because his film was submitted and shown on public television on christmas eve 1979.

google timeline link, check out all the news papaper articles in 1980. his 30 second film was shown repeatedly for 30 minutes, he was paid for it, people freaked out, the shelter he got the dog from wanted to take him to court, and he conveniently "disappeared".

Google Remembers EVERYTHING
edit on 18-9-2011 by BohemianBrim because: link didnt work, then it did, go figure



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I am sick of acts being deemed acceptable simply because the perpetrator claims it is art. It's like taking pictures of naked children and then distributing them, which would normally get anyone in trouble with the authorities...of course not if it's art though.

To me artists are like athletes in the fact that they make entirely too much money for doing nothing. Anyone, or almost anyone, can do what a lot of these artists do, or could do it if they didn't have to live in the "real" world and had time to develop their skills, yet most people don't make the large amounts of money some artists do...and for what, shooting animals? How is that art?

Could someone go on an animal killing spree, making sure to videotape the entire thing, and then sell it as art without getting arrested? My point is where do we draw the line? In my opinion this is the same mentality of those who are attempting to turn us into a nanny state...you know, the whole don't spank your kids, don't put up construction signs that aren't "gender neutral," etc. Ridiculous. The world would be better off without these people, as they create the environment for stuff like this to happen in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


are you saying the world would be better without artists? or just "bad" artists?

who decides whats good or bad?

the state?


killing a dog is wrong, obviously. calling it art is meaningless.

if you attack art because some idiot calls animal cruelty art.. then youre playing into the twisted freaks hands.

it wasnt art, dont call it art, and dont blame art for it.
edit on 18-9-2011 by BohemianBrim because: (no reason given)


just imagine if Jeffery Dahmer had opened a pizzeria.. and it turned out he was selling human meat pizzas.

you wouldnt then freak out at all the pizza places for their apparent ability to make pizzas with whatever toppings they chose. you would realize that wasnt a real pizza place, and that wasnt normal pizza, no matter how similar it might have appeared.

i think what you, and those like you, are really upset about is the fact that you are suddenly in a position to judge art.
im not sure how you thought of it before, but im guessing you were under the impression it was someone elses job to tell you if something was good or not.. that seems to be common among people who dont care about it.

everyone has the right to judge art however they feel like, thats the whole point of it.

if the city wants to pay a retarded amount of money for art you think sucks, then the problem is, you and people like you are not voicing your opinions enough.

if you care, then tell someone that buys that crap, and suggest something better.



ps- i went to art school.
and youre damn right, everyone can do that, why did you ever assume anything different?
and youre right, you DONT spend the time necessary to make your own, THATS WHY YOURE NOT AN ARTIST.

just like i could quit art at any point and become an accountant, but i dont... so i dont pretend to be one.

lol.

and if i suddenly decide to quit making art and do your job, and if i find out i can do it just as easily as you, should i then claim you should be paid less for it because "anyone can do it"?

sounds pretty ridiculous to me. maybe you just think its harder to do what you do than it is to spend all day making art. easy mistake to make, so i dont blame you. sometimes i imagine rocket science to be easy, but as soon as i try and figure it out... i realize the truth.

edit on 18-9-2011 by BohemianBrim because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Lol, you can't just apologize for being an awful human being that knows right from wrong. Who cares if they go to jail or repent, you got to be an ass with a horrible mindset to create torture for enjoyment. Everybody loves to bring up people or children in these animal cases- thats stupid. Its just animal cruelty and murder by sociopaths.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
the guy sounds like a strange psychopath, what kind of strange statues would he make anyway? maybe of himself butt#ing a pig or something of that sort



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
He went to the dog rescue place and he obviously decieved the people there into believing he was an animal lover who was there to save an animal and give it a loving home. He made a conscious effort to hide his intentions, because he already knew that what he was about to do was an obscene act of cruelty.

If he has suffered with his conscience since, then I couldn't be more happy. He deserves every second of it.
edit on 18-9-2011 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
There really must be some point to which we are forgiven for acts we regret to have done, and have not in private but publicly asked for forgiveness..or we are all doomed to be labeled this or that..as far as payment for art, we do live in a world of free enterprise... I blame the officials willing to pay for this instead of more worthy causes.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   

reply to post by newcovenant

I think he should go to jail.

Statute of limitations?




How is he different than Michael Vic?

Vic went to jail, paid his debt to society and came out to be a productive member of society. If he keeps himself out of trouble, he is a role model to anyone that breaks the law. And in fact, the Western world needs more of those given today's recidivism rates.



reply to post by sepermeru

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.


People who make mistakes should work for free?




reply to post by flexy123
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".



On Thursday, two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were arrested on 31 felony animal-cruelty charges for killing and disposing of dogs and puppies in a dumpster.

In 2003 PETA euthanized over 85 percent of the animals it took in, finding adoptive homes for just 14 percent. By comparison,
www.lincolntribune.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">*


PETA, claiming to be for the "Ethical Treatment of Animals" and looking at its track record, seems to be psychopathic.

Psychopathy

"Though lacking empathy and emotional depth, they often manage to pass themselves off as normal people by feigning emotions and lying about their pasts."


I don't think the artist was lying about his past, in fact, it seems he confronts it quite often.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Almost a million dollars for some statues is way too much money coming from the public. And I'm an artist......

Shooting a dog isn't art. Killing something isn't art. Should have been arrested when the event happened
edit on 9/18/2011 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Yeah, if you shoot a dog for art, I say your art career is over permanently. It's super bad publicity for the city to accept his art, and a big waste of money at that!

Couldn't they spend that money on more important things like, making sure the trains and street cars run on time? Or, making sure the seats don't smell like vomit and poop because the seats haven't been washed in ages. Just a thought.

I also think this article says it best



“Who’s going to want to take the subway every day and see it and be reminded that a dog-shooter, who did something totally sociopathic for his own claim to fame, could get away with that?” she said.

blog.sfgate.com...
edit on 9/18/2011 by Xaberz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


To euthanize a animal is not cruel. They are dead in a minute. If they couldn't find them homes and didn't have the funds or means to keep them, then euthanzing is the best option. Should they have let them run free on the streets or live in a cage their whole life?

Some dogs in no kill shelters never get adopted and live their life in a 4x4 cage with little stimulation/attention/love.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
It is kind of good commentary on pressures of the art world if he honestly regrets it. He could honestly have had a hard time and regretted it forever, but felt pressure at the time to do something outrageous for attention.
I still don't think he deserves this gig though, plus I looked at his sculptures.. I wouldn't say he's high art (and killing that dog must have sucked the life out of his work for real).



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


I don't know.. if you created synthetic life and then killed it. THAT would be art! haha
Create a new life form, then make it extinct.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


Animal rights is always about arguing semantics. There are plenty of painful ways animals die to become food on the dinner plate. And as I mentioned before, every time someone throws meat out that has spoiled, an animal died for no reason.


But alas, the actions of the artist shouldn't be condoned. While I like to offer an alternative view on the story, it has turned almost into a defense for the individual.


Discussion on these sorts of subject are much better without the emotion attached. And I'm noticing the majority of posts in this thread are near calling for a lynch mob. For an incident that happened in '77.

While more pressing issues are available to comment on today, one would include PETA's role in animal abuse. (An organization that is for the "ethical treatment of animals".)


the Ahoskie Animal Hospital later confirmed that the defendants had collected animals earlier that day on the promise that PETA would find them adoptive homes.
1

PETA staff took animals in under false pretense, and killed them. Disposing them in a grocery store dumpster.

Not any different than the artist taking the dog under false pretenses and killing it. Yet PETA is an organization. One with heavy support.

No one finds this strange? Ironic?


And while PETA maintains its political power, endless amounts of people have come out to comment on blogs, forums and news sites how the artist should be either killed, beaten or ignored for the rest of his life.

Semantics.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


All he should receive is not 750,000 dollars but a bullet from 750,000 animal lovers,scumbag pure and simple.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

reply to post by newcovenant

I think he should go to jail.

Statute of limitations?




How is he different than Michael Vic?

Vic went to jail, paid his debt to society and came out to be a productive member of society. If he keeps himself out of trouble, he is a role model to anyone that breaks the law. And in fact, the Western world needs more of those given today's recidivism rates.



Statute of limitations?
Everything I think unfortunately or fortunately as the case may be, is not "legal" in the strictest sense of the word. Apologies if my personal opinion is not PC or even in violation of a law.


RE: Michael Vic - Exactly. That's what I'm saying.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


It's hardly a question of semantics,The instances that you cite are examples of animal cruelty full stop.Regardless of who is inflicting the cruelty,however,in this instance the topic is the dog that was shot in the name of "art".Does this make it any more heinous than any other forms of animal mistreatment/abuse? no,but it is a very good illustration on how certain sectors of society view the place of animals in the grand scheme of things.

Profit from animal cruelty is wrong,no question.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





Animal rights is always about arguing semantics. There are plenty of painful ways animals die to become food on the dinner plate. And as I mentioned before, every time someone throws meat out that has spoiled, an animal died for no reason.



Overall a more conscientious awareness and empathy for beasts WILL evolve into more interpersonal awareness and empathy for fellow human beings.

Some folks though unfortunate and even hard to believe some human beings need to be taught on a very basic level what empathy IS.

There are certainly plenty of ways animals end up on the dinner plate but the way that shows the most compassion, is the most humane, and assures the survival of the species, is the one we should lean toward.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join