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: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I am not so angry that this 60 year old man shot a dog when he was 25. Let's face it, everyone has done some screwed up things in life at one point or another. I am not going to take a 60 year old man to task for something he did at the age of 25 when he was young and stupid.

What I do take issue with his how much money the City wants to pay for some pieces of Art. People should forget the dog... 750k for some pieces of art is what should be offensive. THAT is what people should be pissed off about.




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Why does an artist need to have so much cash, sure raw materiels cost so much but why do they get so much profit for the finished peice.

Reminds me of earily cults, milking cash from vulnerable poeple.

As for the fact this 'artists' previous 'work' involved shooting a dog on film, well hes clearly insane, apparrently thats a good start for an artist!!! *sigh*



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant


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.

 


I agree with all of that. Everything I have posted in this thread was just for perspective. In response to people calling for the death/torture/punishment of the artist.

As someone else has just pointed out, the issue should be about spending money on the art. Not the artist.

Or if the issue is on the artist, then it is about him. Either he does something to make amends, or he doesn't. If we blacklist everyone who made a mistake in their life, there will be no one on the other list. If he served time for this 30 years ago would people still hold a grudge? I guess that is the question that should be asked.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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.



This is an interesting question. Ethically.

Who is to say? It's synthetic "life" and it should be possible for any creator to decide to retract their creation. It might be copied and that is a risk an inventor or artist takes. Here we are talking about a dog and they are sentient, living things that aid humans and save lives.

I think ethics and morals are nothing but ancient memories. We have been down this road before. Something deep in our being tells us it will not work out well.
Can the question be raised? Yes, of course but (suicide bombers excepted) we already have a small still voice saying DO NOT KILL and that precept certainly encompasses CREATE to kill.

I think humanity is much older than we admit (we are the ancient aliens) and we have already dabbled in these types of experiments in the past. We already have a sort of a moral code handed down...an ethic, shall not kill that is firmly entrenched in our collective psyches to settle the question...should it come up again.

Morals and ethics are attempts at self preservation.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
I am not so angry that this 60 year old man shot a dog when he was 25. Let's face it, everyone has done some screwed up things in life at one point or another. I am not going to take a 60 year old man to task for something he did at the age of 25 when he was young and stupid.

What I do take issue with his how much money the City wants to pay for some pieces of Art. People should forget the dog... 750k for some pieces of art is what should be offensive. THAT is what people should be pissed off about.



I think they are.
The issue of the dog is accenting the senselessness of this and any expenditure like it in these economic times when people are talking of raising the retirement age up to around 99 and ending SS and medicare to raise capital, so principalities can provide basic services like sewage, water, streetlights, maintain bridges, streets and roads.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 



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

No.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Too many dogs in the world these days. I would rather support the guy who shot a dog and wants funding for his art rather than a Chinese man wanting funding to open up a restaurant to serve dogs on a food dish.

Note: any funding received should be that of a loan, and interest should be charged for proceeding those funds. I don't believe in giving people free money for art.
edit on 18-9-2011 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:34 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.

pretty easy to believe and I think true that if you could do this to an animal that was in need and came home trusting you, then you are unsafe to be around children and others.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I really don't care if he apologized. We still don't have to give him taxpayer money. I am sure there are much more deserving artists.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
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.


Ah, yes, I see your logic. Worse things happen in the world, so something like killing a dog is perfectly reasonable and acceptable given that others are out there killing people. Your posts are typically pretty sorry to begin with, but you've dragged yourself down to a whole new level with this one. Look, the bottom line here is this sorry piece of crap wants to get rich off of taxpayer money. This isn't about forgiveness, it's about sending a message to "artists" everywhere that we will not tolerate their violent acts of protest as "art" no matter how long ago it happened.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Of Course he should get the money !

if he's a good sculptor. The old film had nothing to do with his artistic sculpting ability today. He should have been fined or served jail time for cruelty to animals back then, but that is a different matter all together.

You don't hold the sins of someones past over their heads for the rest of their lives that's dead wrong and will only cause the person not to grow as a person.

Everyone has done bad things in thier past, it's human nature, even you, would you like someone holding a past mistake over your head so you cannot prosper? Shooting a dog is not the same as being Hitler and killing millions of people. Don't get me wrong, I';m a cat lover myself but 77 was a Long time ago.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee

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.

pretty easy to believe and I think true that if you could do this to an animal that was in need and came home trusting you, then you are unsafe to be around children and others.


This. There's something wrong in the SOB's head. I would be pissed if I knew any of my tax money was going to improve this POS's life in any way at all.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Oh come on people, its just a freaking dog, and for the ones threatning this guy with bodily harm, you are the ones whom need to be locked up...so the guy shot a dog, but its alright for us to be killing each other, freaking hipocrites...id rather kill all the dogs on earth then see more people of the world be killed in illegal, senseless wars, get a life.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by firemedic10
Oh come on people, its just a freaking dog, and for the ones threatning this guy with bodily harm, you are the ones whom need to be locked up...so the guy shot a dog, but its alright for us to be killing each other, freaking hipocrites...id rather kill all the dogs on earth then see more people of the world be killed in illegal, senseless wars, get a life.


Go back to school and learn reading comprehension skills. No one is making an argument that wars are good or that killing people is okay. Not sure how you jumped to such a wild off the wall conclusion based on postings from people that feel its wrong for a artist to be given so much taxpayer money when the artist was someone who tortured and killed animals for "art."
edit on 18-9-2011 by zerotime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by zerotime
 


To be fair there are a number of posts expressing the desire to kill the artist.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Yes, I understand. It shows an underlying sense of frustration and anger and I think that's a good thing. That means people haven't lost their sense of compassion. It isn't just that this guy killed a dog. It's that he adopted this animal, an animal who would have loved him unconditionally, and then in the ultimate betrayal he killed the dog. Why? Because the dog was weaker than him. He preyed on the weak and helpless and that doesn't sit right in the minds of normal people. I wouldn't go as far to say I would kill this guy, but if I actually saw this man do this in real life I can say that I would have beat him with my fists close to death's door.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by zerotime
 


Fair enough. I would have reacted the same way. Now on the other hand if it had been my dog this guy wouldn't be making sculptures or anything else.

/endinternettoughguy



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 





that precept certainly encompasses CREATE to kill.


That's what would make it art. The controversy.
I'll set up the performance piece for you. A room of men beat an android to death, while a live video feed of red blood cells attacking a microscopic synthetic life occurring under a microscope simultaneously is projected onto the men beating the android to death in a white room.

I'll call it "WHY SCHMOD?! WHY?!"
I am, le artiste.
edit on 18-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne


Ah, yes, I see your logic. Worse things happen in the world, so something like killing a dog is perfectly reasonable and acceptable given that others are out there killing people. Your posts are typically pretty sorry to begin with, but you've dragged yourself down to a whole new level with this one. Look, the bottom line here is this sorry piece of crap wants to get rich off of taxpayer money. This isn't about forgiveness, it's about sending a message to "artists" everywhere that we will not tolerate their violent acts of protest as "art" no matter how long ago it happened.

 


That line of reasoning is understandable (although flawed perhaps) . If you notice though, most of my posts in this thread were replies to other people. Not you. And they were replies to other lines of reasoning. Did you want to begin a conversation or did you want to take me out of context.

I was simply pointing out the fact that the logic being used to judge the person was faulty because it could be applied to many.



by Boncho
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.


The above quote was to put the whole thing into context. He sought forgiveness. Others haven't. How do we treat ones that do, and how do we treat ones that don't?

Do you care if warlords, murderers or corruption organizations get public funds? (Because they do.)

Should the world be focused on someone who killed a dog 30 years ago, or something more recent and pressing.

Ask yourself that.


Oh, and glad to hear you read my posts.


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



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





The above quote was to put the whole thing into context. He sought forgiveness. Others haven't. How do we treat ones that do, and how do we treat ones that don't?


I would ask if he sought forgiveness out of guilt, or because he didn't want to remain a pariah ( no one likes those amazonian fish! )




Do you care if warlords, murderers or corruption organizations get public funds? (Because they do.)


Very much so.




Should the world be focused on someone who killed a dog 30 years ago, or something more recent and pressing. Ask yourself that.


I don't think that we just get to ignore things that seem insignificant when compared to other atrocities. With that line of thinking then it doesn't matter when the kid down the street gets killed because there are so many worse things going on.

I understand your point though. You are offering a differing view, and as you said putting things in perspective. I actually greatly appreciate your contributions to the thread, and for calling people out on the internet tough guy nonsense. The fact that this happened so long ago gives me pause, and also that the man offered an apology. I have done some pretty awful things in my life, and am truly repentant and hope others forgive me. On the flip side, I just sort of hate anyone that would shoot a dog for no reason, especially claiming it as an art piece. Also, $750k? Ridiculous.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join