Sculptor who shot dog for art film gets $750,000 for Central Subway art

[Liberal_in_LA]

Sculptor who shot dog gets $750,000 for Central Subway art

A sculptor who shot a dog for an art film in the 1970s has won a $750,000 contract to create public art for the Central Subway.

Tom Otterness, a Brooklyn-based artist, has created public art all over Europe, Asia, Canada and the United States, with an emphasis on New York City.

But he garnered notoriety in 1977 when he adopted a black-and-white dog from an animal shelter and shot it to death with the camera rolling. The footage ended up in his avant-garde movie "Shot Dog Film." :-( :-(

Otterness has since apologized, telling the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in 2008, "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: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=97682#ixzz1Y9I24Pgf

[Mimosa]

1. No forgiveness from me for killing helpless dog he adopted

BTW, he broke a couple of laws which existed then.

Such a vicious man should not be awarded public money for his 'art' whatever it may be.

[truebrit71]

2. I am in total agreement with you.

The guy is a fucking scumbag. There is no "art" in what he did, just plain old-fashioned cruelty.

[mod mom]

10. absolute scumbag & totally undeserving of public funding!

[smokey nj]

3. I hope enough people complain and his funding gets pulled.

Cruel bastard. :grr:

[amborin]

4. +1

[RamboLiberal]

5. +1000 no excuse for what he did to helpless trusting animal

That is not art!

[smokey nj]

6. No excuse whatsoever and what he made was not art, it was a snuff film.

[KamaAina]

7. Maybe they could commission him to do a statue of Michael Vick

out in front of the Linc. :eyes:

[MrNJ]

8. why wasn't he in jail?

I am fairly certain what he did was illegal.

[Mz Pip]

9. His work is in the NYC subways

But my question to the SFAC is why they took someone from Brooklyn rather than a local sculptor. We have many many deserving and talented artists in the Bay Area.

[TheWraith]

11. Maybe he should have thought of that BEFORE he executed a dog.

Fuck him, and fuck his public art. I hope the outcry gets his contract voided.

[Blue Owl]

12. I'm working on a piece called "Bloodied Artist"

Perhaps Mr. Otterness would like to be my subject?

[Starry Messenger]

13. I am an artist and I repudiate this man or anything he does as art.

He's a sociopath. Anyone who tortures animals is deeply disturbed and he should be punished and not rewarded with lucrative grants. 25 years old is way past an age to know right from wrong, and his lame cop-out about "emotional turmoil and despair" is incomprehensible.

[Poll_Blind]

14. Animal rights are simply not as important to me as some others here, but I have to say...

...when I read that the guy adopted a dog from a shelter just to tie it up to a tree and shoot it to death...

Well, I tell ya, taking an innocent creature and torturing it to death is really, genuinely right up there in my book. He could have the same thing happen to him and, while I don't wish violence on anyone, he'd still be lower on my list of things to mourn than that long-forgotten dog. Seriously, think about being that dog. That dog existed, looked though eyes that see mostly like we do, knew what love was and knew what anger was.

And one day the pair of feet walked him over to the tree and tied him up and maybe the hand came down one last time and he licked it and hoped for a pet. And then the feet walked away. And then murder- and I'm doing us both a favor by not exploring that horrible place he took that dog. But at least it should be remembered that he did take it there. God that's so fucked up.

I eat meat. I don't feel great about it. I know the animals I eat were killed so I could eat 'em and maybe that makes a hipocrite of me- I don't care. I've given the figer to far better arguments in life. But there's something outside that frame of reference. A conspicuous consumption of life, just to catch the act on film.

Just to catch the act on film.

That is the definition of snuff, except it's with an animal instead of a person.

You know, there are some sick fucking people out there and violence and torture against animals is the number one sign of a dangerously-disturbed mind.

PB

[cali]

19. really well said, PB

[hifiguy]

21. I can not add a word to that, PB, and won't even try.

+ a googol. :applause:

[Bucky]

15. From the article his contrition seems sincere. Has he done anything to make amends?

[smokey nj]

16. No, apparently he hasn't.

Here's a link to another article about him.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-11/news/29547012_1_tom-otterness-sculptures-public-art-funds

[cali]

17. I wish I could forgive him. It seems like a genuine apology and that

he's taking responsibility for a heinous act, but I can't. I don't hate him. I don't want to see anything awful happen to him, but I don't feel forgiveness.

[xchrom]

18. Nope. No forgiveness from me.

25 isn't an excuse or a disease or a state of mind.

No excuse.

[mrs_p]

20. disgusting

:puke:

[bengalherder]

22. IMO the other ideas were better.

Too bad this stupid thing won't be more public. I mean, I'd love to pay someone to urinate on it...

Actually, I hope they wake up and stop it. That ass doesn't need a dime after what he did. PS: Neither does Vick.

[kwassa]

23. I forgive him completely! Only on DU are dog killers given life sentences, never forgiven.

despite remorse, despite apologies, despite serving time in jail.

They should suffer in purgatory forever. Probably, they should kill themselves, and rid the earth of their presence. Or, so it goes here.

I'm willing to bet that there is no one in this thread knows who Otterness is, or is familiar with his work.

[saras]

26. I suspect you're right - this hatred usually comes from profound ignorance.

How about "No forgiveness for ANYONE who's EVER done anything ignorant 35 years ago."

It sounds like I'm at a fucking Tea Party rally. WTF???

I found the Wikipedia article to be a good simple summary of his life and work, and I found it curious that there is a small group trying desperately to define him completely by this one project from 1977.

[Safetykitten]

24. What THE FUCK? Oh no...no art comission for that asshole.

Diseased human.

[girl gone mad]

25. This story has an update:

UPDATE: Since this story was published this morning, Mayor Ed Lee has called for Tom Otterness' planned public art installation in the Central Subway to be put on hold.

Lee, through his spokeswoman, called Otterness' 1977 film "deeply disturbing" and asked his Central Subway project be put on hold.

The Arts Commission will investigate the situation, said P.J. Johnston, the commission's president. The contract has been awarded to Otterness' studio, but no money has been paid yet, he said.

"I understand the incident was 34 years ago," he said, "but it certainly is disturbing and so we're going to take a look at it."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=97682#ixzz1YARjYe00

Hopefully they will do the right thing and withdraw his funding.

[kwassa]

27. Why is it the right thing to withdraw his funding?

Is he to be punished for the rest of his life?

[smokey nj]

28. He's NEVER BEEN punished.

[Liberal_in_LA]

30. good point.

[kwassa]

31. So you want want to be judge and jury now? 34 years later, after profuse apologies?

[smokey nj]

32. What profuse apologies? He apologized once, thirty years later.

Here's how one person who saw the film described it. After you read it, consider whether or not you want to defend this guy.

"The guy actually impacted, injured, victimized people too. The video was not just him shooting a dog. It was him getting the dog, caring for the dog, being with the dog over a period of time, it was not a single day film, he was with the dog for quite a while.

I would never have willingly agreed to watch such a film, but none of us actually knew how it would end. When he shot the dog, the audience was taken aback (we hoped it was faked). We had been duped, victimized, and he got all the publicity that he had hoped for because we talked about it..."

http://www.fuckedinparkslope.com/home/cool-or-not-cool-killing-a-dog-for-arts-sake.html#comment-197665816

[Starry Messenger]

34. +1

[Liberal_in_LA]

29. Sometimes punishment lasts a lifetime. He's got his big career putting those happy happy sculptures

everywhere. Doesn't need to receive govt funding to do it.

[roody]

33. no forgiveness here

He could make a very large contribution to an animal rescue society.

[GReedDiamond]

35. As an artist, with an interest in the "avant garde"...

...he sounds like a really bad, pale imitation of Chris Burden, who was doing his shocking "body art" before 1977, but using himself as the victim of his "artistry."

This Otterness guy asshole was a hack in '77, he's likely still one.

No forgiveness for murdering the dog, ever.

On edit: Upon reading my own comment, the phrase using himself as the victim of his "artistry" is not entirely accurate, to some extent.

Burden filmed his use of a 22 caliber handgun to shoot in the direction of a jet in takeoff, I think it was from just outside the runways of LAX (Los Angeles) airport. This was in the early 1970s, IIRC.