Back in 1977, Tom Otterness adopted a shelter dog, chained the dog to a fence and then shot it dead as the dog wagged its tail. Otterness justified the murder asserting it was for the sake of “art.” He called his film an “art film,” entitled “Shot Dog Film.”
Immediately, there was public outrage and protests. Unfortunately, he was never arrested and never prosecuted. He refused to back-down. He pushed back at the outrage. He refused to apologize.
Thirty years’ later, after protests against him and his work threatened to derail his art projects, he belatedly issued an apology in 2008: “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.” The apology plainly focused on his pain, not the killing of the dog, not the pain he caused.
There was nothing more. No deeds backed-up his apology. No rescuing of dogs and cats. No donations to shelters, rescue organizations. Nothing done to ease the plight of abused pets, and animals. No contributions to animal hospices, veterinarians. No volunteering at shelters, ASPCA, etc. No artwork designed to stop animal abuse and/or promote, educate about dogs and animals.
To this day, there’s been no renunciation by Otterness of “Shot Dog Film,” as art. There’s no indication that Otterness destroyed the original and all copies of the film. There’s no indication that Otterness hasn’t saved it as a work of art and still considers it “art.”
In stark contrast to Tom Otterness is Michael Vick who has and continues to back-up his words with deeds. Michael Vick deserves and is entitled to public redemption and celebration for his deeds, including publicly speaking out against animal abuse and donation of his time, efforts, and considerable monies and resources to help dogs and animals.
Tom Otterness just as Michael Vick is entitled to make a living but not at the expense, including the lives and suffering of others, including dogs, cats and animals. The stark difference between the two professionals is that one is deserving of encomium but the other deserves condemnation until he backs-up his apology of empty words with decisive deeds.
An anonymous wealthy donor “donated” $750,000 on condition that Tom Otterness be commissioned to sculpt bronze lions and cubs for the Battery Park branch of the New York Public Library. The community and many others protested. Petitions of thousands of people all around the globe protested: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-dog-killer-from-creating-sculpture-for-ny-public-l.html. There were protests at the Community Board Meetings. There were protests protesting every aspect of it. That the wealthy donor was using her/his wealth to dictate terms to the community, that there was no open competition to ensure that the best artist was commissioned, that other locally talented artists were not given any opportunity, etc. Despite the protests, it appeared that the will of one wealthy person over the voices of many would prevail.
However, the Battery Park City Authority (BPCA) decided against the anonymous gift because of a “lack of transparency.” The New York Public Library disowned any involvement in the project, claiming that the BPCA has sole jurisdiction. “We in no way solicited this project, and are learning much of the detail in public meetings,” the NYPL said in a statement.
Reportedly, Otterness is pushing-back, saying he’s working with the BPCA to overcome the lack of transparency. Despite the protests of the community and many others, he’s determined more than ever to force his “artwork,” upon the community. According to Otterness, the fight is not over but merely joined. Little wonder why Otterness never backed-up his apology of empty words with deeds.