Tuesday Blogwrap

Tom Otterness is a grade A Number one A**hole. Anyone who kills an animal for "art" is no artist, and is in fact barely human. That playfulness is more likely fullblown psychopathy. There was another "artist" - Vito Acconci I think his name is- who put a cat in a box for a week in an art gallery as "performance" art.

People who call themselves artists and harm animals or other people as supposedly a function of their art are fakes. Art is about creation and expression. I don't see any contradiction - if you think killing an animal makes you an artist you haven't even begun to process the meaning of the word. I hope Otterness rots in hell.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 21, 2009 7:43 PM

bklynlove and buttermilk channel- its always nice to read truly inspiring and compassionate posts from the 2 of you. At least, it would be if you ever wrote inspiring and compassionate posts of even mediocre intelligence.

It takes a real lack of ethics and morals to kill an innocent animal for "art." How brainless do you have to be to be incapable of comprehending that fact? The only reason he apologized was because he was terrified of ruining his career. But why waste my time explaining anything to someone so inept at social discourse he has to call people names to hide the fact he lacks the vocabulary to fashion an real rebuttal.

Acconci is great? Mwah ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Yeah. If you can't tell the difference between art and garbage. Which, obviously buttermilk channel, you can't.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 22, 2009 12:24 AM

As were you, bc. Or did you think you and bklynlove wrote with any particular finesse?

Posted by: bxgrl at April 22, 2009 12:44 AM

denton- thank, yes. Yours was classier and didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

It doesn't excuse anything-this guy merely apologized (where does the profusely come from?) and has not taken one iota of responsibility.

Can anyone verify that he has since contributed one dime to an animal shelter or worked to stop animal abuse? If you can show me that, I'd be much more forgiving- still doesn't mean I think he's a great artist by any stretch. His work is cute and sly and comes out of the same shallow character that adopted and shot a dog so he could film it suffering to death.

So you think that because shelters kill animals and rapists get out with short sentences we should just look the other way because, hey Tommy's an "artist" and it was 30 years ago? That makes him a better person now? And yes, murderers sometimes do get a second chance but as you and I both know circumstances have a lot to do with that.

You would have to abe a pretty cold, bloodless human being to do what Otterness did. Maybe you're used to taking your animals to a nice clean vet's office for euthanasia. But having seen animals suffer and die painfully, I will tell you yet again, any person capable of adopting an animal, then taking it home to shoot it and watch it die while you film it isn't much of a human being. 30 years and a "profuse" apology made only to salvage your reputation doesn't change what you are.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 22, 2009 9:01 AM

oops, denton- make that "self-serving" apology.

Considering that Otterness seems to have never put his regret into any kind of action- like working against animal abuse or donating money to shelters- I can't credit him with much sincerity.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 22, 2009 9:42 AM

What's your definition of morality? Don't you think being against cruelty and suffering is a "morality" as opposed to a universal socializing principle? We're not talking killing to survive- we're talking gratuitious cruelty, done to maximize pain and discomfort. If society operated on the idea no one should impose their morality on anyone else, we wouldn't be a society- we'd still be living in little groups, hunting and gathering.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 22, 2009 9:54 AM

I totally agree with you, chicken.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 22, 2009 11:21 AM