Talk:Tom Otterness

Consider one of the roles of the artist as making clear what our culture prefers to ignore. I was a fellow artist in the collaborative group and recall his intention to display graphically the effect of too many cats and dogs- euthanasia, a word we hide death within. Untold thousands of cats and dogs are quietly 'put to sleep' killed by lethal injection every year by the shelters that care for them when space is short. Is this also, then, a place to talk about the short sighted view of those offended by the inconvenient truth of euthanizing excess pets? Perhaps the larger issue is self responsibility. Tom could have spoken up much earlier in explanation and those offended by pet euthanasia could promote responsible stewardship of our domesticated animals, neuter and spay and place pets in therapeutic settings, etc... 71.196.35.174 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

The Dates on the "Life Underground" in this article directly contradict the dates in the article dedicated to the "Life Underground". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.227.56 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent coverage

There has been a lot of recent coverage in connection with his latest show. For example see the refs cited at Life Underground for sources of additional material for expansion of this article. Dhaluza 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dog Shot" criticism and its effect on the artist's life

The current facts of this artist's life are that recently blogs have been posting widespread criticism of the dog film because many are just discovering this via the internet. The film was shot in the 70's then shown a decade later in the Reagan era, the 80's. There is a point to consider here how sorry a person is, to loop this film and show it a decade later, in his 30's. There are unsubstantiated mentions of it being shown in another show. Currently there is no proof of Otterness implied as the reason the student at WSU lost. The piece is not installed yet at WSU. There is a large commission in PA under scrutiny now valued at 5 million that may be lost due to the outrage of bloggers, animal rights organizations and private citizens over the dog shot piece. You can post the text of his apology but you cannot post now about this artist and try to skew the information to imply his apology is accepted or widely believed. It is not opinion this is fact and is a part of his biography that can't be ignored if you want to stay factual to the reality of his life story. From my personal observations the majority of the public seem to not accept the apology as real. This can't be ignored to try to create a realistic view of the artist here on Wiki. His website is the place for personal support for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.4.108 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, people, I'm not part of the majority of the public, as I take no position on the sincerity of the apology of a person I have barely heard of, but please, continue to discuss the questions here, remembering to sign with your account name with four tildes, instead of just carrying on a silly WP:EDIT WAR. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to make changes that are blatantly in defense of the artist mentioned this is not his fan page. The changes being made are doing exactly this trying to skew this as softening the facts to benefit this artist and blur the facts. This is not the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.4.108 (talk)

"From my personal observations the majority of the public seem to not accept the apology as real". Regarding the quote from the above 71.249.4.108, these comments are simply a personal observation, with no real proof or sources cited. Here we have a person whom thinks he understands what the majority of the public thinks and believes. Beaconboy (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with the entry as it is now. I prefer to "speak with facts" and am less-than-thrilled with information that is based on unscientific, anecdotal assessments of blogged opinions. Wikipedia shouldn't be a fan site, but it shouldn't be an enemies site, either. Trahmit (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, biography can be difficult when people find a reason to be for or against someone and let their feelings harden into fact. Me, what I know is what's in the article plus: The old sewer alligators and the new covered wagon set up between Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges are cute and he's the only living sculptor whose name I know and probably Brooklyn's most famous one. Whether he is a good and sincere person or a cruel and sneaky one, I don't know, and also don't exactly know how a "video loop" differs from similar things or or why it matters, but it's nice to see that the storm has subsided in a compromize. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"maggie" don't start crap there are PLENTY of people against this deprave idiot do NOT make this into a fan page for him. Attempts and slanting this in his favor WILL BE REMOVED do NOT waste the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.6.167 (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Public (and student) opinion on this artist is just as if not more important than journalist's paid articles and PR releases. His background has affected his present situation and altering his success. This is a person who relies mainly on money generated from public funds. The people who "pay" this person have a say since it's their money knowingly sometimes unknowingly used to fund him. He would not exist on the level he does without it. Public opinion is valid since it is affecting his actual life and work since this incident has become widely known and this is a biographical page not a blurb. Alphabet.grid (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to add old info to this page to make it appear this artist has approvals for his work will be removed. Don't site OLD info that is not still valid. If his work is actually going to be installed then show something current not dredge up old propaganda where the people approving it were not aware of his record and other artist's and tax payers/voters opinions of him. He has lost commissions in NYC already (see any Glass lions? No). Any ref to PA's project need to be NOW, get them to say they are still going forward then post that, as of now they were made aware and have yet to say they will go ahead and do these projects such as Logan Square. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.213.100 (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to create a FAN page here will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.102.9 (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've known Tom since kindergarten

I am not just some casual acquaintance of Tom Otterness. Not only have I known him since Kindergarten, but I grew up with Tom and we were best of friends and remain so to this day. I have no intention of entering into the debate about Tom and his film "Shot Dog". All I can tell any of you, is that when I read comments that "some do not believe the sincerity of Tom's apology", that your are completely in error. I can tell you that Tom has regretted this incident long before he ever made any real money in the art world. I just saw Tom today, and he still regrets it. There isn't a day that goes by in his life that he has not sincerely regretted this act. Have none of you never made a regrettable mistake in your own life? Tom has sincerely apologized from the bottom of his heart. It is very dissapointing that some cannot find it in their heart to; accept his apology and forgive him. In the end, the continued outrage from some, lack of forgiveness from some (in light of his sincere apology), says much more about some people's inability to forgive, than it will ever say about Tom. Tom made a mistake and he apologized for it. What more can one human do? Beaconboy (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

3rr rule being violated

This diff shows an anonymous editor consistently removing text they dont like and claiming its no longer valid. They do not have a reference to point to, while the text that is there does have a reference from April 2008. I guess we have to go down the WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR path. dm (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not his FAN page or his personal upcoming events page. People here trying to whitewash his image with false information such as removing the fact MANY do not believe his apology and that projects of his are NOT going through will be removed. Start a little fan site to gush over him but don't try to mislead people by hiding public opinion of a public tax dollar paid "artist" just because you don't like it. 71.247.102.9 (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please cite your references You criticize others for interjecting (what you call) their personal opinions. You accuse certain anonymous people of trying to "whitewash his image with false information". Your main objection is that you state that these anonymous posters do not have a reference to point to. We all have personal opinions about Mr. Otterhess; You have yours and others have theirs. I understand that personal opinions are not a part of Wiki, but does that mean that you can have your personal opinion published and others cannot? You take others personal opinions and criticize them for not having verifiable facts and references. Can you cite any references that verify your claims that "MANY do not believe his apology"? If you cannot, then please remove your own bias from the page. (BTW, please also cite the statistics that show how many the word 'MANY' refers to, that are universally accepted). Is it 3 people, 30 people, 300 people, 3,000 people?) You btw do not get to simply choose some random number............please back it up with statistical verifiable data. Beaconboy (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Otterness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141022175921/http://gothamist.com/2014/09/05/otterness_shot_dog_statue.php to http://gothamist.com/2014/09/05/otterness_shot_dog_statue.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)