Tom Otterness, who made all the bronze sculptures in the 14th street & 8th ave station, first rose to fame with a performance art piece he did where he video taped himself adopting a dog and then shooting it in the head.
If you think the way that startups market themselves is sometimes questionably ethical, in other industries it's apparently even crazier.
Reminds me of the performance artist Chris Burden who in 1971 had a friend shoot him in the arm with a .22 rifle. But at least he had the guts to have himself shot vs. a dog.
In Docklands, Melbourne, there's a public sculpture that any normal child would think is a fun thing to climb (https://markstoner.com.au/projects/the-river-runs-through-it...). Naturally there are signs instructing parents to prevent their children from climbing the "sculptures"!
I doubt he really did it for to 'market himself' and as that, it's been spectacularly unsuccessful - the movie was forgotten until brought up relatively recently and then ended up costing him commissions, reputation, etc.
I'm pretty sure euthanizing a dog by gunshot ... has never legally been considered animal cruelty.
I'm horrified that anyone would think this is true. In case anyone reads this and doesn't know better, shooting an animal is only allowed when justified, typically in self-defense.
Shooting a terminally ill dog is not sufficient justification either [1].
To my knowledge it is not illegal to euthanize an animal by gunshot in any US state.
From a practical standpoint, it's probably the most humane way to do it. There's far less pain and emotional distress (for the animal) involved than in any other means I can think of, including having a licensed vet come to your home and put the animal down via injection.
It's also significantly less expensive than any other means which is an important consideration for much of the country. Hiring a vet to come out to your home to euthanize an animal can be hundreds of dollars - it was $350-$500 in Virginia when we checked in to it there. A .22 LR round is ~$.10, and a well-placed round to the base of the brain is instant.
There are downsides, of course. It requires knowledge of anatomy, and it can be bungled badly. Cats, like many animals, are prone to spasming when the CNS is destroyed, which is certainly not something that I'd want my kids to see.
All in all, I'd much prefer to either have a vet come out or obtain the necessary injections to do it myself at home - but I have financial resources at my disposal than the vast majority of families in my area do not. Given the choice between waiting for a dog or a cat to die of a long, painful disorder and their owner euthanizing them with a firearm, the latter is much preferable.
Comments
Tom Otterness, who made all the bronze sculptures in the 14th street & 8th ave station, first rose to fame with a performance art piece he did where he video taped himself adopting a dog and then shooting it in the head.
If you think the way that startups market themselves is sometimes questionably ethical, in other industries it's apparently even crazier.
Reminds me of the performance artist Chris Burden who in 1971 had a friend shoot him in the arm with a .22 rifle. But at least he had the guts to have himself shot vs. a dog.
In Docklands, Melbourne, there's a public sculpture that any normal child would think is a fun thing to climb (https://markstoner.com.au/projects/the-river-runs-through-it...). Naturally there are signs instructing parents to prevent their children from climbing the "sculptures"!
All part of the long process of contemporary art becoming increasingly irrelevant to the public: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/how-art-became-i...
I doubt he really did it for to 'market himself' and as that, it's been spectacularly unsuccessful - the movie was forgotten until brought up relatively recently and then ended up costing him commissions, reputation, etc.
Did animal cruelty laws not exist in the 70s?
I'm pretty sure euthanizing a dog by gunshot (if done properly) has never legally been considered animal cruelty. It's very common in rural areas.
There's something mildy shocking about the whole affair, especially the contrast with first adopting the dog, but I suspect that's the "art" bit.
I'm horrified that anyone would think this is true. In case anyone reads this and doesn't know better, shooting an animal is only allowed when justified, typically in self-defense.
Shooting a terminally ill dog is not sufficient justification either [1].
[1] - http://www.wfla.com/national/heartbroken-pet-owner-faces-jai...
To my knowledge it is not illegal to euthanize an animal by gunshot in any US state.
From a practical standpoint, it's probably the most humane way to do it. There's far less pain and emotional distress (for the animal) involved than in any other means I can think of, including having a licensed vet come to your home and put the animal down via injection.
It's also significantly less expensive than any other means which is an important consideration for much of the country. Hiring a vet to come out to your home to euthanize an animal can be hundreds of dollars - it was $350-$500 in Virginia when we checked in to it there. A .22 LR round is ~$.10, and a well-placed round to the base of the brain is instant.
There are downsides, of course. It requires knowledge of anatomy, and it can be bungled badly. Cats, like many animals, are prone to spasming when the CNS is destroyed, which is certainly not something that I'd want my kids to see.
All in all, I'd much prefer to either have a vet come out or obtain the necessary injections to do it myself at home - but I have financial resources at my disposal than the vast majority of families in my area do not. Given the choice between waiting for a dog or a cat to die of a long, painful disorder and their owner euthanizing them with a firearm, the latter is much preferable.
Those charges were dropped, as there is no West Virginia law outlawing shooting for euthanasia.
http://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/va-beach-man-who...