So true! Ugly work + animal cruelty = bad choice for family friendly art.

Since the Powers-That-Be at the MAG were well aware of Otterness' past work then we must assume that Mr. Holcomb & Co. believe that filming the death of a dog is justified in the Name of Art.

But perhaps Ms. Towler will agree to nail down this point by interviewing Mr. Holcomb and asking him to provide a straight-forward "yes" of "no" answer to the question, "Do you consider Otterness' "dog shooting" film to be art?".

The main reason more people haven't spoken out is because of the numerous threats of physical violence from members of Rochesterians Against Tom Otterness and other animal extremist groups against the sculpture park. It has a chilling effect on people's lives and certainly gives anyone pause before they contribute to the discussion. Screenshots of the threats can be found at www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Rochesterians-against-Rochesterians-Against-Tom-Otterness/219436734796497

I fully support Mr. Otterness's sculpture. I believe that art is meant to push the boundaries of tasted and culture, and that sometimes in this effort artists overstep the bounds of propriety. I believe that forgiveness of ones mistakes when they were young is what a culture is based on. I believe you can regret something you did and that doing it doesn't necessarily mean that you are an evil person forever. I believe that a museum purchasing a piece of art should be based on the ART and not the ARTIST. Some of our finest artists of all sorts pushed the boundaries of good taste and suitability for their times. Were we to criticize all art because of the transgressions or actions of the artists we would be a culturally poorer world. Shall we condemn Mozart's music because the authoer was an outrageous and scandalous character for his time? Perhaps Andy Warhol should be villified - after all he did drugs and made some rather controversial art and film. Maybe we should villify the works of every movie producer who portrayed an animal being harmed? Perhaps Gene Stratton Porter for writing about how cruel humans can be to each other - and kind - in the limberlost.

RocBus - A six year old thoughtlessly torturing a puppy is one thing. A 25 year old acquiring a dog for the sole and explicit purpose of slaughtering it to make an artistic statement is an entirely different thing. So you can dispense with excusing his actions based on his age.

Whether Otterness' work for the MAG is "art" or "garbage" is a matter of opinion. But the vileness of his past action is a not. By commissioning Otterness the MAG, AND their apologists, have openly proclaimed their support for his cruelty.

It is not his past cruelty that we are supporting. It is the art that he has been doing for the last 30 years that we are supporting and it is the art that he is producing for the sculpture park that we are supporting. We like it and we think that it will have a transformative effect on the area, developing and improving the grounds of the MAG and the NOTA in general.

I am not particularly fond of the proposed sculptures. I am not a particularly religious person. But I do feel strongly about practicing forgiveness. It doesn't mean we have to forget that what Mr. O. did crossed a line, but we can only move forward when we embrace forgiveness.

Ted Kennedy went on to do great things for our nation after Chappaquiddick. He was 37 and should have known better.

I know very well what Mr. Otterness did in his youth. I'm willing to chalk that up as a mistake. I don't think that we need to hate someone for the rest of their lives because they made a mistake and owned up to it. He's not posting a sculpture of someone shooting a dog. Are you saying that you've never done anything you regretted 30 years later? I say pshaw. This artist has admitted the transgression, apologized, and done what he can to ameliorate the damage. He can't bring the dog back, nor can he take back the action. He probably wishes he could.

I find his actions as vile as child porn. If this is the artist the city wishes to showcase, it is not a city in which I ever plan to spend my vacation dollars. This man should have gone to jail.

So let's say that we have a 25 year old investment counselor who one day decides to rope a number of his clients into a ponzi scheme. He is subsequently caught, apologizes, claims youthful ignorance, attempts to ameliorate matters and ask for forgiveness. As one of his victims you proceed to forgive him.

Thirty years later he comes back touting a wonderful new investment opportunity with a fabulous rate of return. Since you have forgiven him do you once more give him your money?

Whether Otterness is a creative genius or whether his work is garbage and a con job strikes me as both a matter of personal opinion. The opinion of those who support his work carries no more weight than the opinion of those who disagree. On the otherhand none but a sadist could support his "youthful indiscretion" .

To me the question is this. Is the local/state/national artistic community so devoid of talent that the management of the MAG had no alternative but to hire this guy in spite of the obvious baggage he carried?

The question has been asked whether Mr. Holcomb, etc. view Otternes' dog slaughter flick as "art" and why they selected his proposal. Their refusal to discuss this matter in a public forum, and the refusal of the local media and public leaders to demand such a discussion, makes me wonder whether Otterness is the only moral coward involved in this controversy.

No more MAG for me. This is just wrong.

He is so sorry that he has contributed ZERO dollars to animal welfare groups? Donated ZERO hours of community work with animals? Sounds more like he apologized in an attempt for it to "go away" but showed little remorse. I say ZERO public dollars should go to pay for any of his work.

Modern art is like modern architecture. Butt ugly, childishly simplistic yet defensively pretentious. The public lost interest back in the 1960s when American architects fell in love with that "school" of design that made everything look like a derivation of a Soviet apartment house, and modern art just looked like a parody of a Woody Allen joke, or maybe it was the joke that was the parody of the art. The utter banality and desperate self-importance of modern artists is typified by "shocking" displays of gutter morality, whether it is putting Christ in urine or torturing dogs. Either way, like ferocious arguments in college faculty lounges, it is of interest only to those involved.