Talk:Tom Otterness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "Dog Shot" criticism and it's 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)


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)