Is This a Fight Worth Taking On?

Tom Otterness adopted a puppy from an animal shelter, tied it to a fence and shot it. He called it performance art and filmed the entire episode for gallery viewing.

Shocking? Today, he would face prosecution – certainly public condemnation. I can’t imagine any art gallery or museum condoning such extravagant lack of moral integrity. But back in 1977 when this event took place, few people ever heard of PETA. Football star Michael Vick had not been jailed for promoting dog fighting. The ASPCA maintained a near invisible profile and newspapers rarely ran stories of starving farmyard animals.

Now, thirty years later, Otterness is one of the country’s top “go-to” guys for public art. He’s established a successful career making big, comfy bronze sculptures of cute animals and marshmellowy people. Most recently, Rochester’s Memorial Art Gallery awarded him nearly a million dollars to produce two sculptures for their re-configured University Avenue entrance.

The fun begins! The Democrat & Chronicle ran a piece exposing Otterness’ controversial history on September 29, 2011, but before that, PETA members began making some noise and several MAG members cancelled their museum membership in protest.

Rochester is late coming to this party. Otterness lost several BIG commissions in 2008 when this became news and San Francisco cancelled their contracts with him. Otterness apparently said “I’m sorry…I was young” or something equally inconsequential and continued making pieces for schools, parks, and subway stations in New York City. With this history, the selection committee at MAG selected this artist for one of our cities largest, richest art commissions. Not only is this artwork among the highest price Rochester has arguably ever spent on art (and that’s a sad story right there), it announces our collective value-taste by it’s position at the entrance to our art suppository.

How could they? Didn’t they see this coming?

First, the popularity of this artist speaks volumes about where we’ve gone collectively with public art. Selection committees do NOT WANT SERIOUS ART. They want “likable art,” that doesn’t rattle patrons nor whisper of any controversy. Please! No ideas! Gentle fun is called for and if it appeals to children especially, the artist has hit a home run! One might think that the campus of an art museum could be safe from the slings and arrows of art conservatives, that this is the singular place for challenging, thought provoking work. Obviously, in Rochester, NY, this would be a wrong assessment. Our beloved institution proves yet again that it will always take the middle road, erring on the lower side when necessary.

As for Otterness, setting aside the lack of artistry in his work – he is a very good equipment designer and his timing seems inspired! – he must be one of the more intellectually challenged artist I’ve heard of recently. A serious question: does youth ever erase the act of cruelty? I know lots of mothers who begin instilling the opposite message in their children at earliest ages. But having “done the deed” and been called out on it, wouldn’t you think Otterness might come up with a way to public ally atone for his misstep? A significant public gift to a zoo, establishing a foundation to aid the fight for animal rights, endowing a prize for beginner sculptors – any of these might be a start. A simple verbal “I’m sorry” will not do the trick.