Sculptor's puppy-killing past threatens WSU project

[Merlion]

Opinion is divided about going ahead with this project because of his past action, and because student's fees are involved.

Sculptor's puppy-killing past threatens WSU project (http://www.kansas.com/196/story/27623.html)

Mar 24, 2007, The Wichita Eagle

The discovery that Wichita-born sculptor Tom Otterness deliberately shot and killed a puppy 30 years ago -- an act that ended up as an art film -- could threaten plans by Wichita State University to put one of his pieces on campus next year.

The school commissioned the $450,000 piece, a giant bronze millipede, last year. It had planned to release information about the discovery of Otterness' act Monday, once students and staff returned from spring break, said Ted Ayres, WSU general counsel. ....

"We want to open the door for people to express an opinion," Ayres said. "I think it is important to have discussions and see where that goes and then make decisions."

But he said WSU's art advisory board, which worked with Otterness during the months-long commissioning process, stands by the artist and the sculpture. ....

Otterness, who began his art studies in Wichita, also created the large sculpture called "Dreamers Awake" in front of the Wichita Art Museum. Now living in New York City, he has developed a reputation internationally as an acclaimed sculptor.

His studio released a statement Friday on the shooting, which was captured on film.

"In 1977, I was a young artist having a very rough time," the statement reads. "I had anger at myself and at the world. What I did was symbolic of how I was feeling internally and it is something I would never do today.

"I have struggled with my action for 30 years and continue to do so to this day. It is my hope that my friends in my hometown of Wichita will come to accept and embrace the giant millipede, which I am very proud to have join WSU's prestigious sculpture collection."

Otterness has talked with WSU about the shooting and was aware that it planned to tell the public, Ayres said. ....

The dog's killing came to light when Matthew Goad, who is running for president of the Student Government Association, found out about it while reading an entry on Otterness on the Wikipedia Web site.

Goad has opposed the use of student fees to commission art for WSU's collection.

"I came out with it (the Wikipedia story) and started passing it along," Goad said Friday. "I'm like, 'Hey, not only is this an unwise way to spend student fees, but look at what we're buying here.' "

The millipede sculpture would cost $450,000, plus $150,000 for shipping and insurance. Private donations and funds from the WSU Foundation earmarked for the purchase of new artwork would fund it. WSU's student government association pledged $150,000 to the sculpture, of which $50,000 was paid this year.

The sculpture -- 20 feet long, 5 feet wide and 4 feet tall -- would sit in the traffic circle in front of the Ulrich Museum. .....

Sometimes whimsical, sometimes edgy, Otterness' sculptures -- often cartoonish figures of animals or little people wearing fat shoes -- can be seen in cities around America.

Patricia McDonnell, director of WSU's Ulrich Museum of Art, said that once information about the shooting came to the attention of WSU officials, they recognized it needed to be disclosed.

"We know Otterness as a public artist and a sculptor," she said. "That he was involved in this particular work of course came as a surprise.

"Immediately, we appreciated that this would not have the best public relations consequences."

[GlennT]

Several things come to mind:

1. $450,000 for a millipede sculpture? Hopefully this is not another one of those institutions of lower ,oops, higher learning that whines to the alumni in expensive brochures and publications about how it needs more money because the $45,000 a year tuition costs aren't providing enough.

2. The artist needs to reassess his relationship to dogs.

3. He problably should go into rehab, as that seems to work everytime a Hollywood celebrity screws up and needs to reassess their relationship to the people that hire them.

4. The artist did apologize for what he did 30 years ago. Usually that is all it takes to wipe the slate clean- 30 days if you are a politician, 30 hours if you are in Hollywood.

5. Not wanting to impune the sincere penitent, I would still want to learn from the artist's friends whether he really has been struggling with his action for 30 years or did the process begin when Mr. Goad discovered this.

6. Nevertheless, I, like just about everyone, did some stupid things when I was young. If we were all to be held captive to past errors and not given the benefit of the doubt to have matured over 30 years, nothing would ever get done.

7. Unfortunately, the artist's sins involved killing a puppy, which in today's cultural climate is worse than killing a baby or a Christian.

8. $450,000 for a millipede? :eek: :confused: :eek:

GlennT

[Ries]

I cannot testify as to his moral character- but I do think Tom Otterness is a good sculptor, and that is work is not overpriced.

I have seen many of his bronze sculptures firsthand, and have enjoyed every one of them. He works with professional foundries, and pieces like a 20 foot long x 5 foot tall bronze are not cheap, whether they are by Rodin or Otterness.
Compare the size of the millipede with the sculpture of the Soccer coach that is being discussed in another recent post- it cost over 100,000 english pounds, which, if you broke down on a cubic foot or per pound basis, is probably ten times as expensive as the millipede.

I am sure he commands a decent artists fee out of the deal- but not exorbitant- I would imagine he will end up with between 10% and 20% of the entire commission amount, which will include paying his overhead and studio costs as well as for his time.

Nobody is getting rich here.

Personally, I would much prefer a $450,000 Millipede to an equestrian statue.

It sounds to me like the puppy thing is being brought up not as the main issue, as the real issue seems to be that the student activist does not believe any ASU money should be spent on art- not even if they were commissioning Glenn to do a classical head.

[GlennT]

I too work with professional foundries, in fact I would not even consider using an amateur foundry. Nevertheless, based on my experience I think that I could comfortably create the same piece ( were I inclined to sculpt like that ) for $300,000. The five foot height is at its apex, and it tapers towards either end, and it appears that in cross section it is C shaped, not a full O shape.
I also do not think that it would cost me an additional $150,000 to ship and install it.

Comparing the cost to the English soccer league sculpture is mis-leading because that is another example of a way-over-priced work, even if it had been sculpted with competance. ( Were the legs made short to save on foundry costs? )

The fact that I could do these works for much less was not my point, however. I don't have a problem in general with an artist getting paid well for their work, because I know how much work it is and how much sacrifice an artist typically has made before getting to a place where they can command such a high fee.

I seem to be stuck in awe of the more basic premise of a university actually paying $600,000 ( didn't notice the $150,000 shipping cost in my 1st post )for a bronze millipede. Could they not have been more frugal with the public's money and bought a $250,000 Ladybug?

GlennT

[Ries]

Well, if you are talking about the design of the sculpture, that is just a matter of taste, not value for the dollar.

The people doing the selection chose Otterness, they seem to like his work. If you do not, then that is certainly your privilege, but it doesnt mean the work is or isnt worth the price.

As is common in sensationalistic newspaper articles like this, the facts are not very clear. What the real price is, who is getting paid, what the "shipping and insurance" really is- none of these are delineated in the article.

It could be a total ripoff, as you intimate. Probably, though, there is a lot more to the story that just doesnt sell newspapers.
Often in a case like this, there are requirements for engineering, or underground wiring for lighting, or foundations, that for one reason or another have to be run thru a contractor not of the artists choosing- I recently had a project where the contractor wanted 5 grand to wire up one exterior light for a piece- after 3 months of negotiation with the state, the college, and the architects, I hired my own electrician to do the same job for about $700.

The other thing that is not made clear is whether or not this was a fixed price bid- this is usually the case in public art projects.
This means that a fixed percentage of the project budget is allocated for art- say $500,000. At that point, proposals are solicited from artists- with a fixed bid amount. The artist gets the entire amount, regardless of whether he or she can build the sculpture for less- but equally, if the costs run over the amount, the artist still gets ONLY the bid amount.

I do jobs like this all the time- and some days, you eat the bear, and some days the bear eats you. I have certainly done jobs where I made very little, and others where I did quite well- and in those cases, somebody else might have been able to do that particular job for less, as you state in this case- but I am taking the risk, paying for the 1 million dollar liability policy, my employees, my overhead, my shop, my 3 phase power bills, and so on, every month, whether that job makes money or not. So I feel no guilt whatsoever when I come in with a "profit" on some jobs, as I am sure Otterness does as well.

Once you become a full time professional at this, doing several hundred thousand or even millions of dollars worth of work a year like Otterness, you quite simply refuse jobs where they want you to do it cheaper, or prove you are not making "too much" on the sculpture, because the reality is that you seldom get rich, even if your pieces sell for $600,000.

[ironman]

Hi, I haven't read any of the above posts but although I don't condone it, I don't think that Otterness (sick bastard that he apparently is) should be penalized for the rest of his life for something he did many, many years ago.
We set mouse traps, shoot deer (I don't) and commit other crimes against (according to some) our animal friends, but since we anthropomorphise dogs and puppies in particular, shooting them becomes a bigger crime.
I'm now going to give my dog Alice a nice big hug, a treat and scratch her belly (she loves that).
Have a great day,
Jeff

[Merlion]

Here is the latest news about this incident, and a picture of sculptor Otterness's millipede design. It also report opinions from other artists about Otterness.

It is correct and wise that the university gives students and the public a chance to air their views.

WSU stands by sculpture plans (http://www.kansas.com/176/story/29563.html)

March 27, 2007

Wichita State hears public reactions over its commissioning of Tom Otterness, who shot a dog and filmed it in the 1970s.

Wichita State University has no plans to abandon or change the commission of a sculpture by Wichita native Tom Otterness, who 30 years ago shot a dog to death and filmed it.

The bronze millipede is still due to be installed in the traffic oval in front of the Ulrich Museum in spring 2008, said director Patricia McDonnell....

Artists from around the country, while not condoning Otterness' actions, say the incident should be considered an aberration in a celebrated 30-year career.

"The work that Tom has done today is probably some of the most community-friendly, family-friendly work being produced by a major artist in America," said Adam Weinberg, director of the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York City.

"This is an artist who is probably the most responsive to community of any artist in America," said Weinberg, "so for him to be tarred for one piece that he did as a young artist, one which he willingly admits that he made a big mistake -- to try to hold that against him after a lifetime of work -- that to me is nuts."

Novelene Ross, former chief curator at the Wichita Art Museum, met Otterness in the early 1990s when his "Dreamers Awake" sculpture, which sits outside that museum, was being considered for commission.

"Even when faced with hostile critics of his work, he does not engage in shouting or irrational claims," Ross said. "He exhibits such equanimity and clarity and serenity that I believe he is a person who may be related to that man of the past, but is no longer that man."

[Landseer]

" Wichita State University has no plans to abandon or change the commission of a sculpture by Wichita native Tom Otterness, who 30 years ago shot a dog to death and filmed it."

I disagree with the notion that just because 30 years has passed all should be just fine and dandy now, he murdered a dog in cold blood and then as if that's not bad enough- FILMED IT!, as "art" and this is the one act we KNOW ABOUT, how many others were there that we don't know about?

"so for him to be tarred for one piece that he did as a young artist, one which he willingly admits that he made a big mistake -- to try to hold that against him after a lifetime of work -- that to me is nuts."
If this was a person instead of a dog would Weinberg be excusing this as having happened 30 years ago and that the man is apologetic and has produced a lot of art since? Since when does ART make up for killing?

If he said 30 years ago he shagged cows and sheep, kicked his dog for messing in the house or his dog fell out the back of his pickup truck and died while going down the road, then I wouldn't have a problem there, but he killed a dog with a gun and FILMED it as "art" and that tells me a whole other sinister picture of what was going through his mind- it was not an accident or even carelessness, but verifiably what certain individuals like Dahmer have done as "practice" and no one knew or suspected.

Contrary to The Eagle's initial report, Otterness shot a dog, not a puppy Oh yeah that makes a WORLD of difference!!


...whether he really has been struggling with his action for 30 years or did the process begin when Mr. Goad discovered this.
Dead dogs wag no tails, but I believe the forced process began when the wikipedia content was brought to the attention of the University now, not 30 years ago.



Otterness issued an apology on Monday, his second statement on the issue since Friday.

"I am very sorry," he said.
And what good does it do to apologise to people who read the newspaper and watch TV news??? we're not the victims here.

I sent my comments on the matter to the University office tonight.

[Landseer]

The people doing the selection chose Otterness, they seem to like his work. If you do not, then that is certainly your privilege, but it doesnt mean the work is or isnt worth the price.
.You should read the angry comments on that paper's comments board, people yelling that this kind of money should instead be going into fixing the leaking roof, student scholarships, the homeless, elderly etc
A few called the art a few terms I won't reprint but suffice it to say one said he thought there was better art in the sewer system, and at least one said they will not attend this school and given them their money which supports people like Otterness. So it looks like the comments are largely angry/negative. It also shows clearly the obstacle we have to overcome with art and COST and how the public sees it, here are 4 of the tamer ones;

GS,
Yes, I am a student.Yes, I do care about art.Yes, Killing of a innocent animal for fun is demonic.Yes, WSU is once again not letting the community voice be heard.Yes, The people who are standing by this artist are the same who worship a false god.Yes, This piece of art will be destroyed by the students' !!!!!

"This is a horrible use of funds. This ugly nausating piece of so called art is rediculous. There are so many things WSU could use this half million dollars for that would enhance the school, while this will make WSU look foolish and wasteful."

"What to go Student Govt this is the most ridiculous waste of money i have ever seen in my life. Hire someone to make a giant Wu Shock rather than a millipede that looks a lot like a cockroach. I cant wait to have a giant pest on campus to walk by every day knowing my tuition money was wasted. Great job DAC definately not gettin my vote this april"

LETS GET REAL, WHY WOULD ANYONE SPEND THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY ON A BUG WHEN THE SCHOOL BUILDINGS ARE IN NEED OF REPAIR. JUST PLAIN DUMB. OR LETS SPEND THE 430K ON THE OLD AND OR THE NEEDY. WONDER WHO'S POCKET THIS GUY IS LINING ALONG WITH HIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!POCKET THIS GUY IS IN.


http://pod01.prospero.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=3471&nav=messages&webtag=kr-kansastm&redirCnt=1

[Funes]

People do things they later regret, although I wouldn't condone it is there really much difference between killing a puppy and slaughtering a cow from the point of view of the animal if you want to talk about 'victims'.Although Damien Hurst might not have pulled the trigger himself you could argue that he's deliberately caused the killing of a cow for 'art'.

A well known soap star over here is actually a convicted murder but don't we get people demanding that he should be banned from TV and never be forgiven.

I don't think it's fair to reject someone and their working simply on the grounds of one act they carried out 30 years ago - would people be saying the same if he'd worked in a slaughter house? Clearly he was deeply messed up individual but people change.

The issue of spending the money on a scultpure when building improvements are badly needed is a different one - and I think more important to consider but if it's anything like science funding that money has been ring fenced and can't be spent on anything else - a sad reflection on the pathetic level of red tape and box ticking in todays society.

[EJB]

Okay, show of hands....who has actually seen this film?

[Merlion]

I think the issue for the university people is that student and public emotions can be stirred up over this sort of thing - killing a puppy and making a film about it. So it is appropriate to keep an open mind, hear what they have to say just in case they have some valid points, and then deliberate to make the decision. Steam-rolling over the matter arrogantly could make matters worse.

[evaldart]

Yeah, so what about the puppy thing 30 years ago. Far greater artists have done worse. And I couldn't think of many artists whose work is less morally challenged than Otterness.
I'm sure he isn't losing too much sleep about the whole thing...Its just another comission. If they don't go for it his time will be spent on any number of others. The millipede WILL come to fruition eventually. If the school is smart they'll move ahead or the next 500,000 will be spent on someone far lesser known. And thats what its really about isn't it.

[BSafe]

Yeah! and what about Jeff Koons, he killed art/sculpture with a 'puppy' (amongst other things).
:rolleyes:

[EJB]

Still have not heard from anyone who has actually seen this film. Wonder if any of those college folks protesting have either. Not that passing judgement on it being right or wrong would make a difference, it's just that I find it hard to believe that with all of the things going on in the world that this would be their cause celebe. It seems that these protests have a lot more to do with self serving attention getting for the screamers. Money poorly spent? How much did the ASU raise to fix the leaky roof? As mentioned, the money was likey earmarked for such projects and raised exclusivley for it. Art has longevity and tends to develop activities which increase revenues to institutions ($20 now to get into MOMA). Who will protest the denial of royalties to the artist when this piece appreciates in value gets sold down the line for a couple million dollars. This piece will be there long after the new roof leaks again and all the money for student keg parties is long spent. How about protesting the dismal state of health care, political apothy or the fact that your country is at war? If an artist deserves to be villified 30 years later for shooting a dog, then perhaps anyone that has ever driven drunk should not be allowed to own or drive a car, anyone who has taken drugs should not be allowed to have children and anyone who has lied under oath should not be a politician.
.....unless you've done all three, then you can be a politician.

[Merlion]

This excerpt is from Wikipedia about Tom Otterness.

Journalist Gary Indiana criticized Otterness for an independent work done while part of the East Village art scene in the mid-eighties called "Shot Dog Piece", in which Otterness allegedly "adopted a dog and then shot it to death for the fun of recording his infantile, sadistic depravity on film."

And this excerpt is from the New York Magazine article by Gary Indiana mentioned above.

But I’m repulsed by this show’s inclusion of Tom Otterness, a sculptor of limitless nonentity despite his demonstrated skill at conning public-art commissions and taste-impaired collectors into making him rich. Mr. Otterness, once upon a time, adopted a dog and then shot it to death for the fun of recording his infantile, sadistic depravity on film.

[evaldart]

Chris Burden had HIMSELF shot on film...far more shocking.

[marblecutter]

If the Dog was killed 30 years ago to feed the artist's appetite it perhaps would have been more humane. Killing for the sake of killing is not OK today, tomorrow, yesterday or 30 years ago. We still grieve for the death of Christ and other martyrs and creatures great and small, killed mercilessly.
Devil worshippers do skin dogs alive as practice for bigger and better deeds. Yes we are at war, we digest cruelty nightly along with the evening meals, or with every meal now as 24-hour war news is readily available.

Video Game tools prepare adults and children for real killing. Bill Gates earns $20 million per day for the creation of games that gear us toward wars and for computers that are in actual use in current and future wars.
A sin is a sin, no matter how small or microscopic. One of the Ten Commandments is Thou shall not kill! May she or he who is not guilty of killing cast the other marble.

[Daniel]

Being a visual person, I don't think I would ever be able to walk by this proposed sculpture without an image of a dog being shot to death by this sadistic guy popping into my mind. I would probably have to plan an alternate route between classes.

[philpraxis]

Dirty hands and manipulation

Yes, Tom Otterness has dirty hands: he shot the puppy himself.

We do far worse, all of us, each day. But we don't have dirty hands. We let a whole continent or two (let's say at least Africa) die for years, with millions of people, just saying "oh you know, it's none of our business to pressure our national pharmaceutical companies to give African countries a license for AIDS-related drugs". We don't have dirty hands, and no-one can make a direct relationship between millions of occidental people and millions of african dead people.

Right... we're not even considering human people and Lanseer and other are crying for a puppy? ohh.... poor puppy. This is sick, manipulated and out of proportion.

I would question the "purity" of such manipulation, given the fact that Otterness is one of the few artists today who actually question the ever-more money/liberal/well-thinking world we live in.

"Oh my goat, let's think also about Leonardo and tons of other painters: it's not right to have kids working for you, either today, yesterday, 30 or 300 years ago." Please, we're swimming in biggotry.