Voices | About the artists | FAQs
We invite you to share your thoughts. We ask that you post your view once only, and use moderate language. We will delete repeat posts and other forms of spam.

Due to some technical problems, the above three posts were posted on director Grant Holcolm’s page. We have copied them in their entirety and posted them here, in an effort to keep all comments to one page.

6 Comments → “Comments”

  1. rochester citizen 6 years ago   Reply

    Please read the artist’s own words :
    Re: History of Otterness’ Shot Dog Film (MAG)
    Posted by: “” araunybaum
    Thu Nov 3, 2011 12:17 pm (PDT)

    Read quotes from an interview of Tom Otterness, after his 1977 *Shot Dog
    Ott = Tom Otterness
    Int = Interviewr

    Ott = The Dog Shot film was made before the four fight films. It’s about
    f…ing someone… getting f…ed by someone. That’s what the fight films
    are about too. Running over someone; defeating someone; being defeated.
    They’re the same thing those two films.
    Int = You said earlier that when you showed Dog Shot Film at the screening
    room at 42nd Street that you wanted to hurt the viewers.

    Ott = Yeah, I mean that whole night on 42nd Street, as best as I could do
    it, was the most aggressive way I could think of to show a film, the most
    damaging thing that I could do to the audience by showing a film. I hired a
    photographer with a camera so when people were leaving the theater, they
    were assaulted by a flash, attacked.
    Int = Why do you want to assault the audience?
    Ott = You understand that. That’s not a question you would ask me if the
    tape wasn’t going. Its Soho, you know. People sleep a lot. They are not
    often awake.

    Int = You wanted to add something in the interview here…
    Ott = Yeah, just a statement that the dog film was not allowed to be shown
    in the context of this Punk Art show.
    Int = Why do you want to say that?
    Ott = Well, I think it will change the way people look at what was
    accepted into the catalogue. I think it changes it a lot. It changes the color of
    all the other photographs. It means that all the other photographs in the
    catalogue are acceptable and that the dog film wasn’t.
    Int = Which probably means you are the most extreme…
    Ott = Yeah, I think so. It must be… it must define it.

  2. J.R. Teeter 6 years ago   Reply

    I very much look forward to the completed sculpture park and I believe that all of the divergent elements from the wide variety of sculptors will serve as a wonderful gathering place for the community. When choosing any sort of commission whether it be for the building of a house, office building or sculpture we need to judge the architect/artist on the quality of their work at the time of the review of the project and not the work of that person from 34 years ago.

    That being said we often kill animals for a wide variety of reasons. It is sad, but true. The makeup you wear was tested on animals and often made with animal products. Some animals have died so that you could wear that color lipstick. Drugs are tested on mice, pigs and chimps before they can be tested on humans. Insulin is produced by pigs and used in humans. And yes even traditional artists have killed animals to further their work.

    The 70s were filled with artists (now considered mainstream) who harmed themselves, others and yes animals in their art. This was a direct reaction to the events currently going on in the world. I have seen works similiar to the film in question as part of a art history course — these works of art were an effort to wake people out of their individual comas and get them to feel again — something — anything. If only to wake them out of the slumber that made the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK jr and the (at the time) longest war the US had ever been a part of: Vietnam. I would imagine given the worlds current economic, political and social climate that this sort of punk art will have a resurgance by young artists trying to prove themselves and show the world the pain they are feeling.

    I would much prefer Mr. Otterness create the sculptures that are part of his current style. I prefer this type of art from him and I think the world is a better place for it. Yet I recognize how his earlier work came to be and how it was shaped by the environment he was living in.

    It also disturbs me that the same people who seek to stop this sculpture garden from happening because of the death of this dog from 34 years ago are doing so with threats of violence, sabotage and harassment. If they are so in favor of nonviolence why do they use violent rhetoric at every opportunity? Why do they want to harm Tom Otterness if their message is peaceful? And why are they trying to control what everyone else sees in this sculpture garden. The reason is they don’t care a lick about animals. They want to control people, how they live and what they see. If it doesn’t conform to their world view then the rest of us can’t have it.

    That is unfair to the MAG, Rochester and the community at large. We have the same rights as them and we want and deserve the best sculpture garden that we can muster.

    I look forward to the day where I can see the work of Tom Otterness on display as part of the sculpture garden and firmly believe that it will improve our lives and the community at large. I refuse to allow anyone else to control what I see, feel and experience.

  3. RochesterBusinessman 6 years ago   Reply

    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 author was an outrageous and scandalous character for his time? Perhaps Andy Warhol should be vilified – after all he did drugs and made some rather controversial art and film. Maybe we should vilify 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.

  4. Carol Manzek 6 years ago   Reply

    The majority of the community opposes Otterness being commissioned, regardless of if they are animal activists or not (just short of 3000 signatures on the Rochesterians Against Tom Otterness petiton). I for one am not an animal extremist but I support all efforts of not putting Otterness in the limelight. This has nothing to do with control, as stated above. It is unfair for MAG to display this larger-than-life monstrosity in public view when the community is so opposed to it. If they want to support Otterness and the sculpture, I feel that it should be someplace inconspicuous to the public. If anything, this is MAG “controlling” what we see when it’s quite clear the opposition far outnumber the supporters. Those of us that feel so strongly against it do not want to be forced to view it on a daily basis. Not only is it bad art (looks like it belongs in front of a day care center) but to continue with this project despite the outcry certainly sends a message to the community that MAG really doesn’t care how the community feels.

  5. Ed Brueggmann 6 years ago   Reply

    I have read comments about why so few are supporting the Tom Otterness project. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you were wrong in your choice? I have followed the controversy closely and have asked opinions of fellow workers at the U of R. I have not had one positive response for commissioning Otterness. These are not animal rights activists – they are the community that supports MAG. I cannot believe that MAG and the U of R would ignore the public and allow this to happen. Look at the numbers of opposition compared to supporters. Does that not tell you anything?? This is a bad move for MAG and the U of R.

  6. Gwenn Rodriguez 5 years ago   Reply

    I drive by the MAG every morning and afternoon from work. I absolutely love the sculptures that are on the corner. They are adorable. I see there are little bronze sculptures of the original ones and wondered if they were going to be something that we could maybe buy at some point. My first thought when I saw the sculputres was how cute I would love to display one of them in my home.

Leave a Reply