October 13, 2011

1. Call to Order and Roll Call
5:30 PM

Present Commissioners; Jack Aldridge DVM, Geneva Page, Pam Hemphill, Susanna Russo, Sally Stephens, John Denny SFPD, Rebecca Katz - ACC

Absent Commissioners; Ryan Young, Philip Gerrie, Vicki Guldbech – ACC, Lisa Wayne - Rec & Park

2. General Public Comment

No public comment

3. Approval of Draft minutes for the September 8, 2011 Meeting

No Commission nor public comment

Minutes approved unanimously

4. Chairperson’s report and opening remarks

No report from Chairperson

5. New Business

Gavel was given to Vice-Chair Comr. Aldridge so Comr. Stephens could advocate for the agenda item.
A) Discussion and possible action to send a letter to the SF Arts Commission, the Mayor and the Board asking them to rescind two contracts with artist Tom Otterness for two sculptures for public work projects. Thirty years ago he committed an act of animal cruelty. Filmed it and call it art.


Comr. Stephens – For background, Tom Otterness obtained a dog from an animal shelter in Denver. He tied it to a fence and then shot it. He filmed the execution which took about 30 seconds. He turned it into a film called “Shot Dog Film” in which the thirty second clip is repeated over and over. He was 25 at the time. Three years later, he was interviewed and asked about the film and said it was intentionally planned. The intent of the film was aggression towards the audience. It was shown on 42nd St, and was meant to hurt the audience. He said he also hired a photographer so when people were leaving the theatre they were assaulted by a flash. There was clearly no remorse in those statements three years after filming the execution of the dog. His first public comments of remorse about his actions were not until 2008 when the public began to question his public contracts because of his snuff film. He said, “It was an indefensible act that I am deeply sorry for. Many of us have experienced profound emotional turmoil and despair. Few have made the mistake I made. I hope people can find it in their hearts to forgive me.”
As a society we believe in the concept of contrition and redemption for horrible acts. However true contrition requires more than mere words. As far as I can tell, Otterness has not contributed small nor large sums to shelters or rescues organizations. He has not donated sculptures to animal charities to be raffled off. He has not volunteered his time at shelters nor animal rescues nor animal related non-profits. He has not created sculptures with a theme against animal abuse. Last month, we learned from the Examiner, that he had been awarded two contracts from the SF Arts. Commission. In 2010 he received $700,000 for a mother-and-child sculpture to be placed prominently at the new SF General project when it is completed. He has already been paid $365,750 for this contract. Earlier this summer he was awarded a contract worth $750,000 to create 59 small bronze sculptures described as whimsical and cartoonish to fill the three levels of the Moscone Station of the proposed Central Subway. He has not received any of that money. So far none of his sculptures have been installed in SF. It is unclear if the Arts Commission knew, at the time he was awarded these contracts, of his past animal cruelty. When I was called by the Examiner reporter, I googled his name. The fourth item that came up was “Tom Otterness dog killer”. Information is not hard to find. Clearly someone didn’t do their job to vet the artist. I am not making any statements about the quality of his art. I am concerned about the quality of the artist. If private individuals have no problem with his past and want to patronize him, they have a right to do that. With these two projects in SF, we are talking about public money. Tax dollars to pay a man that had killed a small dog and filmed it to show others what he had done. Now that we know of his past, who can look at his whimsical and cartoonish sculptures and think that a dog was killed and who’s death was trivialized by being repeated over and over in his film. He has apologized in words but words without actions are meaningless.
At the direction of the Mayor and Arts Commission president, P.J. Johnston, all work has been halted on the two contracts pending further review. The Arts Commission was invited to speak tonight but they could not attend. They did send the following statement by Kate Patterson the public relations manager, “ The president of the SF Arts Commission, P.J. Johnston, plans to meet with the three department heads of SFMTA, Dept. of Public Health, the Arts Commission, as well as legal counsel to discuss next steps at the next Arts Commission meeting in Nov. The Public can find the agenda on line 72 hours in advance of the meeting.” That Meeting will be on Nov 7, at 3PM in room 416 at City Hall. Also spoke with Anita Carswsell of IDA who was in full support of rescinding the two contracts. She said 1600 people had signed an online petition opposing the contracts with Otterness. She knew of four other similar on-line petitions. I urge this Commission to send a letter to the Arts Commission, the Board and the Mayor urging them to rescind the two contracts. The city of St. Francis cannot display, with public funding, art from someone that has displayed such an act of animal cruelty.
Was reminded by Comr. Hemphill that three years ago, in 2008, concerning an exhibit at the Art Institute of a video of animals being killed. We had sent a letter to the Arts Commission asking them not to use hotel tax money, which had helped fund that exhibit, not be used for these kind of issues. We had received a return letter from them.

Comr. Hemphill – The last paragraph of the reply letter from Kary Shulman director of Grants for the Arts, “ I assure you that ACWC’s recommendation to decline funding to any institution that supports the abuse or killing of animals for the purposes of art will be discussed by the Grants for Arts Citizen Advisory Committee.” We assume they have done that.

Comr. Stephens – I would like to make sure to include in our letter that future recipients of public art funding not have participated in acts of animal cruelty.

Comr. Russo – Support withholding the contracts.

Comr. Page – Agree. It makes no sense for our public money to be used in this way.

Comr. Aldridge – Had looked into this issue to see another possible side to this story. This act was performed 35 to 40 years ago early in this person’s life. Young men do make stupid mistakes. This issue has come up for this artist in other cities and the opportunity was there for him to make a public statement more than just words. The same suggestions have come up before when this was debated in other cities. Could not find any physical act of retribution that he had done or donations to show that he was attempting to show any repentance. It is obvious that there is not a shortage of artists in this country. Why should anyone support an artist with such a controversial past? I support sending the letter.

Comr. Hemphill – I would support sending the letter as well. The previous incident of a film of several types of animals being bludgeoned to death was strongly defended by the Art Institute. There is an obvious need for education that calling this art is not OK. This is an important place to start.

Comr. Stephens – Move that we send the letter asking that the contracts be rescinded and that the Commission look at future recipients that they have not participated in acts of animal cruelty.

Comr. Russo – Second the motion.

Public comment

Richard Fong – Commissioners have presented a very convincing argument. Is this Commission over-stretching and retrying this person? I don’t think that is the purpose of this Commission – to take a way someone’s livelihood. This person has not been convicted of any crime.

Corey Evans – This is different from the Michael Vick case is that this was an art project. We perceive and enjoy art based on the artist projection of society and how he sees society is going. Art does not mean as much in a vacuum as what we think the art stands for. Part of that is looking at who the artist is as a person. Artists such as Andy Warhol or Vincent van Gogh were known for who they were as well as their work. It is too bad that this artist did that when he was young. Do we want to have his art displayed to the public for future generations? Who would want that? It is not a matter of convicting someone of a crime but rather not rewarding him with public money. The government should push forward the morals of the people they represent and enforce the laws that reflect the morality of the people. What is more reflective of public morality then spending public money on art? I don’t want my public money being spent to reward an artist who has built his career on the notoriety of killing an animal. It is so immature and morally bankrupt to miss that point when you did it. I don’t think you can reward him later.

Jaime York – Why are we spending $1.4 million on art? I think that is ridiculous.

Public comment is closed

Comr. Stephens – To explain, on a big bond project a certain percentage must be spent on public art. But who gets the commission is the issue.

Comr. Aldridge – We have a motion to vote on sending a letter to the Board, the mayor, and the Arts Commission asking to rescind the two contracts with Tom Otterness and insure that future recipients of public arts money have not participated in animal cruelty.

Comr. Hemphill – Do we want to include reference to the letter we sent to the Arts Commission and their reply in 2008?

Comr. Stephens – I will amend the letter to include that reference.
Seconded by Comr. Aldridge.

Motion approved unanimously.
Comr. Aldridge passed control of the meeting back to Comr. Stephens.

6. General Public Comment

No public comment

7 & 8 Calendar items and task allotments

None

9. Adjournment 5:55PM

Respectfully submitted by Philip Gerrie
Commission Secretary