Send comments to themail@rochester-citynews.com, or post them on our website, rochestercitynewspaper.com, our Facebook page, or our Twitter feed, @roccitynews. We edit selections for publication in print, and we don’t publish comments sent to other media.
Art and artists
On reader Michael Nighan’s letter on the Otterness sculptures at the Memorial Art Gallery: A dear friend told me how he once enjoyed killing people. He was 19 years old, a combat infantryman in World War ll. He was trained to kill, and he was good at it.
Then one time, as he was watching the man he had just shot crumble to the ground, he saw his hand fall open, revealing a wedding ring. Immediately my friend understood that he had destroyed a human being who would be missed by his family. The incident changed his life.
After the war, he became a university professor. He became a kind and gentle man who hated war. He became my surrogate father. He had become someone entirely different from that 19-year-old who could kill for pleasure.
Michael Nighan does a great disservice to art by implying that the man who murdered that unfortunate dog is the same one who designed that playful, whimsical park at the corner of University and Goodman enjoyed by hundreds of people every day.
We do not reject the monumental works of Beethoven and Picasso because one ruined his nephew’s life and the other was a terrible husband and father. Their art is the better part of them, their redemption. Why, then, should we reject Mr. Otterness’s delightful park?
If Mr. Nighan is human, and I suspect that he is, we all have sins, some of them serious, that need forgiveness. Mother Nature has not singled out Mr. Otterness. She will hold us all accountable for the many killings we have committed and the many insults we have heaped upon her magnificent work of art. We all ought to beg her forgiveness, but first, we ought to change our ways as Mr. Otterness has obviously changed his.
JOHN KASTNER
The effects of
marijuana
Silly me, I thought the jury was still out on legalized marijuana for New York State, thus the “Listening Sessions” across the state to gain feedback from New Yorkers. Yet after skim-reading the 75-page “Assessment of the Potential Impact of Regulated Marijuana in New York State” (July 2018) commissioned by Governor Cuomo, it looks like legalization is a done deal unless there’s public outcry against it.
There’s almost no need to read the entire document because as early as Page 5, the conclusion is: “The positive effects of an adult (21 and over) marijuana market in New York State outweigh the potential negative impacts.” The state can think of no better way to avoid disproportionate imprisonment of minorities and combat the opioid crisis than to drive people deeper into a destructive lifestyle and create new and improved drug addicts.
I reject the notion that marijuana is a harmless substance. I base that on unpleasant personal experience.
Only fake science steeped in politics and greed would challenge conventional wisdom and proven statistics in favor of dubious research. Instead, we are to focus on large tax revenues that will be used “for the public good,” jobs generated, and the nature of “good pot” as opposed to bad pot.
The only argument I might have liked was the possible decrease in the use of synthetic pot. Then it occurred to me that poverty-stricken minorities and addicts are unlikely to have the cash and access needed to purchase “regulated marijuana” so as to reap the benefits government pot pushers are trying to provide for them.
As for those with serious mental illnesses who may be adversely affected, they will need to be “monitored,” the study says. The study also concedes that adolescents and young people who smoke marijuana may suffer adverse consequences, so they will be “under surveillance” by Public Health and Education Officials for the “onset and incidence of psychosis” as well as “effects on academic achievement.”
THC is a psychoactive substance. It’s not “benign,” as the governor’s report suggests on Page 2, while mocking the unenlightened era of “Reefer Madness.” Legalized marijuana may be the wave of the future, but it’s not forward progress. It’s not a panacea for social justice or a breakthrough for modern medicine. It doesn’t protect our youth, and its truest purpose is not for the public good. The Regulated Marijuana Market is a dangerous cash cow, with an unproven track record.
To quote my favorite fortune cookie: “Make sure that the medicine you take in a rash moment does not turn out to be worse than the malady.”
LAURIE CLOCKSIN
This article appears in Oct 3-9, 2018.
With all due respect to Mr. Kastner, and at the risk of be labeled as a philistine by our local cultural mavens, I must point out that his support for Otterness fails on several points:
1) it is not I who has done a disservice to art. It is Otterness, the man who slaughtered a helpless animal and filmed its death agonies AS ART who has performed that disservice. I merely expressed the opinion that such conduct should have disqualified him from being hired by the Memorial Art Gallery, as it disqualified him in San Francisco and New York (where I suspect they are also human, like me!).
2) we have no proof, other than his word, that Otterness is not the same man he was, or has changed from the despicable adult he was in 1977. We do know that it took him THIRTY YEARS to apologize for his actions. And only then because fat commissions were at stake, necessitating some statement on his part. Did anyone expect him to say he was proud of his butchery, even if he still was? Or to go on killing small animals as art once the money started rolling in? Therefore, I must be pardoned for being a tad cynical about the sincerity of his “apology” and for suggesting that morally and ethically, “the man who murdered that unfortunate dog is the same one who designed that playful, whimsical park at the corner of University and Goodman.”
3) attempting to compare the antisocial attitudes and activities of Beethoven and Picasso to Otterness’ depraved act of blood lust is a textbook example of apples and oranges. The actions of those other artists were personal failings, tangential to their art. However Otterness’ actions, by his own admission, were part and parcel OF his art, integral to its (you’ll excuse the expression) execution.
The upshot is this. Unless, for some unfathomable reason, we’re willing to grant artists an open-ended moral dispensation for their actions, and to hold them to a far lower standard of conduct than we do the rest of society, then Otterness’ crime (and make no mistake, the cruelty and torture Otterness inflicted on that dog was a criminal offense), then his past actions must be a determining factor in his future employment. No different than say a bank clerk or a financial adviser who embezzles funds. We might choose to forgive an embezzler their trespasses, but we would insist that they make restitution to their victims, and we would never want them again employed in their chosen profession where they would be handling others’ money. Likewise, there is no rational reason that an artist who has prostituted his talents and his art in by committing a heinous crime, for whatever sick reason, should ever again be trusted or hired to produce art (restitution to the victim of course being out of the question in Otterness’ case).
With regard to John Kastner’s letter, there is an unearned assumption and a non sequitur. The assumption is that the artist has changed. Where is the slightest indication this is true. A very late apology? I don’t think so. The non sequitur is this: “Michael Nighan does a great disservice to art by implying that the man who murdered that unfortunate dog is the same one who designed that playful, whimsical park at the corner of University and Goodman enjoyed by hundreds of people every day.” But nothing in this “work of whimsy” shows any sea change of Otterness. He is indeed the same person, except that he has learned what to do and what not to do with museum boards. Michael Nighan has done no disservice to art but has reminded us of its responsibilities.
I’ve always wondered how such a reprehensible individual as Tom Otterness was able to con the MAG board and director Grant Holcomb into overlooking his history of animal abuse. He couldn’t have put on a dog and pony show since he’d already shot the dog.
It’s a pity that MAG director Grant Holcomb refused to discuss the Otterness matter publicly. All we ever got were press releases to the effect that the dog shooting was now a non-issue since Otterness had finally apologized and had become a renown artist. What his status as an artist, renown or otherwise, had to do with anything was one of the many unanswered questions.
Laurie Clocksin is certainly free to express her opinion about the effects of marijuana and her desire to see New York State continue to criminalize it as a harmful substance. I respect how her own personal experiences have shaped her views.
But when she says “the state can think of no better way to avoid disproportionate imprisonment of minorities and combat the opioid crisis than to drive people deeper into a destructive lifestyle and create new and improved drug addicts,” I want to point out that “the state” does not think. American citizens are the ones who have been pushing for medical and recreational marijuana. In 2016, Prop 64 in California passed with a reported 55% in favor. That same year, a medical marijuana bill passed in Florida, with 71.1% in favor. 54% of voters in Nevada came out to support the Nevada Marijuana Legalization Initiative, and in Massachusetts, 54% of voters supported a bill that would regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcoholic beverages. When it comes to marijuana, it has been the will of the people which has demanded a change to irrational, draconian, and discriminatory policies.
Ms. Clocksin may believe that marijuana inevitably leads to “destructive lifestyles” and drug addiction, but that is just her opinion. One person’s drug can be another person’s medicine, herb, or source of recreational enjoyment. Real science is showing what ancient cultures have known for thousands of years: cannabis reduces nausea and vomiting (useful in chemotherapy today), increases appetite (useful to HIV/AIDS patients), and treats chronic pain and muscle spasms. I do not presume to know anything about the author’s health, but I am guessing that she would not think of cannabis as a drug in a pejorative way if it meant that its consumption could relieve her suffering.
I am also troubled by her statement that “only fake science steeped in politics and greed would challenge conventional wisdom and proven statistics in favor of dubious research.” Whose conventional wisdom? Marijuana has been an integral part of religious, shamanic, and spiritual practices since at least the Neolithic Age. The substance is indigenous to Central and South America, and has a long and distinguished history in China and Japan. In these cultures marijuana has been used as an impetus for creativity, a relaxant, a medicinal aid, a source of floral and home decoration, a religious sacrament, a building material, and more.
Put simply: marijuana is not a “breakthrough for modern medicine” because it has always been part of human culture. When the author suggests that marijuana should be rejected as a harmful substance because she had an unpleasant experience, she is committing what philosophers call the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. What if she were to say that wine is a harmful substance because she got sick from it once? What if she were to say that clams are harmful substances because they caused her to have food poisoning once? Just because she does not like marijuana does not mean that marijuana is bad. It just means that she doesn’t like it.
Thankfully we live in a democracy where the will of the majority dictates policy and laws. That is clearly what has been happening in states such as Colorado, Washington, Nevada, Maine, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Very soon the entire nation of Canada will be following suit.
I congratulate Mr. Payne on living in a democracy, ” where the will of the majority dictates policy and laws.” Unfortunately, the rest of us live in the United States where the majority is thwarted at every turn. For example, the will of the majority (or rather the will of the plurality) in 2 of the last 5 presidential elections was over-ruled by the Electoral College. And the passage of legislation by the various local, state and federal governing bodies is, for various reasons, more often than not out-of-step with what the majority (plurality) has indicated it wants. By the way, attributing creativity and other positive traits to the usage of marijuana by various religious cults is no more factual evidence of the benefits of smoking pot then it would be to claim that the blood sacrificing of animals (and humans) was justifiable because ancient religions also practiced those customs. That being said, I couldn’t care less if some one wants to blow big bucks and endure the smell of burning weed in order to get high.
Carl, thanks for your response. Point well taken. Although I could argue that the American citizenry has the mechanisms in place to put pressure on their elected officials to either reform or abolish the Electoral College. The fact that the EC remains intact is a reflection of the people’s will. Despite the dissatisfaction you and others feel towards our current system, this discontent has not reached a level of intensity needed to make that type of change happen. Segregation was viewed similarly until enough people hit the streets, engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience, and forced their leaders to take action. Our current framework does permit such change to occur. We do not live in an autocratic state where a single individual or group of individuals control everything-including drug policies.
To your second point, I would say that I am grateful for your analogy. You are absolutely right. I meant to simply address the positive, more benign aspects of cannabis within religious and spiritual contexts. From India to Greece to Jamaica and beyond, throughout history this substance has contributed to the advancement of culture in ways that are not detrimental to individuals or society at large. I will not bore you with a detailed list. But I do agree with you. Just because a substance has been used for a very long time does not say anything definitive about its merit or utility for people living today.