What the public is saying about Chazen Museum's goats sculpture

The most surprising thing about public reaction to artist Beth Cavener Stichter's sculpture "A Rush of Blood to the Head," now on display at the UW-Madison's

On Monday, the museum released to Isthmus all of the submitted reaction it has received -- about a dozen letters, emails and posted comments. Most take the museum to task for its decision to acquire and display the work. But Panczenko notes that there's been some positive response, including a "beautiful" email from a faculty member who took her art class to see it.

That is as it should be. As I noted the day after the first news story about the sculpture appeared, it is a piece that challenges the viewer to think about sexuality, human as well as animal.

But my musings also anticipated a vociferous reaction that seems not to have occurred. As a recent article in Isthmus defending the sculpture noted, early signs of outrage over the sculture seem to have quickly died down.

Some of the responses released to Isthmus contain fresh evidence of outrage, but it is of a variety so visceral and overwrought as to immediately discredit itself. And, as is common, the most intense and negative reactions to the work are from people who have not actually seen it.

The sole mailed letter, charges that the sculpture's apparent purpose is to "shock and insult the average normal person for whom the art curators harbor some underlying contempt." He urges that the sculpture only be displayed in a private room with appropriate warnings, if at all.

Panczenko, in a reply letter, defends the piece, saying "contemporary art is often challenging and provocative and, as is the case with art in general, not all works appeal to all audiences." He says the museum's role is to "serve as a place for open discussion and exploration," which entails presenting art that may be disliked or even troubling.

Most of the other comments are also negative. Some examples (spelling corrected):

UW alum John Poehling Sr.: "Frankly I find this work distasteful and embarrassing for the university and I believe a mistake was made by your board to acquire this piece."

Anonymous caller (as transcribed by a museum staffer): "Why would you have animal porno in your museum? Why would artist relate this to gays? Blight on Madison. Why would you want to display this terrible art? It's in bad taste. Embarrassment to the city. Laughing stock of the nation! Disgusting."

Online comment from poster "JRD": "How anatomically incorrect it is for this great artist to have 2 distinct human peni on the goats for expressing this great love emotion. This is clearly art form promoting homosexuality. It has nothing to do with true love. I would be happy to walk this artist all the way to the cross and back. The museum's leadership and this artist need to recognize that sin was, is, and always will be sin…." [Praise Jesus and pass the blindfolds!]

Online comment from Pamela Maxwell: "Your new piece of 'artwork,' as you call it, is extremely vulgar. I myself do not view that as artwork, but porn. I now have great reservations in regards to visiting your museum. As a mother of two children, ages 9 and 14, I will not be bringing them, nor will I be allowing them to attend your museum any further especially including school field trips. Surely there is more appropriate artwork to be found that may be enjoyed by all. Very disappointing!"

Online comment from Jane Smith: "We planned to attend with a group of Girl Scouts over spring break. In good conscience we cannot trust a simple screen to keep curious onlookers away from a certain sculpture, nor can we take any irresponsible actions with the girls in our group. Please advise when you have removed the pornographic goat sculpture." [The writer apparently lacks qualms about exposing young girls to her tortured locution.]

Online comment from John Bridgeman: "The goat display that you consider artwork is quite disgusting. I can't imagine having to explain the purpose of such a piece to a child who might view it. Your decision to show, nonetheless, purchase such a piece of obvious pornography leads me to the decision to never visit your facility. I will never step a foot in your museum and will be sure to share my thoughts with all of my colleagues, friends and neighbors. The piece should be removed immediately. I surely hope this doesn't fall on deaf ears."

But there was also this email from museum visitor Jason Reid: "…I was quite surprised to see it there, not negatively, just surprised. I really did not think that the museum would add such a controversial piece to its collection. I am very happy it has been added and hope the Chazen will continue to add somewhat controversial pieces in the years to come. I fear that what much of people currently call art, just isn't. Great art should make you think and expand your view of the world outside of your own personal sphere."

And this from online commenter Diana Montgomery: "I saw a news story on CNN which stated that people were offended by a sculpture of two goats kissing. They considered it vulgar. I was amazed. I have been to many of the world's major museums and art galleries. This work is absolutely tame. It is only the imagination of the viewer which could find this vulgar. … Shame on the people who view this sculpture in such a negative light. They, obviously, have not seen enough art."

And finally, there is the letter from Nancy Rose Marshall, an associate professor in the UW-Madison's Department of Art History. She described the reaction of students in her graduate seminar:

"[T]hey were all extremely enthusiastic about the work. They admired it aesthetically for its surface texture effects, which go a long way to making us remember that it is not only a made work, a piece of art, but also of course ceramics worked large; they also found the tinted coffee-color areas both lovely and presumably a mark of technical sophistication….

"In terms of the meaning of the piece they were equally observant, considering the ways in which the closed eyes suggested intense tenderness and passion. Of course cognizant of the fact it also represents our society's last taboo (one which requires a X rating in movies!), they concluded that the piece was not gratuitously shocking but had some real points to make about sexual love, and the fact that homosexuality, often labeled in our society as being about sex for physical purposes alone, can be just as much about emotional intensity.

"In any case, I gather the work has caused a small stir, and let's hope it stays small. While I thought myself that in reproductions the work looked sort of like Jeff Koons kitsch, I have to admit that in person it has an intriguing power and presence, and absolutely transcends that category….

"Thank you for being willing to risk controversy to acquire such an interesting piece!"