When does art exceed the bounds of good taste? That's the question the people of Adrian must ask themselves now that Lansing-based sculptor Mark Chatterley's large sculpture, Blue Human Condition, has been removed from the grounds of Adrian's city offices. Blue Human Condition was originally placed as part of the Midwest Sculpture Initiative. The piece depicts seven humanoid figures, none of which has any defining sexual details, in various positions that left too much (or not enough) up to the imagination. After a public outcry, the sculpture was relocated to nearby Yew Park, near the intersection of Monroe and Winter streets. Chatterley discusses the sculpture and the outcry in an interview with TCP.
Tell me the situation in your own words?
The city picked my sculpture from slides. We set it up not thinking there was going to be anything wrong with it. Adrian had a city council meeting on Monday, April 21, which dealt with issues concerning civil rights for residents. There was a backlash from people who were in attendance and against gay marriage and that kind of stuff. They came out of the meeting and saw my sculpture and it was sort of like a lightning rod for their rebellion. They saw negative connotations with the piece.
Do you think of the piece as sexual in any way?
No [laughs]. It's not sexual in any way. They're not doing loud monkey sex on this thing. They are bodies stacked on top of each other, supporting each other. The people are androgynous, so you can't even tell what sex they are. It's so far from being a sexual piece that I was surprised by the backlash.
What is your interpretation of the piece?
When I started this piece I was thinking, "We can't do it alone." somebody turns on your lights. Somebody takes your garbage away. We're always relying on each other for support, so that is what this piece is about. We are layers on top of each other, even though sometimes it doesn't feel like it, but we are.
So you think people are projecting politics onto your piece.
That's where I think the initial response came from. There are, I think, twenty complaints about the piece and six hundred comments in favor of it. The majority of the public gets it. Most know it's not sexual, except for a few, I guess. I had no idea how conservative Adrian was.
There is one figure that could be seen as performing oral sex—can you see that?
If you didn't look at it first and had somebody tell you what was going on, sure, you could imagine them having oral sex. But the head is facing down. So, if you can have oral sex with the top of your head then by all means. But for me, that's not how you perform oral sex [laughs].
What do you think of the decision to move the piece?
Well, they could have had me take the whole piece down, so I feel this is a compromise. I am still part of the show. People still can see it. The support of the Adrian art community has been fantastic, so I am relying on them to tell me if this is a good thing or not and everybody seems to say this is a good place for it.
I understand the human condition bit, but why blue?
Blue is an interesting color. I was told once, early on in my career that 'if you make it blue people will like it.' But, blue is also a depressing color—when you're depressed. So it has a double entendre in that regard.
You've done pieces like this before. Can you tell me about it's construction?
I have. They usually go to private individuals, but I have a few public pieces. They're made out of high-fired clay—think of them as large pots. I fire them in a walk-in kiln, and the outer surface is a blue glaze. I'm actually a little worried that if someone was really against it they might take a hammer to the piece. It wouldn't be hard to take it out.
City Paper readers, what do you think? Too racy? Just fine? Not racy enough? Let us know at toledocitypaper.com, on our Facebook page (facebook.com/toledocitypaper) or tweet us at @TCPaper.
