UPDATE/CORRECTION – I was directly contacted by Dustin Shuler who informed me that he only get’s 1% ($1) from T-shirt sales, and it sounded like that’s an agreement that pre-dates the Spindle’s current crisis.
I look at a lot of art, in a lot of places. When I’m looking at a piece of work, and something immediately strikes me as “out of the ordinary” or “does not belong”, a little light goes off in my brain.
On my last road trip, when Michele and I went to visit the Shuler’s Spindle in the Cermak Plaza parking lot in Berwyn, Illinois, one thing flipped my little light on. Spindle sits in the middle of a series of steel barriers, intended to protect it from errant cars and other hazards. This square barrier has a label (only one wasn’t so messed up as to be readable) on each of its four sides. At the bottom of the label is a copyright notice, informing viewers “Copyright held by Dustin Shuler. All copyright laws apply.”
This is unusual. Many, if not most pieces of public or semi-public art have some sort of plaque or label to let you know about the piece, but not many of them have copyright notices. I’ve photographed lots of statues and their labels, and I can’t find one with a copyright notice in my files. My immediate impression was that Shuler is likely a very controlling and maybe a little uptight fellow, given that he feels a need to make sure that all viewers are reminded of something that seems obvious.
Anyways, I’m a “BFF or whatever” of the The Spindle’s myspace page, which has been sending out dissatisfied bulletins about Shuler’s recent conduct. The first bulletin “Dustin Shuler is a Dick”, railed against Shuler for “charging the non-Profit Berwyn Arts Council a 25% fee on every T-shirt the sell to raise money.” The second bulletin “Dustin Shuler – I’d Rather See It Torn Down”, linked to a Chicago Sun Times article where Shuler’s inflexibility on sharing profits from the future use of the sculpture’s image seems to indicate that the piece doesn’t have a future.
Here’s the relevant portion of the article -
The snag is over control of the rights and fees when the artwork is used in advertisements. Artist Dustin Shuler is balking at losing sole control of the copyrighted image of the piece, fearing the Spindle would end up in “cheap” advertisements.
“I’d rather see it torn down than have that,” Shuler said in an interview Wednesday from his California studio. “It’s not a sign. It’s not commercial art.”
Michael Flight of Concordia Realty said that Shuler’s position may spell the demise of the artwork. The piece has generated wide support since the July announcement that the Spindle’s days were numbered because of construction of a drugstore.
“We’d like to save it,” Flight said. But without the ability to negotiate contracts for use of the sculpture in exchange for financial help in moving and preserving the work, saving the car kabob will be difficult. “We have to be able to market it,” Flight said.
As an example, Flight said a beer company might pay to include the sculpture in an advertisement, with the money funneled into the reconstruction effort.
“I like beer, but I don’t want it to be used to sell beer,” Shuler responded. The artist said he has allowed the sculpture to be used in some ad campaigns, including ones for the Illinois Lottery and United Airlines, but only because he felt comfortable with the way it was used. “I’ve turned down a lot of companies,” Shuler said.
So I recognize that artists have certain rights in regards to their copyrights and to the long term disposition of public works, but I really have trouble sympathizing with Shuler on this one. But I really, truly believe that once you put a piece of artwork into the public sphere, you have to relinquish some sense of ownership, especially as the original intention of the project fades with time, and the piece develops its own public persona and identity. You have to let go to some degree – eventually, you have to let go completely.
Shuler, in multiple places, has asserted that the piece is a piece of “Fine Art” and not a piece of “Commercial Art.” I’m sorry, is there really a difference? He seems to have no problem using the piece to funnel profits to himself via T-shirt sales, even though those sales are intended to raise funds for the preservation of the work. So he seems to value his bank account over the preservation of his work – doesn’t sound like the
The Sun Times article ends with the following quote -
“It’s theirs, so they can tear it down if they want to,” Shuler said.
“I’d be very disappointed but I just can’t give up” control.
So Shuler admits that he doesn’t own the piece, that on some level it’s simply a piece of property that’s owned by another party, but at the same time he is unable to give up control of the piece? Make up your mind, man…
Technorati Tags: Dustin Shuler, Spindle, Berwyn, art, public art, sculpture, cars
Your math is off. $1/$20 is 5%, not 1%. That’s a pretty big cut from a struggling all volunteer non-profit.
He may say he’s only taking a cut to retain copyright, but that’s utter BS. I’m sure the Save the Spindle folks are willing to sign a waiver to recognize his copyright. He doesn’t need to sap the cash.
He obviously cares more about the cash than the artwork. If the piece is restored, he wants to be brought in to ‘consult’. I’m guessing he’ll demand more than expenses to do this.
The people of Berwyn want to save the Spindle because it’s a symbol of Berwyn. Shuler says it’s not and he’ll sue if we say otherwise. If it’s only a monument to Dustin I say tear it down, and he can start his own fundraiser to save the art.
It’s not my math that is off. I spoke personally with Shuler and he asserts that the $1 per shirt fee is a misstatement by the Save the Spindle folks. He asserts that he gets 1% of all T-shirt sales, or for a $20 shirt, $0.20. I can’t view the actual accounting, but I’m just repeating Shuler’s version in the interest of equal time. Shuler was very open and generous with information related to Spindle, and from my perspective this is a bit of a he said, she said.
During a long talk I had with Shuler, he related to me his personal history involving the maintenance and copyright issues involved in his work. While I do not agree at all with his positions on copyright, I do understand his motivation to not be ripped off. He’s had a bad time as a sculptor dealing with the venues for his sculptures, and that bad experience has left him very, very protective of his work.
Without going too far into Shuler’s personal history, I can say that his desire to control the fate of this sculpture is directly the result of the mentoring of David Bermant, who commissioned Shuler to construct Spindle for his development, Cermak Plaza, in the first place. I don’t agree with Shuler on everything, and I think that he should let go of the work, in the public interest, but it’s his right to hold the position that he does.