The City of Bend, near Portland, Oregon, is being plagued by a mystery vandal who has been affixing googly eyes to the public art around the city. Above is his improvement of “Big Ears” by John Halko; another is Zebold’s “Orb 1″…
You will not be surprised to learn that his enhancements are generally popular with the public. Nevertheless, the city is not amused. Eight artworks have been given eyes reminiscent of the villain in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” and the city announced on social media that removing the googly eyes has cost about $1,500 so far in labor and the process of removing the adhesive without harming the art. “While the googly eyes placed on the various art pieces around town might give you a chuckle, it costs money to remove them with care to not damage the art,” the City of Bend said in an Instagram post.
Now, some cities regard what could be called vandalism as itself art, as in the cases of urban paintings of walls and and buildings by graffiti artists. True, the googly eyes do unjustly interfere with the artist’s intent, and this is unfair as well as a Golden Rule breach. After all, what would Leonardo think if this..
… was the fate of his masterpiece?
Still, most public art is hideous, and there is no question that googly eyes would improve a lot of it. You may recall that the statue of the defiant little girl secretly placed in front of the angry bull sculpture on Wall Street was allowed to remain because the public appreciated the image of the bull being confronted by the saucy child more than it did the bull by itself.
If the purpose of public art is to please the public, maybe the googly eyes should be put to a vote. Maybe googly eyes present a palatable compromise with the statue topplers! Instead of tearing down Robert E. Lee’s statues, why not give him googly eyes instead?
OK, it was just a thought….
Ethics Alarms 
Bend, Oregon. Interesting town. Standard, earnest left coast lefties among roughneck lumberjacks.
All things considered, especially being Oregon, that is some pretty light “vandalism.” It really should be put up for a vote, but in general places like Bend, although outside of the triad of Portland-Salem-Eugene is still inhabited by a large number of off kilter folks (I am being super nice BTW). Although beyond the scope of this thread, it would be interesting to compare the Googly Eye Bandit’s crimes to others that happen in Bend.
Unethical…yes. But in today’s society, where we have excused groups publicly tearing down monuments to our founding fathers, you have to expect that this is going to happen. If no one is punished for tearing down a public statue of Jefferson, it is difficult to punish someone for this without being rightly accused of selective prosecution.
$1500? I’ll gladly take a ‘work at home’ government job removing this vandalism.
my all natural method might take longer than rolling out a parks and rec truck with a bottle of isopropyl and goo-gone, but I guarantee no damage beyond what would already occur to the art via daily UV sun exposure.
But you are forgetting about the environmental study you will have to do before every removal. Have you studied the effects of your all-natural method on the bacteria, viruses, and fungi that naturally inhabit the statue? What about the squirrels? Is it ‘alternately housed individuals’ friendly?
How will you quantify the results? We need at least 3 expected beneficial outcomes from each action, how you will measure them, and how you will determined the effectiveness of your evaluation of your work. Then, you need to evaluate the evaluation of the measurement of the work.
How will your action further the DEI goals of the city? Please get the opinions of at least 9 of the recognized DEI groups on the antiracist and decolonizing effects of your work. If you are white, male, cisgendered, and/or heterosexual, answer the following:
(a) Did you publicly acknowledge your priviledge before each removal? If so, how?
(b) Did you search for someone more diverse to perform this job? If not, explain. If you did, explain why you are still doing it.
(c) Explain why you are still not more diverse and how you could change this. If you have tried to become more diverse, please acknowledge that doing so is appropriation.
And last, but not least,
(d) Did you inquire of the art works themselves that they did, in fact, want the googly eyes removed? If so, did you provide prior counseling to the artworks, acknowledging their agency and independence?
jvb
Wallphone,
Just know I’m going to underbid you. I’ll do it for $750.
Unethical? Hardly. The opponents are the same people celebrating Earth First types defiling paints in the Louvre, Prado, and the Met. They are ethically estopped to complain about googly eyes.
jvb
It’s public art; isn’t it supposed to engage with the public? The actual “damage” done by this to metal (bronze?) outdoor statuary approaches zero. The danger is more that some fools might not stop there, and start doing things that actually harm the statues.
I’ve seen this before with the normal small googly eyes stuck on handbills, or on the outside of a storefront glass over a picture inside the window’s glass (in Europe…haven’t seen it in the US, but could be here, too). In Glasgow, a statue of the Duke of Wellington usually has a traffic cone on his head, and authorities have not been successful in keeping it off. Appropriately, It’s in a square in front of their museum of modern art. They started doing it in Edinburgh too, several years back, and it seems to be spreading to other statues & places.
Society needs more of this, particularly on what is considered “modern art” . Googly eyes stuck on the banana taped to a wall would have made it more palatable. The Tate Bricks certainly could have used such vandalism. Even better if it causes the “artists” to fall into conniptious fits.
PWS