IT MAY BE ART BUT IS IT LEGAL? AND IS IT REALLY ART?
I came across this video documenting wall murals painted by Mona Caron. I think she lives in New York City but I don’t know where these images actually exist. Most of you know by now that I am not a big fan of wall murals. I’ve read most of the pro arguments and I’ve scouted out the photographs “before and after” and heard the words of various city art council proponents and still, I am pressed against the outside of the window while everybody else is indoors drinking the Kool Aid.
One of my biggest gripes about wall murals is the interchangeable nature of the things, especially the roving band of international painters whose snarling animals, swimming mer-fish, dots, and triangles shoot up brick walls regardless of city, county, country or continent.
But here are these charming weed wisps, climbing across walls - thank you, Mona - and the accompanying video clearly illustrates that the inspiration is right there underfoot, nature growing between the sidewalk cracks. Nice, right?
And there it is. They ARE nice but are they ART? Should it matter if they ARE “A”rt or simply “nice?” And my only answer is “yes, it matters”…for the same reasons that illustration and decoration can be clever, pleasing…illicit all sorts of responses…and still not be ART.
In spite of my tantrum, our city like most others, has a growing mural program. But Rochester, New York, has no “process” in place for these things and that bothers me as much as the installations themselves. Here are a few considerations:
Usually, a city has a process in place for submissions, reviewed by a public art committee or consultant. Committee choices are another of my “not favorite things” but the process insures that truly bad or distasteful images are not plastered across city streetscapes.
Accepted submissions are usually awarded money…an amount often representing at least the cost of materials and sometimes in the form of a matching grant. This seems to me to be a much needed democratic process to avoid a patron’s personal dictatorship of taste.
An artist must in advance have the approval - signed and certified - of the property owner whose wall is about to become canvas. This “Art Easement” conveys with the property and should be recorded with the County. MAINTENANCE of the work is the responsibility of the property owner.
Beyond this basic beginning, the contracts should include such decisions as reproduction rights and artists’ compensation and removal guidelines- by whom and under what circumstances.
Legal rights of artists are spelled out in the Visual Artists Rights Act, a fascinating look into the complexity of ownership.
Finally, I confess. What bothers me most about “public art wall murals” is that they are too often band aids. They are rarely painted across beautiful buildings, usually not allowed or wanted in the “best” neighborhoods and should never be seen on a truly unique architectural or historic structure. Somehow, we accept that they are just fine - in fact, an improvement ! - in “blighted” areas of our city.
Seems to me this is exactly like putting lipstick on a pig; there's still a bad smell to the whole theory.
