Monday, May 25, 2015

IS IT LEGAL?

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.  



2 comments:

Tom Burke said...

Oh Shirley, Shirley, Shirley. Hath not the benevolent angel of ease and serendipitous pleasure, a rite, nay a saving grace of the aging process, visited your farmhouse yet?

I'll leave others to argue the details you write about. For me the overriding value of the creative spirit is the essential, existential power of the process, especially when it is shared with our fellow citizens. All our citizens. Wall Therapy and other enterprises elsewhere - as well as the unsanctioned efforts thrown up sereptitiously - are a bright alternative to the slow, or stilted business too often associated with academia, institutions or commercial outlets.

Recently I participated in a bike tour of some of Rochester's public art downtown. We saw Johnson's Liberty Pole, Paley's Main Street Bridge railings, Castle's Twist, Hatchette's Equilateral Six, Fleichner's Rochester Project and many others. Each came to be through a significant legal and vetting process as you describe. Dollar for dollar and, more significantly, as measured in community interaction, I think street art stands up well.

I say yeah for inclusion and public art risk-taking.

Artlaw said...

Dearest Tom,
No, I hath not been visited by any angel lately...it's about time you and Barbara came through the farm gates!
Those street art projects you visited ala bike ... some successful, some no more than lipstick. I can give you my list of which is which...time and distance will rule mostly. I can certainly give you my top 3 (because this is my blog): The Wings of Progress on top of the Times building, the carved firemen at the Chestnut St. firehouse...and Paley's bridge. Send the others to Binghamton...or (fill in the blank).
Creative process....good! I am overcome myself from time to time. But it doesn't mean that other people need to see, agree, comment on, live with, pass by....frankly, if I looked out my window EVERY SINGLE DAY and was confronted with some of these things.....i'd move! But what if I did not have that freedom or financial choice?
Dollar for dollar....I'd rather have really good public space design, beautiful well-tended gardens, interesting streetscapes.,...