Chicago Alderman vandalizes public art depicting CCTVs
A Chicago Alderman decided he didn't like a public mural depicting Chicago PD CCTV cameras, so he had it painted over.
Alderman Destroys Public Art
When Humberto Angeles woke up on Thursday morning, he heard a truck outside his Bridgeport apartment. He looked out the window and saw the city's graffiti blasters painting a brick wall across the street. They covered over a mural that Angeles says he rather liked.ANGELES: What I got from it, it was just a mural for peace. That's what I got out of it. Peace.
The mural was a painting of three Chicago Police Department blue light camera's that you see on light posts in high crime areas. The Chicago Police logo is on the cameras but then the artist also painted Jesus on one post, a deer head on another, and a skull on the third camera. What the mural is supposed to mean is anyone's guess. Angeles agrees that it's a rather inscrutable work of art but he liked it and he says he feels bad for the artist...
Alderman Jim Balcer confirmed that he ordered the mural removed, saying some of his residents viewed the work as graffiti.
the latest
latest episodes
Yet another example of the ongoing war between communities and authorities...
Since this mural was legally put up on private property as part of an art festival, with no permits being required since it's non-commercial, I assume someone could sue the city (or the alderman at least) successfully over this. I know I'd be pretty upset if the police came onto my property and started destroying any artwork they didn't like!
Holy crap, what a jerk. I hope the property owner sues. I would be royally pissed if the city painted over a piece of art on my property.
Balcer claims "the owner of the building never got a permit for the mural." Is there a permit for art? Isn't the first amendment our blanket art permit?
This is absolutely ridiculous....he painted over a real work of art that wasn't causing any problems...in fact it was probably preventing graffiti as taggers will mostly avoid art pieces like this out of respect to the artists. I would bet that the ugly new brown wall will attract lots of real (and often gang related) graffiti in no time. If it's not broke don't fix it!
A permit may be required for bill boards depending on the zoning laws. So if the wall were covered with commercial advertising it may be possible for zoning laws to require a permit before commercial advertising could be installed.
This appears to not have any commercial advertising purpose and probably would be recognized as politically motivated speech in addition to being a fine piece of art because of the inclusion of depiction of symbols evoking government authority and action.
Politically motivated speech on private property would have an extremely high level of protection. The mural does not appear to insight immediate acts of violence or be like shouting fire in a theater so there does not appear to be an exception to the first amendments prohibition of restricting political speech.
If a government actor here did not give sufficient notice for any perceived violation before taking action and a meaningful opportunity to respond then a due process violation would also appear to apply.
See an attorney
If this had been an airport runway, it would have been bulldozed in the wee hours of the morning. Gotta love Chicago politicians.
Art is subjective.
If it's not city property, then technically their painting it over is graffiti!
In 1988, a group of aldermen stormed into the Art Institute of Chicago and removed a painting they found offensive, with police backing. The end result was that the city paid out a settlement in a lawsuit.
The removal of the mural is part of a long tradition.
Those of you who are, unlike me, not from Chicago will understand the place a lot better if you think of it as being something like a stereotypical banana republic, run by mobbed up politicians who want to turn the place into a surveillance state.
This is Chicago, we do what we like.
I don't know all the specifics of the case but the artist may have some legal standing in suing. They should familiarize themselves with VARA, Visual Artists Rights Act, passed in 1990. It was enacted by congress to protect just this kind of infraction.
Graffitti is not art - unless the owner of the wall or property wishes to have it there. That is the bottom line. You can't simply appropriate someone else's property. I rather like some of the street art I have seen - but unless the person who owns the wall, doorway, fence or property, it is simply vandalism - no matter how good it may look. Public property is owned by ALL of the citizens, and someone doesn't have the right to paint public spaces unless it is approved or agreed upon that there should be a mural or painting there. In this case, the owner of the property had the right to have his/her wall painted however he/she wished. Painting over graffitti that the owner wished to be on his/her property is as much a case of vandalism as is graffitti and tags on someone else's property.
Shocked to hear that Meigs Field, my old familiar starting point in MS Flight Simulator is no more. I think I'll go load up one of the old ones and have a flight. Also shocking to think that by eliminating Meigs Field, Chicago is now more vulnerable to a 9/11 type attack, because the airspace is less controlled now. As in planes are legally allowed to fly within 1000 feet of the buildings in the downtown area with no radio communication at all.
And yes, I am very pissed off that a legitimate public work of art can be obliterated at the whim of some small time politician.
Sorry for the derail.
Know what attracts graffiti more than a mural? An ugly blank wall.
Some people just plain suck.
Who owned the wall? If it was the city, then they can paint it however they like, but if it was privately owned, rules governing artwork in public view should apply. If this had been 'real' gang graffiti, rather than art/political commentary, it probably would have been left there until the owner painted it over, or the wall crumbled. I disapprove of removing art solely because it offended someone in power, and am hoping the wall is repainted with an even more pointed mural.
The owner should reject any settlement and sue to require them to remove the paint they applied and restore the mural to it's former condition.
"Graffitti is not art - unless the owner of the wall.."
...
"..unless the person who owns the wall, doorway, fence or property, it is simply vandalism"
Fail. You can't judge art on who owns the canvas. Either people take meaning from it or they don't.
The law and property rights have zero to say on whether something is art or not. Anything can be art, it's about the intention of the artist and the interpretation of the viewer. No more, no less.
Even if the owner of the wall didn't give his permission for the artist to paint the mural there, he (presumably) didn't give permission for the city to paint their gray there either.
So what makes one OK while the other is "bad"? Just another case of the double standard: If you have a badge and guns, you're defending the public, while if you have baggy pants and dark skin, you're hurting society.
Paint the alderman's wall.
Any Chicagoans remember the Gregory Green flap?
http://www.ktfineart.com/artists/gregory_green/?project_id=95
Those 'graffiti busters' crews are pretty aggressive. I would assume especially so in Daley's own neighborhood.
I Paint What I See
"What do you paint when you paint a wall?"
Said John D.'s grandson Nelson.
"Do you paint just anything there at all?
"Will there be any doves or a tree in fall?
"Or a hunting scene like an English hall?"
"I paint what I see," said Rivera.
"What are the colors you use when you paint?"
Said John D.'s grandson, Nelson.
"Do you use any red in the beard of a saint?
"If you do is it terribly red, or faint?
"Do you use any blue? Is it Prussian?"
"I paint what I paint," said Rivera.
"Whose is that head I see on my wall?"
Said John D.'s grandson Nelson.
"Is it anyone's head whom we know, at all?
"A Rensselaer, or a Saltonstall?
"Is it Franklin D.? Is it Mordaunt Hall?
"Or is it the head of a Russian?"
"I paint what I think," said Rivera.
"I paint what I paint, I paint what I see,
"I paint what I think," said Rivera,
"And the thing that is dearest in life to me
"In a bourgeois hall is Ingegrity;
"However,...
"I'll take out a couple of people drinkin'
"And put in a picture of Abraham Lincoln,
"I could even give you McCormick's reaper
"And still not make my art much cheaper.
"But the head of Lenin has got to stay
"Or my friends will give me the bird today
"The bird, the bird, forever."
"It's not good taste in a man like me,"
Said John D.'s grandson Nelson,
"To question an artist's integrity
"Or mention a practical thing like a fee,
"But I know what I like to a large degree,
"Though art I hate to hamper;
"For twenty-one thousand conservative bucks
"You painted a radical. I say shucks,
"I never could rent the offices.
"For this, as you know, is a public hall
"And people want doves or a tree in fall,
"And though your art I dislike to hamper,
"I owe a little to God and Gramper,
"And after all,
"It is my wall...."
"We'll see if it is," said Rivera.
--E.B.White
[First published in The New Yorker, May 20, 1933 during the controversy over Diego Rivera's mural in Rockefeller Center which was destroyed the following year on February 9, 1934.]
Vandalism can be art too. It doesn't make it legitimate, but whether it's art or not has nothing to do with its legality.
What's illegitimate art?
What's illegitimate art?
Too obscure?
all royals are bastards
Fountain
Legitimate, illegitimate. You be the judge.
"Hey, Oog, you finish that bison yet?"
"Nah, those little bastards keep sneakin' in, drawing cocks and c*nts all over the wall."
Good thing the neighborhood sheep didn't complain about the architectural design of his house... The effin Alderman would have had to tear it down...
Alderman Jim Balcer confirmed that he ordered the mural removed, saying some of his residents viewed the work as graffiti.
The mural was a painting of three Chicago Police Department blue light camera's that you see on light posts in high crime areas.
Apostrophe's and they're use's.
The overpaint color selected by the authorities is about the same shade of Chewing-Gum Grey used on vinyl siding in the worst looking duplex subdivisions.
Welcome to East Berlin.
Chicago alderman have little power in city hall politics, but in they ward they are all powerful and often feel that the ward is their personal property (many of them make a killing off of developers who pay them off). I am not surprised that an alderman would feel that something done on personal property would be something that he could get rid of. Someday we will have democracy in Chicago.
A similar thing happened in Canberra, Australia when a member of the Legislative Assembly, the appropriately named Steve Pratt, decided he was going to do his civic duty and remove unslightly graffiti. Unfortunately for him, the 'graffiti' he removed was a piece of art commissioned by a local sporting club and paid for under a government grant program.
A similar thing happened in Canberra, Australia
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21575892-2,00.html
prat
2 entries found.
1. prat
2. prat
Main Entry:
prat Listen to the pronunciation of prat
Pronunciation:
\ˈprat\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
probably from argot prat buttocks
Date:
circa 1961
British : a stupid or foolish person
This really pisses me off. I don't get how everyone in the Chicago Public Radio article can be so blase about it. When they talk about the alderman, they state that "He didn't get that it was art." (paraphrasing).
No shit! Sue the bastard for destruction of property. They treat the whole thing like it was some sort of procedural mistake and it so was not. It was ignorance and it was intentional and he had no right as a private citizen or as a public official to destroy it. In fact, it's abuse of power.
[Okay, I need to go lie down now.]