Laid off architect starts working as an artist, doing commissioned murals and paintings in Richmond, VA. He is being censored by local business owners who don't *like* his current commissioned mural on the side of a local building. The story is below... there's links at the bottom and a pic of the mural.
"A mural on the back wall of a Fan District business has caused a stir, with some neighbors demanding that it be painted over.
The image is of a man in a business suit gritting his teeth while he presses a revolver against his temple. The title? Recession 2009.
“Honestly, the idea just came from life, dealing with politics right now and what everybody is going through with the recession,” said Hamilton Glass, the artist who created the mural. “Me personally, I’ve been affected. I was laid off about six months ago.”
Glass said the mural is not meant to encourage violence, but rather to express the stress and frustration associated with the recession.
Glass was working as an architect for Thomas Hamilton and Associates, the same firm that designed the Westin hotel at Reynold’s Crossing. But as the economy slowed down and the pipeline for projects dried up, Glass said. He lost his job.
“Corporations don’t have the funding for big projects and work gets so slow, so people got to go,” Glass said. “All the firms have laid off people and are still continuing to,” he said.
Since getting the slip, Glass has been working full-time as an artist, traveling back and forth between his hometown of Philadelphia and Richmond, where he bought a home two years ago.
Glass met Adam Bell, the owner of the computer repair shop and web design firm ALB Tech, over the summer when he and another artist had an exhibition at the shop. The duo struck up a friendship and Bell agreed to design a website for Glass in exchange for a mural on the front of the building.
But it is the painting that Bell hired Glass to put up on the back wall that has gotten all the attention."
That mural is horrendous. It's so obvious & dull. If you want to express the frustrations of our time, there are more subtle & evocative ways to do that, without resorting to the simplistic, literal one-liner. This is why architects should not assume they are artists.
Of course, they should also not presume to be art critics. I know what I would say if a first year showed up with the equivalent of this mural in building form, though, that's for sure.
Living in a city known for its murals on walls (most in the world I believe?), I find this one very extreme. The ones in my city are definitely more on the inspirational side and deal with community values and etc. However, while some may find this sort of artwork offensive and/or in poor taste, I actually find the extremely blatant expression of anger/frustration refreshing. I'm tired of passive agressive we're-going-to-play-this-one-safe routines. Now whether or not this belongs in plain public view can be debated, and most likely will depend on the context of the location.
I don't like how the guy looks like Frankenstein though.
I'm 100% with mantaray. It's a very high-school-art-class level expression of a concept, though the use of shading and framing shows potential it's not overall well crafted. It's very obvious, as most art images of guns tend to be.
Also, I thought my misreading of it had far more potential: I mistook the guy's eardrum to be the gun melting into his scalp, like he's so overheated/stressed that he can melt metal with his brain/evil thoughts.
And remember: it's not censorship to call a turd a turd.
i rather like it. decent graphic, nice color, no words, slightly ambiguous as it's not completely clear that it's his own hand with the gun to his head, and why the tortured expression? is he straining, bracing, dreaming, etc?
might be more fun with a image of a famous wall street banker or fed reserve chariman or even president rather than an anonymous man...but whatever
Turn on the Tub....any night of the week and look at the violence....this is pure puppy play. Maybe those business men should be targeting the main network television by pulling their
ads....then again maybe the guy just looked to much like a New Yorker and not a VA home boy!
i also am encouraged by the owner taking care of his building, shrugging off the idea that it can't be rejuvenated, that it is part of a piece of art. People don't seem to look at a building and think anything other than a monetary asset these days.
People are idiots. It's art....not an advertisement. What is being sold here?....nada. It is enough to make me run out there and start covering everything I see with aerosol.
Ok. So someone can't express frustration? And a company can't have that on their wall? But, we can legally torture and bomb people for no reason and sit with a straight face.
We had a flair up not long ago here when an artist had the painting/sculpture/billboard as one of the works on display in a local downtown storefront. . It is funny that they even went to the lengths to blur the photo so you don't get the full effect. Seems like people didn't like
there kids seeing an assimulation of nudity. Oh the painting is called, "Blue" The artist is Norman Mailers, daughter.
as a piece of art, i myself am not so concerned with how it is stylized as i am with it's effectiveness. regardless of how it is crafted, be it the color, the linework, or it's position on the canvas, it is certainly effective as an agitator. if it wasn't, then no one would be offended enough to want it censored. it goes without saying that there are a great many people in the world right now who could find some affinity with this piece (although i'll admit, i'm not yet sure to what end). agit-art, which is what i would classify this as, has always been about communicating with the masses in the most blunt way possible. i am all for the one-liner in this regard. more people understand one-liners than can relate to subtleties or artistic nuances, especially in america. not all artwork is a bourgeois enterprise, especially that which exists literally on the street as opposed to the whitewashed walls of a museum gallery. the strange twist on this i'm most interested in is which class of society this piece is speaking to: he is wearing a business suit, as opposed to a pair of overalls.
i don't have a problem with it. it is art, and it's symbolic of how deeply frustrated and pissed off people are starting to feel about the economy. art has historically been an important part of any revolution. i actually don't think it's half bad. if anything, it is a sign of the times, open-ended though it may be.
in 50 years, hopefully, we'll come to realize that suicide is not something be appalled by, and only another expression of free-will on behalf of an individual unfit, unable or unwilling to partake in society.
i totally agree with you le bossman + larslarson... what is funny is that i didn't post this to see the usual and predictable reaction from architects/art critics...
it was more about the issue of censorship and how it is applied here- and since i, myself, have been recently laid off i was also intrigued with the fact that the architect isn't just laying back accepting unemployment as his role in society where all the other architects (including myself) bitch and moan about the firms they used to work for and the lack of work thereof.
the other issue, in my opinion, is the location. this isn't new york or philly, dc, or LA. people in richmond aren't used to the graphic nature of a mural that means something other than pretty flowers or cliche advertisements- graphics that are intended to evoke no emotion whatsoever. the area is changing- becoming more diverse and more interesting... but it needs to be shaken up - and maybe a "one liner" is what can tap into more of the people to get them to think, stir up emotions, and affect them a bit more.
on the other hand... if i were staying at a bed and breakfast, i wouldn't want to see that out of my guestroom window. but i can think of about 40 buildings in DC i wouldn't want to see out of my bedroom window either, but i can't make them tear em down.
+i, I think you're using the word "censorship" too loosely. It's not censoring someone to express an opinion. The artist is free to paint what he wants, others are free to state what they think of it.
From the article:
Rather than face confrontation, Bell has decided to concede and take down the mural by Dec. 1. "In my opinion they have threatened us but don’t have any legal right to [make us] bring it down, but Adam wants to stand in good graces with the neighborhood and that’s fine. I’m behind him 100 percent,” Glass
The owner is choosing to remove the mural, and as a commissioned work, it's the patron's choice whether to display it or not, or even to destroy it. The controversy is not about censorship at all. In Richmond, it's about the ability of people to interpret an artistic image, a business's reputation in a community, property rights, and neighborhood peace. Here on Archinect, it's about critiquing the quality of a produced object.
I'm eager to see the replacement mural - if you're still following this story then, please post an update.
And to bossman: yes, most people in this country don't understand nuance and could not place an image within a cultural/historical/qualitative context. Is this a good thing? Is this a level of mental process that we should be celebrating?
So much of this discussion is BS. Whether or not the people understand the reason for making the painting, artwork, etc has nothing to do with why this mural was such a "problem". It could have been a masterpiece (in the eyes of the objectors) and they still wouldn't like it. The process for art is completely different than the process for architecture. Sometimes, in art, the reason is just because. It's better not to question and analyze artwork the same way that you would an architectural project (where everything is understandably expected to have a justification).......you will save yourself a lot of frustration and confusion.
This mural is not graffiti, street art or anything in between. It's a mural, but I don't expect most people to understand the difference.....especially reading this discussion.
And this reasoning leads to art that sucks. It's art therapy, not art, and while art therapy has an appropriate time and place, it's not the same as art.
Ok. So I would like to see anyone send links, images or examples of their own artwork. I'm not criticizing this artwork. You know the saying about teachers, but I'm going to throw critics in along with it. Those that can't do, teach....or criticize.
This discussion is not about the quality of the artwork. Insecurity spawned the criticism of this mural.
i don't mind it, and i don't think richmond misunderstands it or fails to absorb it as part of a cultural context. richmond's no backwater. it's got its share of grit, a decent art scene, and a pretty varied urban condition. this mural is simply a mural - it's very seldom that mural works do they rise to a conceptual level we expect from some other work. they occupy a middle-ground between the art scene and graffitti - most often figural work, more accessible. could it have been more subtle, concept-driven, etc. sure.
now, what might make the whole set of circumstances more fun as an art occurrence: if they white-washed the wall (i.e., removed the work) and then put back exactly the same image.
21ronin, your claim that art does not always require explanation is specious, given that the artist in question provided explanation. it's a rank frank miller rip-off, that is such a one-noter that even discussing its value, as titillating as HAM may have thought, is not worth anyone's time.
Art doesn't need an explanation. Ok....go ask Jean Michel Basquiat why he did what he did. In this case, the artist gave an explanation about his artwork because of "controversy" over the "violent" nature of the mural. I doubt he would be giving an explanation otherwise, but the dead people of Richmond, VA don't get it.
You must have been confused about my question/request. I know where to find good street art and graffiti. I live in Brooklyn, NY. I asked for anyone that is criticizing the quality of the mural to post their OWN work so they can show what good artwork is. Then they should give an explanation of their work and judge whether their ideas for the piece do the work justice.
That's the difference between art and architecture. Architects think too much and artist don't always have to (some do). Conceptual art doesn't always communicate a strong message that is easily identifiable either. The key word is expression.......whether its obvious or masked in abstraction, its about expression.
I'm not defending this artist and I do not think it is the best in the world. But, calling it high school level, etc is ironically immature.
@ lb- the issue of censorship, was that the owners of the b&b "threatened" to pursue legal action if the mural wasn't taken down. it was a commissioned mural, there was no defamation- and the owners of the b&b do NOT own the building on which the mural was commissioned. the legal action was a blatant threat of censorship. they are *old money* in richmond and they thought by flaunting that they would get their way. the business owner didn't concede, but in fact decided to do something neighborly and get along with his business neighbors. legal advice was given- on the news affiliates, no less- which said this was a prime example of censorship and no court of law would side with the b&b owners.
the ALB tech owner also decided that before putting up another mural he would talk to those who did not appreciate the first mural. which will happen next week. and of course, unless the mural is an advertisement for their own B&B, or a bunch of pink fuzzy bunnies, they won't like it.
and yes i'll post a pic of the newest mural on this thread. it will also be on all of those websites, i'm sure.
the websites i provided were not for you. so, would you ask rosalind krauss, clement greenberg and anyone else that is either in theory or criticism to provide their work? this work is outside, it's public, it begs to be reviewed critically. i don't like it for the reasons by most on this thread, and for my own; it's not the bourgeois that have guns to their head, it's the working class that have and had the gun to their head. this trite expression of angsty middle class boredom/market frustration is tired and not reflective of the reality this kid purports to depict.
+i, people in communities have long used the legal system to affect neighborhood "standards" ask anyone that's painted their house in polka-dots or in tartan patterns to piss of their neighbors how that's worked out.
The work is outside, I think we can all agree on that. It is not created for art critics, theoreticians, etc to scrutinize. If it was intended for critics, tourists and theoreticians, it would have been in a museum. OR....maybe the artist could have put a little stenciled description of his motivation for the work, the date that it was created and maybe a little bit about him/herself. Its intentionally ridiculous, but it gets the point across.
Street art and graffiti is not meant to be conceptually revolutionary. It is not meant for the museum. It's primitive in origin (painting directly to a wall) and it's progressive in aesthetics and effects. Street artists and graffiti artists should not care about what people think about their work. If they did, they would have asked for opinions before they put it up.
Let me get this out there before my head explodes. This mural is not street art or graffiti. Popularity of graffiti and street art has made people incapable of identifying it when they see it. This was a commissioned mural. I guess Diego Rivera was a street artist too, right? A mural is intended for the public, not the elites chatting about it over a cup of tea......the Public walk past it on their way to work, school, etc.
@b3tadine(sutres).....I wouldn't ask Rosalind Krauss, Clement Greenberg or "anyone else that is in theory criticism to provide their work" because I don't care what they have to say. This is not theory. Critics talk about the people that do what they (the critics) can only talk about.
Art is passive communication. Most artists create their artwork with no intention of giving a verbal or written description. It's visual communication and if a person can remain untainted by the voice of another, each person that looks at it can take something different from it. Theoreticians and artistic geniuses will talk about general methods, associations, compositions, brush techniques, but usually with respect to an approach to art or in the context of history and not a complete analysis and description of a singular piece.
Honestly, I don't think its all that great of a mural, but I hav seen plenty worse, and its he computer stores owner's building so really there's not much else anyon can do but complain. In fact, it seems to me that this wound up being the best solution for everyone involved. Okay, nearly the best. The computer store and now-artist got a heaping boatload of free publicity, the community complained and got what they wanted - the mural to be painted over. What should not have been done was threaten legal action (except perhaps as a stimulus to the local community of civil rights lawyers) but other storeowners in the area had every right to complain. Why the owner of the adjacent parking lot, if he or she disapproved of it, not just erect a giant sign in front of it is beyond me.
However simplistic and early-entry the image may be, I was kinda wishing he would have been clever enough to create an upturned tie like Dilbert - I mean he was already halfway there.
21Ronin, I'm not an artist. I'm an architect. Showing you my own art would prove nothing - I'm smart enough to know that I'm NOT talented enough to be an artist. I can draw a pretty picture but it would be art therapy, as I said above, not art. Your demand that if we can do better we should prove it or shut up is silly: I'm barely a good cook but I can taste the difference between a perfect brioche and a Twinkie. I'm a crappy seamstress but I can tell when a shirt is mass produced in China or handmade in London.
You can go ahead and dismiss Rosalind Krauss et al but they are a huge part of the shared culture of Western art and if an artist wants to produce work they can't expect it not to be placed within a culturally agreed upon lineage. We've all seen excellent, skillful, conceptually sharp examples of images - and for me, in comparing this image to others, it comes up lacking in both concept and execution. Am I supposed to throw out my 27 years of studying Western art before forming an opinion of this work? If I did that, I never would have seen a gun-to-head image, so this image would seem fresh and new. Of course, I'd also have no cultural background from which to critique it in the first place.
+i, I agree that there is probably no legal basis to force someone to remove an image that isn't obscene, and the courts have such wishy-washy definitions of obscene that it's a difficult battle. Not that I think this owner should be forced to paint over the wall, not at all, or that the artist shouldn't be allowed to produce whatever kind of image he wants. I just think this mural is bad art.
Lest you all think, based on my opinion of this image, that I only like conservative art, bucolic landscapes and Degas ballerinas and whatnot, believe me, I don't. I actually collect lots of art by lots of young artists including former street artists. Possibly my favorite sculpture of all time is Trophy by Wim Delvoye, which you can hopefully see at this link. It's awesome. That mural is just not good: not skillful, not considered, not challenging except in the most basic use of an incendiary image - a gun - that's not used cleverly or in a new way. A mural of bunnies with guns would be better, honestly.
The put up or shut up attitude is for those that are criticizing the quality of this mural. Silly or not, the quality of the mural really has nothing to do with this discussion. If it was "good" or "bad" is completely subjective and it doesn't add to the conversation about the mural itself, or the real issues discussed here (recession, street art, censorship, etc).
Again, I don't particularly care for this mural....but there is no reason to be so negative toward it, especially in this context. I have seen worse and I have definitely seen better.
that seems to be a very public place he put the mural
dont you usually need to run these kinds of things by neighborhood committees or boards?
i dont know if it is censorship as much as it is just something public
In philly, where there are a lot of murals, i think you need to get local approval from the neighborhood before you can put one up
Just because you own a blank wall doesnt mean you can put whatever you want up
Just like you cant put up any building you want just because you own a piece of land
it seems like a very high school-esque painting that is little more than whining
He probably thinks its a very deep statement about the economy
Just like a lot of 9th graders think their poems are incredibly deep
That being said, i imagine he knew exactly the stir this mural would cause, and that was probably a big part of his motivation to do so
He probably has gotten more commissions because of the publicity.
Smart tactic
okay, at this point, i think we've already over-analyized it. it's just an image.
liberty bell: it's not about celebration. you aren't ever going to bring everyone on board in the art world if you are too esoteric. personally, i believe art is a language that everybody speaks, but not to all levels of fluency. sometimes it's enough to just get people to notice that there is art, sometimes it's enough to just relate to how they feel.
Just like you cant put up any building you want just because you own a piece of land
This is WTF is wrong with Architecture.....we have to many backseat drivers. You have the wanta be architects who dilly and dally in interior decorating...and ya they think they understand architecture, you have the real estate agents who think they know the difference between a saltbox and a greek revival when actually they are trying to sell a ranch. You have the developer who is going to bring you the
"New Classic Order." You have wife who asks everyone for their opinion even if it is the guy mowing the lawn. Architects need to take Back Architecture....Artist need to take back Art.
Laid Off Architect Censored for His Mural in Richmond, VA
Laid off architect starts working as an artist, doing commissioned murals and paintings in Richmond, VA. He is being censored by local business owners who don't *like* his current commissioned mural on the side of a local building. The story is below... there's links at the bottom and a pic of the mural.
"A mural on the back wall of a Fan District business has caused a stir, with some neighbors demanding that it be painted over.
The image is of a man in a business suit gritting his teeth while he presses a revolver against his temple. The title? Recession 2009.
“Honestly, the idea just came from life, dealing with politics right now and what everybody is going through with the recession,” said Hamilton Glass, the artist who created the mural. “Me personally, I’ve been affected. I was laid off about six months ago.”
Glass said the mural is not meant to encourage violence, but rather to express the stress and frustration associated with the recession.
Glass was working as an architect for Thomas Hamilton and Associates, the same firm that designed the Westin hotel at Reynold’s Crossing. But as the economy slowed down and the pipeline for projects dried up, Glass said. He lost his job.
“Corporations don’t have the funding for big projects and work gets so slow, so people got to go,” Glass said. “All the firms have laid off people and are still continuing to,” he said.
Since getting the slip, Glass has been working full-time as an artist, traveling back and forth between his hometown of Philadelphia and Richmond, where he bought a home two years ago.
Glass met Adam Bell, the owner of the computer repair shop and web design firm ALB Tech, over the summer when he and another artist had an exhibition at the shop. The duo struck up a friendship and Bell agreed to design a website for Glass in exchange for a mural on the front of the building.
But it is the painting that Bell hired Glass to put up on the back wall that has gotten all the attention."
To see the full article go here:
http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2009/11/25/recession-mural-stirs-controversy/
Mural website is here:
http://hamsrecession2009.com/
apologies... apparently the first image was entirely too large
Jesus! Who the hell wouldn't want to censor that?
That mural is horrendous. It's so obvious & dull. If you want to express the frustrations of our time, there are more subtle & evocative ways to do that, without resorting to the simplistic, literal one-liner. This is why architects should not assume they are artists.
Of course, they should also not presume to be art critics. I know what I would say if a first year showed up with the equivalent of this mural in building form, though, that's for sure.
Pleasantville anyone?
so, i believe that art should not be censored, as the freedom for an artist to express his/her craft is an essential element of art itself.
having said that, i struggle with art being displayed publically (as in murals) - does it have a civil responsibility or not?
correction to the post above: "...should never be censored..." (instead of "not" be)
Living in a city known for its murals on walls (most in the world I believe?), I find this one very extreme. The ones in my city are definitely more on the inspirational side and deal with community values and etc. However, while some may find this sort of artwork offensive and/or in poor taste, I actually find the extremely blatant expression of anger/frustration refreshing. I'm tired of passive agressive we're-going-to-play-this-one-safe routines. Now whether or not this belongs in plain public view can be debated, and most likely will depend on the context of the location.
I don't like how the guy looks like Frankenstein though.
I'm 100% with mantaray. It's a very high-school-art-class level expression of a concept, though the use of shading and framing shows potential it's not overall well crafted. It's very obvious, as most art images of guns tend to be.
Also, I thought my misreading of it had far more potential: I mistook the guy's eardrum to be the gun melting into his scalp, like he's so overheated/stressed that he can melt metal with his brain/evil thoughts.
And remember: it's not censorship to call a turd a turd.
i rather like it. decent graphic, nice color, no words, slightly ambiguous as it's not completely clear that it's his own hand with the gun to his head, and why the tortured expression? is he straining, bracing, dreaming, etc?
might be more fun with a image of a famous wall street banker or fed reserve chariman or even president rather than an anonymous man...but whatever
Turn on the Tub....any night of the week and look at the violence....this is pure puppy play. Maybe those business men should be targeting the main network television by pulling their
ads....then again maybe the guy just looked to much like a New Yorker and not a VA home boy!
regardless or the art...
the barter aspect is pretty cool
i also am encouraged by the owner taking care of his building, shrugging off the idea that it can't be rejuvenated, that it is part of a piece of art. People don't seem to look at a building and think anything other than a monetary asset these days.
another mural controversy...
http://blogs.vocalo.org/jkaufmann/2009/05/why-was-this-mural-painted-over-in-pilsen/3526
mural looks like n. foster having a bad-tie day.
well you could have to live with this:
People are idiots. It's art....not an advertisement. What is being sold here?....nada. It is enough to make me run out there and start covering everything I see with aerosol.
Ok. So someone can't express frustration? And a company can't have that on their wall? But, we can legally torture and bomb people for no reason and sit with a straight face.
I don't think its any different than watching Law and Order and a guy shooting himself for being out of work.
I agree with Ronin!
That mural sucks.
We had a flair up not long ago here when an artist had the painting/sculpture/billboard as one of the works on display in a local downtown storefront.
. It is funny that they even went to the lengths to blur the photo so you don't get the full effect. Seems like people didn't like
there kids seeing an assimulation of nudity. Oh the painting is called, "Blue" The artist is Norman Mailers, daughter.
as a piece of art, i myself am not so concerned with how it is stylized as i am with it's effectiveness. regardless of how it is crafted, be it the color, the linework, or it's position on the canvas, it is certainly effective as an agitator. if it wasn't, then no one would be offended enough to want it censored. it goes without saying that there are a great many people in the world right now who could find some affinity with this piece (although i'll admit, i'm not yet sure to what end). agit-art, which is what i would classify this as, has always been about communicating with the masses in the most blunt way possible. i am all for the one-liner in this regard. more people understand one-liners than can relate to subtleties or artistic nuances, especially in america. not all artwork is a bourgeois enterprise, especially that which exists literally on the street as opposed to the whitewashed walls of a museum gallery. the strange twist on this i'm most interested in is which class of society this piece is speaking to: he is wearing a business suit, as opposed to a pair of overalls.
i don't have a problem with it. it is art, and it's symbolic of how deeply frustrated and pissed off people are starting to feel about the economy. art has historically been an important part of any revolution. i actually don't think it's half bad. if anything, it is a sign of the times, open-ended though it may be.
i like it....
funny how folks get all stirred up over an image....
i like it too.
in 50 years, hopefully, we'll come to realize that suicide is not something be appalled by, and only another expression of free-will on behalf of an individual unfit, unable or unwilling to partake in society.
"This is why architects should not assume they are artists."
this is why architects should not assume they are art critics.
Come on, lars. You make good art. That mural can't compare, either technically or conceptually.
great pr for the out of work architect.
the image doesn't bother me nor excite me.
agreed. it's boring; the tie actually bothers me most.
i totally agree with you le bossman + larslarson... what is funny is that i didn't post this to see the usual and predictable reaction from architects/art critics...
it was more about the issue of censorship and how it is applied here- and since i, myself, have been recently laid off i was also intrigued with the fact that the architect isn't just laying back accepting unemployment as his role in society where all the other architects (including myself) bitch and moan about the firms they used to work for and the lack of work thereof.
the other issue, in my opinion, is the location. this isn't new york or philly, dc, or LA. people in richmond aren't used to the graphic nature of a mural that means something other than pretty flowers or cliche advertisements- graphics that are intended to evoke no emotion whatsoever. the area is changing- becoming more diverse and more interesting... but it needs to be shaken up - and maybe a "one liner" is what can tap into more of the people to get them to think, stir up emotions, and affect them a bit more.
on the other hand... if i were staying at a bed and breakfast, i wouldn't want to see that out of my guestroom window. but i can think of about 40 buildings in DC i wouldn't want to see out of my bedroom window either, but i can't make them tear em down.
+i, I think you're using the word "censorship" too loosely. It's not censoring someone to express an opinion. The artist is free to paint what he wants, others are free to state what they think of it.
From the article:
Rather than face confrontation, Bell has decided to concede and take down the mural by Dec. 1. "In my opinion they have threatened us but don’t have any legal right to [make us] bring it down, but Adam wants to stand in good graces with the neighborhood and that’s fine. I’m behind him 100 percent,” Glass
The owner is choosing to remove the mural, and as a commissioned work, it's the patron's choice whether to display it or not, or even to destroy it. The controversy is not about censorship at all. In Richmond, it's about the ability of people to interpret an artistic image, a business's reputation in a community, property rights, and neighborhood peace. Here on Archinect, it's about critiquing the quality of a produced object.
I'm eager to see the replacement mural - if you're still following this story then, please post an update.
And to bossman: yes, most people in this country don't understand nuance and could not place an image within a cultural/historical/qualitative context. Is this a good thing? Is this a level of mental process that we should be celebrating?
So much of this discussion is BS. Whether or not the people understand the reason for making the painting, artwork, etc has nothing to do with why this mural was such a "problem". It could have been a masterpiece (in the eyes of the objectors) and they still wouldn't like it. The process for art is completely different than the process for architecture. Sometimes, in art, the reason is just because. It's better not to question and analyze artwork the same way that you would an architectural project (where everything is understandably expected to have a justification).......you will save yourself a lot of frustration and confusion.
This mural is not graffiti, street art or anything in between. It's a mural, but I don't expect most people to understand the difference.....especially reading this discussion.
And this reasoning leads to art that sucks. It's art therapy, not art, and while art therapy has an appropriate time and place, it's not the same as art.
It definitely has a high school art vibe to it. Looks like something we used to doodle on our Pee Chee folders while not paying attention in class.
Ok. So I would like to see anyone send links, images or examples of their own artwork. I'm not criticizing this artwork. You know the saying about teachers, but I'm going to throw critics in along with it. Those that can't do, teach....or criticize.
This discussion is not about the quality of the artwork. Insecurity spawned the criticism of this mural.
i don't mind it, and i don't think richmond misunderstands it or fails to absorb it as part of a cultural context. richmond's no backwater. it's got its share of grit, a decent art scene, and a pretty varied urban condition. this mural is simply a mural - it's very seldom that mural works do they rise to a conceptual level we expect from some other work. they occupy a middle-ground between the art scene and graffitti - most often figural work, more accessible. could it have been more subtle, concept-driven, etc. sure.
now, what might make the whole set of circumstances more fun as an art occurrence: if they white-washed the wall (i.e., removed the work) and then put back exactly the same image.
21ronin, your claim that art does not always require explanation is specious, given that the artist in question provided explanation. it's a rank frank miller rip-off, that is such a one-noter that even discussing its value, as titillating as HAM may have thought, is not worth anyone's time.
you want to see good, thoughtful urban art? go visit these sites Blu and Wooster[/org] and [url=http://www.streetsy.com/]Streetsy and lastly Banksy
everyone's a critic, especially when you jamb crap into the public sphere.
Art doesn't need an explanation. Ok....go ask Jean Michel Basquiat why he did what he did. In this case, the artist gave an explanation about his artwork because of "controversy" over the "violent" nature of the mural. I doubt he would be giving an explanation otherwise, but the dead people of Richmond, VA don't get it.
You must have been confused about my question/request. I know where to find good street art and graffiti. I live in Brooklyn, NY. I asked for anyone that is criticizing the quality of the mural to post their OWN work so they can show what good artwork is. Then they should give an explanation of their work and judge whether their ideas for the piece do the work justice.
That's the difference between art and architecture. Architects think too much and artist don't always have to (some do). Conceptual art doesn't always communicate a strong message that is easily identifiable either. The key word is expression.......whether its obvious or masked in abstraction, its about expression.
I'm not defending this artist and I do not think it is the best in the world. But, calling it high school level, etc is ironically immature.
@Steven Ward.......I like the idea.
@ lb- the issue of censorship, was that the owners of the b&b "threatened" to pursue legal action if the mural wasn't taken down. it was a commissioned mural, there was no defamation- and the owners of the b&b do NOT own the building on which the mural was commissioned. the legal action was a blatant threat of censorship. they are *old money* in richmond and they thought by flaunting that they would get their way. the business owner didn't concede, but in fact decided to do something neighborly and get along with his business neighbors. legal advice was given- on the news affiliates, no less- which said this was a prime example of censorship and no court of law would side with the b&b owners.
the ALB tech owner also decided that before putting up another mural he would talk to those who did not appreciate the first mural. which will happen next week. and of course, unless the mural is an advertisement for their own B&B, or a bunch of pink fuzzy bunnies, they won't like it.
and yes i'll post a pic of the newest mural on this thread. it will also be on all of those websites, i'm sure.
i like that idea too. or a bunch of pink fuzzy bunnies all with guns to their heads.
the websites i provided were not for you. so, would you ask rosalind krauss, clement greenberg and anyone else that is either in theory or criticism to provide their work? this work is outside, it's public, it begs to be reviewed critically. i don't like it for the reasons by most on this thread, and for my own; it's not the bourgeois that have guns to their head, it's the working class that have and had the gun to their head. this trite expression of angsty middle class boredom/market frustration is tired and not reflective of the reality this kid purports to depict.
+i, people in communities have long used the legal system to affect neighborhood "standards" ask anyone that's painted their house in polka-dots or in tartan patterns to piss of their neighbors how that's worked out.
The work is outside, I think we can all agree on that. It is not created for art critics, theoreticians, etc to scrutinize. If it was intended for critics, tourists and theoreticians, it would have been in a museum. OR....maybe the artist could have put a little stenciled description of his motivation for the work, the date that it was created and maybe a little bit about him/herself. Its intentionally ridiculous, but it gets the point across.
Street art and graffiti is not meant to be conceptually revolutionary. It is not meant for the museum. It's primitive in origin (painting directly to a wall) and it's progressive in aesthetics and effects. Street artists and graffiti artists should not care about what people think about their work. If they did, they would have asked for opinions before they put it up.
Let me get this out there before my head explodes. This mural is not street art or graffiti. Popularity of graffiti and street art has made people incapable of identifying it when they see it. This was a commissioned mural. I guess Diego Rivera was a street artist too, right? A mural is intended for the public, not the elites chatting about it over a cup of tea......the Public walk past it on their way to work, school, etc.
@b3tadine(sutres).....I wouldn't ask Rosalind Krauss, Clement Greenberg or "anyone else that is in theory criticism to provide their work" because I don't care what they have to say. This is not theory. Critics talk about the people that do what they (the critics) can only talk about.
Art is passive communication. Most artists create their artwork with no intention of giving a verbal or written description. It's visual communication and if a person can remain untainted by the voice of another, each person that looks at it can take something different from it. Theoreticians and artistic geniuses will talk about general methods, associations, compositions, brush techniques, but usually with respect to an approach to art or in the context of history and not a complete analysis and description of a singular piece.
Honestly, I don't think its all that great of a mural, but I hav seen plenty worse, and its he computer stores owner's building so really there's not much else anyon can do but complain. In fact, it seems to me that this wound up being the best solution for everyone involved. Okay, nearly the best. The computer store and now-artist got a heaping boatload of free publicity, the community complained and got what they wanted - the mural to be painted over. What should not have been done was threaten legal action (except perhaps as a stimulus to the local community of civil rights lawyers) but other storeowners in the area had every right to complain. Why the owner of the adjacent parking lot, if he or she disapproved of it, not just erect a giant sign in front of it is beyond me.
However simplistic and early-entry the image may be, I was kinda wishing he would have been clever enough to create an upturned tie like Dilbert - I mean he was already halfway there.
21Ronin, I'm not an artist. I'm an architect. Showing you my own art would prove nothing - I'm smart enough to know that I'm NOT talented enough to be an artist. I can draw a pretty picture but it would be art therapy, as I said above, not art. Your demand that if we can do better we should prove it or shut up is silly: I'm barely a good cook but I can taste the difference between a perfect brioche and a Twinkie. I'm a crappy seamstress but I can tell when a shirt is mass produced in China or handmade in London.
You can go ahead and dismiss Rosalind Krauss et al but they are a huge part of the shared culture of Western art and if an artist wants to produce work they can't expect it not to be placed within a culturally agreed upon lineage. We've all seen excellent, skillful, conceptually sharp examples of images - and for me, in comparing this image to others, it comes up lacking in both concept and execution. Am I supposed to throw out my 27 years of studying Western art before forming an opinion of this work? If I did that, I never would have seen a gun-to-head image, so this image would seem fresh and new. Of course, I'd also have no cultural background from which to critique it in the first place.
+i, I agree that there is probably no legal basis to force someone to remove an image that isn't obscene, and the courts have such wishy-washy definitions of obscene that it's a difficult battle. Not that I think this owner should be forced to paint over the wall, not at all, or that the artist shouldn't be allowed to produce whatever kind of image he wants. I just think this mural is bad art.
Lest you all think, based on my opinion of this image, that I only like conservative art, bucolic landscapes and Degas ballerinas and whatnot, believe me, I don't. I actually collect lots of art by lots of young artists including former street artists. Possibly my favorite sculpture of all time is Trophy by Wim Delvoye, which you can hopefully see at this link. It's awesome. That mural is just not good: not skillful, not considered, not challenging except in the most basic use of an incendiary image - a gun - that's not used cleverly or in a new way. A mural of bunnies with guns would be better, honestly.
The put up or shut up attitude is for those that are criticizing the quality of this mural. Silly or not, the quality of the mural really has nothing to do with this discussion. If it was "good" or "bad" is completely subjective and it doesn't add to the conversation about the mural itself, or the real issues discussed here (recession, street art, censorship, etc).
Again, I don't particularly care for this mural....but there is no reason to be so negative toward it, especially in this context. I have seen worse and I have definitely seen better.
Every consumer thinks they are a critic.
In a capitalistic society every consumer is a critic.
Also, if the art was better, there would have been more resistance to painting the thing over.
Or more bunnies.
that seems to be a very public place he put the mural
dont you usually need to run these kinds of things by neighborhood committees or boards?
i dont know if it is censorship as much as it is just something public
In philly, where there are a lot of murals, i think you need to get local approval from the neighborhood before you can put one up
Just because you own a blank wall doesnt mean you can put whatever you want up
Just like you cant put up any building you want just because you own a piece of land
it seems like a very high school-esque painting that is little more than whining
He probably thinks its a very deep statement about the economy
Just like a lot of 9th graders think their poems are incredibly deep
That being said, i imagine he knew exactly the stir this mural would cause, and that was probably a big part of his motivation to do so
He probably has gotten more commissions because of the publicity.
Smart tactic
okay, at this point, i think we've already over-analyized it. it's just an image.
liberty bell: it's not about celebration. you aren't ever going to bring everyone on board in the art world if you are too esoteric. personally, i believe art is a language that everybody speaks, but not to all levels of fluency. sometimes it's enough to just get people to notice that there is art, sometimes it's enough to just relate to how they feel.
this is how we paint the walls in detroit...but it's all about money, art is just in your head
Note to self.......don't talk to architects about art.
Just like you cant put up any building you want just because you own a piece of land
This is WTF is wrong with Architecture.....we have to many backseat drivers. You have the wanta be architects who dilly and dally in interior decorating...and ya they think they understand architecture, you have the real estate agents who think they know the difference between a saltbox and a greek revival when actually they are trying to sell a ranch. You have the developer who is going to bring you the
"New Classic Order." You have wife who asks everyone for their opinion even if it is the guy mowing the lawn. Architects need to take Back Architecture....Artist need to take back Art.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.