Art is a funny thing. I’m looking at my walls right now, all of which are decorated with framed pieces by local and regional artists. My husband and I have gone back and forth a number of times over certain ones, each defending a position as to why or why not it should be awarded some coveted wall space.
We have it easy though, cause each piece can be arraigned and rearranged an infinite number of times and we know that they are safely affixed until we change our minds again. And when we do, they get taken down and stored away for the next time we feel like sprucing up the walls.
But what if your art is of a more public and permanent nature? Who gets to decide when it gets taken down? In Worcester, that is apparently a mystery.
Worcide was a DIY skate park, built by locals yearning for a centralized place to skate. Over ten years ago, a group of skaters came across a dead-end parcel of land underneath the railroad overpass that neither the city nor the rail company claimed to own. While the spot continued to be a home for the homeless, the skaters took it upon themselves to clean the place up and invest thousands of their own dollars creating their much-needed skate park. Local businesses and the city government applauded these kids for the time, money and effort that they put into the forgotten lot, but that came to an abrupt end two weeks ago when the city (without warning) decided to demolish the entire project due to vague safety concerns – the city manager was quoted as saying that he was concerned that a “train might explode” on the rails above.
We could argue back and forth about the legalities of the situation, but this isn’t my point – this is just the back story.
A week after the surprise demolition, all of the graffiti was painted over by a guy who told onlookers that he worked for the rail company, and was ordered by the city to remove it all. Both the rail company and the city deny ordering it all removed.
This might not be a big deal to some, but Worcester has hosted the international Pow! Wow! Mural Festival for three years – artists from all over the world have come and put pieces up for the festival and then, have come down on their free time to paint on these walls just for fun. Those priceless pieces are now covered by an uneven coat of flat white paint and none are too happy about this additional kick in the ribs after having already been thrown to the ground.
Should these murals have been protected? Who owns them? And was this the right choice?
Last fall, a court room in Brooklyn was filled with mural artists who sued a building owner after their work was covered up prior to its demolition. They were invited by the building owner to paint the defunct building, and are now seeking damages for having their work destroyed.
I’m all in favor for graffiti and murals – after having over 40 of them painted in Worcester in the last couple of years, I can vouch for the immediate change they can provide to otherwise dismal street corners. While the case I mentioned above hasn’t had a ruling made, it raises a number of questions about the legitimacy of graffiti as an art form, ownership, and over-all responsibility for maintaining them.
I highly doubt that you’ll see a Worcester courtroom filled with artists in the near future, but it creates an opportunity going forward to discuss these concerns before it happens again. Though that would require someone to own up to the cover-up job first, and that isn’t likely to happen any time soon.