Recently a mural depicting Chicago Police Department cameras, a crucified Christ, a deer head, and skulls was painted over at the request of 11th Ward Alderman, James Balcer. Alderman Balcer stated he ordered the mural to be covered because he felt it was distasteful and feared the mural could be anti-police and possibly gang-related.
The mural’s artist, Gabriel Villa, began painting the mural two weeks ago. He was commissioned by the owners of the building as part of a local arts festival. Villa has stated the mural was not meant to be offensive, but was meant to spark conversation about surveillance in society.
Overall, this issue reminded me of the book challenges we have been discussing. This artist, like many controversial authors, used his talents to shed light on an important issue, government surveillance. Because some were afraid or unsure of what the message meant, the message was suppressed. Here the Alderman admitted he had no idea what the mural meant, but he was afraid it would cause a controversy.
Well, I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world without controversy. Sometimes controversies are needed to shed light on important issues, and fear of controversy is ultimately more damaging for our country than the controversies themselves.
Additionally, much like book challenges, I think the Alderman's actions actually did the exact opposite of what he had intended. He wanted to avoid controversy and discussion. Now, however, everyone is talking about this mural and debating the government's actions.
It looks like the artist succeeded in getting a dialogue started--- although it may be on different issue than he had originally intended.
For more information, see the Chicago Public Radio articles below:
Basic Summary of the issue and a picture of the mural-
http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=34276
Interview with Alderman Balcer-
http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=3623
In reading your post I believe the mural was was commissioned by someone for their own building, yes? Was it private property? I am confused as to how the alderman could have it painted over. Especially when in my post people drove trucks around town with large pictures of aborted fetuses on the side and people were told that nothing could be done about it. What does this say about the consistency, or lack of, in protecting free speech?
ReplyDeleteI found your post very interesting and you tied it in well with libraries and the right to free speech. It is interesting that the same communication is acceptable in one format, but not another. Your post did get me thinking about art banning. So often we hear about book banning, but libraries have multiple forms of media, including art. How often do other forms of media get challenged and/or banned? This is defitely a question worth looking into. Thanks for the post!
ReplyDeleteYes..the building is private property, but the Alderman felt he had the right to paint over private property. Ah, only in Chicago.
ReplyDeleteMayor Daly later stated that the Alderman's actions were a huge mistake. However, the Alderman has gone on to say that he is not sorry he repainted the building.
All of the comments seem dead-on to me. I wonder if there is any legal action the building owners can take (I believe we live in far too litigious society as it is, but this seems worthy of taking a stand on--if only to protect people's rights in the future)--I bet an equal number of people would find a mural in support of the Alderman equally controversial, but I doubt it would be painted over--at least not by a government order. So, was the Alderman really afraid of controversy, or did he just plain dislike/disagree with the images in the mural? Both excuses are equally dangerous to
ReplyDeleteour democracy.
I think the building's owners should have the alderman's house painted purple and orange.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis post reminds me of Little Brother and the challenges Marcus faces while he's trying to save society from the government's surveillance on the community. This artwork was intended to spark conversation/debate about surveillance just as the plot of Little Brother does.
ReplyDelete