dovate

You might not have heard about it, but over the weekend the British Royal Family visited Philadelphia. While they were here, they met with representatives from my place of employment, the Philadelphia Mural Arts Program. I didn’t volunteer my time to witness Their Royal Highnesses, because I didn’t really care, but all the positive media the visit generated for MAP was truly and honestly inspiring. For any non-profit, media exposure translates into funding, which translates into the ability for that non-profit to continue to exist.

The exposure MAP has been given over the last few weeks has been great… with one glaring exception… last Friday’s Inquirer commentary by guest columnist Joseph P. Blake. To read that commentary, click here. (or if the link is dead, here)

Because it’s way too long for the Inquirer to print in its entirety and because I can just publish it here anyway, below is my response to Blake’s column. If you feel so inspired, please take a moment to write the Inquirer yourself. (inquirer.letters@phillynews.com)

——————————————-

I don’t take issue with Joseph P. Blake’s aversion to the mural “In Living Memory.” Out of more than 2700 murals in the city he can’t possibly like them all.

For the purposes of honesty and disclosure, I should say that I work for the Mural Arts Program and even I don’t like all of the murals created by the program. Mr. Blake’s likes and dislikes belong exclusively to him and I have no issues with his personal aesthetic sensibilities.

It’s funny though, when I told a friend where I worked, he singled out “In Living Memory” as his favorite in the city. His reasons were a direct reflection of what Blake didn’t see. My friend was moved by the image of a family choking in the smoke of their father. Blake in turn “thought the colors were nice, but it had no impact.” Such a disparate interpretation between 2 sets of eyes looking at the same wall goes a long way into explaining the value of public art and of the Mural Arts Program. But none of this is why I’m writing today.

What I do take issue with is Blake’s ascertain that the murals fail to reflect the communities in which they are created. The Mural Arts Program goes to extremes to involve the community in nearly every aspect of the process, from meetings, to artist selection to design. The very first question on any mural application – the very first step in the creation of a new mural – reads: “Have I talked to my neighbors and/or community groups about a mural?” Put simply, these projects simply don’t happen without community support.

I’ve photographed a few dozen murals in all corners of the city. In North Philly, West Philly, Mantua and Strawberry Mansion neighbors have stopped to talk to me about what the murals mean to them and to their community. Every one of these conversations has been glowingly positive. There’s an understanding that once painted, murals don’t belong to the city or to any organization, but to the community itself. That understanding is absolutely true.

There’s another conversation I have with people about the Mural Arts Program. This one never happens on the street in front of a mural. It’s a conversation about content. The example of the dying family in “In Living Memory” notwithstanding, Blake is upset that Philadelphia repeatedly and nearly exclusively creates “feel-good murals.”

In defense of his argument he references cities around the world, judging the content their public art superior to that of Philadelphia. Mexico City, with its deep and rich history of muralism sits at the top of this list. But when citing places like Mexico City it’s essential to realize that the Mexican masters were financed and guided by an idealistic but undemocratic state. While artistically beautiful, the messages present promoted a very narrow and specific nationalist vision. While Mexico City’s murals were created by some of the 20th centuries best known and most talented muralists, they were commissioned by a fractured central state in an attempt to unite through the illusion of nationalist propaganda. That Philadelphia has rejected this model is not a bad thing.

With mural content largely community driven, Blake desires for politically charged and topically motivated mural content falls into a democratically indefensible position. Standing in opposition to the majority of Philadelphia’s communities, his characterization of Philadelphia’s murals as meaningless and insipid is not only an insult to the Mural Arts Program, but a slap in the face to the people and the communities of Philadelphia.