Murals in Poor Neighorhoods, Commentary from the Inky
Here is a link http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/opinion/local2/region/16548228.htm to a Philadelphia Inquirer Commentary about murals in poor neighborhoods.
Murals: Insipid, not inspiring
By Joseph P. Blake
I did something the other day I don't normally do - I stopped to look at one of the many murals that decorate the walls of Philadelphia. I'm not a big fan of murals, at least not the kind usually found in communities bordering on full-scale gentrification, such as Mantua and parts of North Philadelphia. This day, however, my attention was drawn to one painted on the side of a house next to a vacant lot on 16th Street near Montgomery, right across the street from Temple's athletic field. It features images that are almost otherworldly in their presentation and somewhat spooky and unnerving in design.
Dominant is a man blowing a whiff of smoke from his mouth that floats off and blends into another interesting scene of children playing. I thought the colors were nice, but it had no impact on me other than to say, "Hmmm. That's interesting." For me, that meant it was, unfortunately, like so many other murals in economically compromised neighborhoods: It was a snapshot of a moment, thought, or perception unconnected to anything in the neighborhood or anyone living there. There was no greater "thing" being hinted at, and certainly no reason to be moved in any way, which is what I think any good public art usually does. I've seen wall art (I think the word mural in Philly has evolved into something less than worthy of its meaning) on buildings from Mexico City to the suburbs of Rome, Paris and London. All are major cities with areas that look eerily familiar in some cases to Mantua and sections of North Philadelphia.
There, the art is usually of a political or deeply historical nature and expresses a view that is born of passion and defiance and pays tribute to heroes both local and ideological. The closest I've seen to something like that in my hometown is the wall art in Chinatown that features a hand representing the community stopping the bulldozers from razing their neighborhood to make way for a ballpark/convention center/parking lot/whatever. That feeling of community and defiance comes through loud and clear and is an inspiration to view. And that, in essence, is what troubles me about these feel-good murals in areas under stress from poverty, violence, and now, gentrification. Instead of showing passion, compassion, and a spirit of self-determination and permanence, these murals have no more impact than a smiley face on a T-shirt. It is no different than painting homey scenes over the boarded-up windows of abandoned buildings, which actually was done on North Broad Street near Lehigh Avenue. I know people will say, "Well, the community asked for this," or that the community "was consulted before this mural was painted." My response to that - if that's true in all cases - is that then there is a deeper disconnect between reality and perception than I had imagined. Also, few, if any, of the artists who do the actual paintings come from the community they are interpreting on the wall.
Perhaps I'm being harsh. Perhaps these murals are serving some purpose I'm too cynical to notice. Perhaps they're providing inspiration, education, or even community service for someone in need. But from where I stand, gazing at vacant lots, as real estate speculators with New Jersey and Delaware tags drive slowly through and presage impending increases in taxes that will force the same people represented in the mural to move - well, I'd be more impressed if there were a hand somewhere in there stopping a bulldozer, or something else showing self-determination, entrepreneurship, or political enlightenment.
So when Prince Charles and his bride Camilla take a tour of the murals during their upcoming visit here, I wonder what will cross their minds and if any of those thoughts will have anything at all to do with the people the murals are supposed to represent.

All of MMPs Feeds
Comments
Perhaps I'm being
Perhaps I'm being harsh.
Yea? I think so. The murals of Philadelphia are a treasure. It's a sad statement on the activist community of Philadelphia that it is descending into lumping the Mural Arts Program in with its normal bevy of enemies.
Here's a good response from someone who works there: http://www.dovate.com/blog/?p=383
While I do certainly agree
While I do certainly agree that the MAP could do with more community involvement with its murals, it makes me sad that articles like this would be included in blogs like this as part of discussions of economics, housing and displacement. Shouldn't we be spending more energy discussing actual viable soluations to how one allows economic growth in a city without displacing people rather than attack one of the few organizations in town that pays artists living wages? I think MAP is one of the last orgs that needs to be picked at in this ongoing discussion we're having here-- if we're talking about city money wasted on insipid and ineffective activities there's plenty other more useful places to start.
This was not posted as an
This was not posted as an attack, but merely a contribution to the ongoing discussion. It's important to look at the ways that art can become a tool for gentrification and displacement, if it doesn't explicitly reject these trends, as MAP clearly has not. Many have remarked that the agendas of MAP as well as Philadelphia Green have shifted dramatically since the start of NTI - away from community building and toward 'marketing' and image. And I think that will all of the incredibly overindulgent orgasmically positive press received by MAP all of the time, we can stand to hear a reasonable critique once in a while. To me the issue is less about community involvement, and more about what frameworks organizations (while they may be good) consciously or unconsciously adopt and how those frameworks shift over time depending on the political situation.
Haw, come on. This person has
Haw, come on. This person has an idea, an opinion about a prevalent item in poor neighborhoods in Philly, and it seems to me that the idea is presented as a conclusion arrived at after much thoughtfulness--a process that seems missing from the replies, and from MAP's own mural production process.
If this issue is researched, rather than "felt" about, you will find that MAP spends in the millions each year to do a relatively few projects that involve a very sparse number of children--and their involvement is tangential, at best. And these numbers exist in spite of the fact that MAP is a government program--just recently moved from the City's Recreation Department to the City's Managing Director's Office. You will also learn that a number of murals (especially murals on public buildings) are "pushed" upon the neighborhoods, if they are even consulted beforehand. (Which is highly unfortunate and unexplained, since MAP will tell you that there is a very long waiting list of private land owners that have requested a mural.) Finally, there is no unbiased study done (and relied on by MAP) that supports MAP's contention that a mural improves a failing neighborhood. Studies done by unbiased researchers yield nothing like the conclusions MAP will have you believe. In fact, the "sealing" of the exterior of a masonry building, whether by exterior paint or some sort of adhesive, promotes a much more rapid deterioration of the mortar joints and makes maintenance inspections even more difficult to conduct---thus, the mural actually contributes to a more rapid destruction of the building itself. So, as a citizen in this libertarian world, if you the property owner, wants to promote the destruction of your home and investment, have at it. However, as your neighbor, please take seriously the negative effects that a mural has on our neighborhood, which includes my home and investment.
As an employee of MAP I can
As an employee of MAP I can wholeheartedly say that none of the criticisms listed above have even the remotest connection to reality.
MAP's growth in recent years has been almost exclusively in art education. thousands of students across the city take part in our after school programs. Thousands.
Murals DO NOT happen (.) without a very long process invloving as many community members as the organization can manage to bring together. Our only connection to NTI is the vast numbers of blank walls it creates. Blank walls are what we paint on. Blank walls in open space are the best canvasses.
There are murals in every community, rich and poor. There is no grand strategy to gentrify.
I could go on, but people should get their facts straight before they go attacking an ogranization based on... actually I have no idea what the attacks are based on. do you think the only mural projects are in center city or "gentrifying areas?" Take a drive up Germantown Ave from Central North Philly to Nicetown, through Mantua, Gray's Ferry, North 5th... Look into the after school programs located in every corner of this city. Whatever rumors are getting perpetuated I have no idea where they're coming from or why. It seems that people have a natural instinct to knock anything down if they feel it's becoming too successful. But why? What for?