The whole story is in that video, but if you prefer to read it: "Artist heartbroken after painting destroyed in front of her/'He blamed me for his painting being destroyed and he wanted to hurt me because he felt that I hurt him. He felt that I disrespected him'" (4WWL).
[Heather] Mattingly is part of the small army of artists who bring utility boxes on area street corners to life... Mattingly says the man told her the utility box had been home to his own artwork, a portrait of former Saints quarterback Drew Brees.
Jeannie Tidy is founder of Community Visions Unlimited (CVU), the non-profit sanctioned by the city and surrounding parishes to paint the boxes. “To just go out willy-nilly and put up your artwork wherever you feel like doing it, it’s not okay,” Tidy said. “We took two years getting the permission from the city, from the transportation people, from all these different entities and we have to carry insurance and we have to have hold harmless contracts with all the artists.”
So... there's graffiti — street art — and there's government sanctioned art — which requires 2 years of red tape. If you go through the government-sanctioned bureaucracy and you get assigned a particular utility box, but some other artist had just barged ahead and painted outside of the "Community Visions" program — painted on your box — what do you do? You feel authorized/empowered/required to paint over his work. But it's a wild world, and Artist #1 may feel empowered too — by outrage, by love of the Saints — and he might paint over you.
AND THEN: There was Christopher Walken roller-painting over a Banksy work of street art:
Posts
64 comments:
The boxes are unsightly and competent murals make them look better. If the government doesn't have a painting program, then sure, it's a free for all. But if the government does have a program, then artists need to follow it. Otherwise, it's just vandalism.
Sounds like one side of the story, or maybe even a fragment of one side of the story. 'Authorized' artists?
A town near me has 'authorized' cutesy paintings on electrical boxes, etc. I'd rather see the plain box as the artist isn't very talented.
Besides, can't anybody paint anything anywhere now?
Paint a likeness of George Floyd anywhere you want and dare some racist citizen to paint over it.
Better yet, paint any depiction of a human in Afghanistan and get sentenced to death.
They don't seem to like art much over there...
I wonder if those two woman being interviewed know what they sound like.
So we are back to being against tearing down statues and art?
so, uhh.... didn't she destroy that guy's art? It might have even been with the city's blessing, but her complaint wasn't about municipal ordinances.
Oprah was so unfamiliar with guest Drew Brees, she thought his birthmark was lipstick.
My Los Angeles suburb of 200,000 people has a similar "utility box" program. So two or three years ago the "painting" started. I don't want to dis the artists, but it looks like Hunter Biden could have provided better results. Since we're not prone to a lot of gang graffiti here the artists were provided with "blank canvases".
Only government-sanctioned visions need apply to apply paint
I’m not a fan of street art, and most street “artists” have negligible levels of true, creative, talent. But I couldn’t really vote for the penultimate choice because my true sympathies are with the unauthorized “artist” and his roller full of white paint. Any artist who waits for official permission to create a work of art is no true artist.
As the bumper stickers proclaim in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor, why can't we all just coexist?
There is a power struggle going on in this country for free speech. Soros knows that the real power lies in the prosecutors. Only those on the Right will be charged with things like vandalism, rioting, killing in self defense, etc. This is how oppression begins.
Obviously the only thing that matters is which artist is higher on the aggrievement hierarchy.
That means Woman > Man. She gets the spot.
Unless he is gay or black or trans. Then if there are 2 people trying to decide who is more aggrieved you have to go to the point system set up by the Party.
In the end The Party ends up in control of who gets to paint.
Funny how that works.
en artists squabble = a first-world problem.
This spat is representative of the Credentials Society. Lots and lots in DC (& in the 50/57 state capitols) have all the degrees from all the "best/elite" universities. The holders of these degrees believe that that, ipso facto, entitles them to reign on high. [Jeff Foxworthy, "If you like telling people what to do, you might be a Democrat."]
So here we have an "authorized" artist. That is, one who has the credential. How dare some unauthorized Joe Six-Pack come along!
Unless "authorized" by the state your Certificate of Non-Existence remains in force.
"Street art is related to graffiti art in that it is created in public locations and is usually unsanctioned, but it covers a wider range of media and is more connected with graphic design
Tate
Art? Grafitti? It is in the eyes of the beholder and in this case the beholder expressed his/her opinion using a can of white paint and a roller.
Slow news day.
just can't understand; HOW any artist, could Do To ME (a WHITE WOMAN!) what i'd done to him
She says this, like 3 times in the 1st 2 minutes. HOW Could someone Do, What i DID?
i take it, that THIS is what they mean, by systemic racism?
Paying for street art is like paying for stray cats. You only get more of it if you encourage it in any way. Either accept that the space is available for public painting, or keep it a nice flat gray.
That said, Austin has some awesome street art, none sanctioned nor paid for by the City of Austin, as far as I know. But don't suggest it to the Council, they'd pay for grafitti if it ever occurred to them that they could, and organize a whole city bureaucracy to "manage" the funds.
Headline: Tagger gets triggered
She expected the guy to have the qualms about painting over her art that she didn't have when she painted over his art. If she's such a sensitive artist, she should have requested his work and requested assignment to another box. Or just leave it be - she's already painted a dozen other boxes.
You'd think the artist would have been self-aware enough to not say how her feelings were hurt that someone would just paint over her art.
One of the great disappointments when visiting Europe is the graffiti on all the reachable surfaces, even in some of the most beautiful old cities.
They've got some similar public art committee here, too. They had to have some murals painted over when the people who lived near them complained about the gross-out nature of the images.
In summary, it was obviously a way for egotistical, mostly W/white artists to impose their nightmare visions on the locals.
Her art looks like graffiti to me. Don't know what his Drew Brees looked like, but I doubt it rose above the graffiti standard either. Why do street "artists" feel an obligation to inflict bad art on the public, and why do city politicians feel entitled to abet such visual crimes? Why can't a utility box just be a utility box? Or, why not get a cheap tattoo "artist" (is there any other kind?) to give you a bad tattoo if you need to make a statement to the public. At least it would be defacing our own property instead of the community property and you wouldn't have to worry about someone else inking over it.
It's rare to find a truly independent artist (with talent) anymore who's not on some government dole or reliant on some public "canvas" not their own.
Of course, those on the take cry the loudest.
jaydub said...
Her art looks like graffiti to me.
When the video started; i Assumed that was His art, and that she'd paint over it
But No! it was her art; the End Product
If the quarterback on the box had been Colin Kaepernick, it would have never been painted over.
Can I reserve judgement until I see what his portrait of Drew Brees looks like?
By endorsing any kind of graffiti, the city has endorsed the act itself regardless of sanction.
And let's point out something- she did deliberately paint over his "art". I don't give a shit if she had the city's permission to do so- she could have declined, but didn't.
Her argument is disingenuous. She talks about the the horriblesness of her art being painted over by this guy, but she painted over his art. Now she had city permission to paint, but that isn't the argument she is making. She is appealing to people's sense of the horribleness of art being destroyedl. But she destroyed existing art to make her art.
Noone has mentioned the perfectly named founder of the authorized weartists' group, Jeannie Tidy! Nominal destiny at work!
Noone has mentioned the perfectly named founder of the authorized artists' group, Jeannie Tidy! Nominal destiny at work!
Reminds me of this story. https://abc3340.com/news/local/business-license-required-for-teens-to-cut-grass
The city owns the boxes and gets to determine who gets to decorate the boxes. Them's the rules. This has nothing to do with "art" or if you like public art or not, or whether the artist is a woman and you can' stand the woman in this situation or how talented she is.
The guy who painted on a box by his own authority said in effect that he doesn't respect the basic social contract of living in a society and therefore he has no reason to expect or demand respect. His graffiti can be painted over without regret. That's the risk he has taken, and to use the sexist phrase, he should have been a man about it instead of a little boy. Unless he's mentally challenged and doesn't understand the city's program which is another situation. In that case if I were the authorized artist I would have notified the city and requested to be assigned another box. Why should she have to deal with some nut job or ahole?
Of course if his work is so fantastic that it gains public appreciation then that's another matter. I wouldn't be surprised if Banksy lost a lot of his early works because they were painted over. That's the whole point, if you are doing graffiti you can't be attached to the product. He probably would have moved on and found another place to paint his Drew Brees portrait even bigger, right?
My thoughts:
1. I find this lady's style of painting, which is very typical of this kind of street art, extremely garish. I don't think it beautifies the surroundings at all.
2. Authorized or not, if you're painting a utility box or any other outdoor fixture that's in a public space, you should not expect it to remain there permanently. If you want to create art that you can preserve forever, buy a canvass and get to work. I know artists tend to have an incredible sense of self-importance, but it's not workable to treat individual artists as if they are the owners of the walls, roads, or other things they are painting.
3. Don't local governments have enough work to do already without their getting into the business of deciding who gets to paint which utility boxes? I see programs like these as being primarily for the purpose of giving city staffers something fun and interesting to work on. It's clearly of no material benefit to the citizens, only some of whom even LIKE the resulting artwork.
Yancey Ward said...
By endorsing any kind of graffiti, the city has endorsed the act itself regardless of sanction.
-----------
is over-painting/painting-over Orwellian - censorship as state sanction?
He's unhappy the city authorized someone to paint over his work. Arguably, he was wronged by having his work destroyed. But it was replaced with art,* which he then promptly destroyed out of spite.
Since when do two wrongs make a right? If he wanted another box to paint he could have gotten one that didn't have a serious attempt at art* on it already (or had already been defaced by vandals, which I imagine happens pretty quickly).
* I would actually prefer the thing be painted all white like the guy did, but I was driven out of New Orleans a long time ago and don't get a vote.
I like her attitude.
Need to see what the first guy's art looked like.
The battle of artists is more art than the art of the artists. Their art is kitschy, but their interplay is expressive of significant questions of what art is and who decides, as well as when art gains meaning and value that should be respected by at least other artists. Both artists reject the validity and priority of the other and this also introduces the place of the state. Is state art meaning filled or always propaganda?
Also, in a more equitable world they would see that there are always many sides to such issues just as there are many sides to the box. Why must the state enforce a position on the meaning of art and why should the state take 2 years to do so? Is this an expression of the tyranny of the bureaucracy or its role as guardian of public interest?
Why isn't the box itself, plain and functional seen as art? What does the creator of this box have to say about those who want to deface the spare and focused original design?
Here is a post to consider public forum doctrine. Every 1A expression is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
A public park is the epitome of the most open public forum. Express yourself there. But if your expression creates a nuisance, the state can shut you down. Ward v Rock against Racism (1989).
On the other end, go to Minot AFB & try to express your 1A rights by merely snapping photos for your scrapbook. Is public property, right? Also is a nonpublic forum. Good luck with that.
Here, New Orleans has created a limited public forum (utility boxes). They get to choose who paints there. (time, place, manner). One could argue the rules are not reasonable, should not take two years to comply. Perhaps that is why Brees Man fell back to street art rules.
Cf. Perry Education Association v Perry Local Educators' Association (1983).
Yeah, my own reaction was "Who could possibly prefer this woman's technicolor effusions to what was there before? Or even to boring old blank grey?" And she's an idiot for painting over the guy's work and then saying, "But I'm different! I have a PERMIT!" Bleh.
"She is appealing to people's sense of the horribleness of art being destroyed!"
^^^^^THIS^^^^^
Authorized or not, she destroyed someone else's art. She has no right to expect others to respect her art any more than she respected other people's art. Her art isn't any more important or valuable than any other artist's.
A pox on all of their houses.
Very few categories of people rile me. But so-called "street artists"? I hate them.
Government picking winners and losers. It is what Government does.
Chump change here, presumably unpaid volunteer artists. Can we do some history subjects? Andy Jackson and Battle of New Orleans? Other famous local personages - Jeff Davis, Ben Butler? Local, State, and US flag series - including CSA and Dont Tread On Me?
But seriously. How about other examples of winners and losers. City permitting process, maybe taxicab licenses. And on up the levels of Government - County, State, Federal. Farm Subsidy programs; Bank, automobile, and other company bailouts; "Green Energy" subsidies.
Yancey Ward said...
By endorsing any kind of graffiti, the city has endorsed the act itself regardless of sanction.
Yes. Exactly.
Freeman Hunt,
Need to see what the first guy's art looked like.
Well, you can't. Ms. Tidy has seen to that.
As Justice Harlan noted, "...it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, at 25 (1971). Why should her art be considered valid and the other art be painted over? Can the government license someone to destroy art? We live in the great age of relativism - Heather Mattingly is a vandal and should be punished.
Traffic control boxes are to be seen but not noticed. I don't want some driver admiring the artwork on such a box while not noticing the car in front of him and then rear-ending it. There are enough distractions to draw the drivers notice away from traffic and pedestrians.
Public highway artwork should be simple so it can be appreciated with just a glance. Any longer and the driver is past it without knowing what the artwork is supposed to represent. Her images seemed to be complex and distracting. Paint them over with gray paint.
Maybe don't get super invested in creating art that anyone can paint over at any time? Dude painted that box without getting permission from any damn person. Is she really so surprised that it would happen again? Did she really think graffiti would stop existing just because she had a permit? That her painting on the box would stand inviolate forever? Or any time at all?
Plenty going on in NOLA:
CRIME: Video: Man opens fire on 18-wheeler driver in New Orleans
CRIME: Two men shot and another robbed in three separate crimes over weekend
Seems like those would be bigger stories, especially with the supply chain/trucking crisis.
But I guess those are "dog bites man" and the artist's story is "man bites dog."
If some person ever does bite a dog, I hope you will blog about it.
Create a tag for "Private seizing of public property"
1. Using utility boxes as personal canvas.
2. Rioters seizing streets in Kenosha, attacking any who object.
3. Surfers in Lunada Bay California attacking outsiders.
4. Homeless demanding the right to sleep on sidewalks.
5. Native American at Alcatraz
6. Bundy family grazing on federal land
7. Chicago residents clearing snow from parking space.
8. CHAZ - Capital Hill Autonomous Zone in Portland.
9. Lunch trucks opening restaurants in a parking space.
Or call it "Government failure to manage property". Agree that they are all private seizing of public property, some you will say "Well actualy, that one is a good thing"
"government-sanctioned artist"
No such thing. Unless you meant state-sponsored propagandist.
The "artist" who does not have permission to paint is committing a theft of public space. Any attack upon the artwork of the person with permission is an act of vandalism.
ONLY GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED COMMUNICATION ALLOWED!!!
Get it through your thick heads, people.
A government-supported artist is an incompetent whore!" ― Robert A. Heinlein
Her "art" stinks IMO. But her sense of self importance stinks more.
They could always compromise. She can paint it on Mondays and he can do it on Thursdays. Or he gets one half the box to paint and she gets the other.
Can't decide whether murals and street art are more third-worldy or banana-republicy or Soviet Uniony. Regardless, it's hideous
i just realized that there is a HUGE error in the you tube video
They refer to the white lady as "Heather Matinly"
Can we, ALL agree; that her first name is OBVIOUSLY, Karen?
Look at all these little rule-followers in the comments. Scurrying about. Picking up the authorized crumbs. His art is unauthorized therefore it's graffiti, he must be mentally challenged for breaking the social contract - a commenter wrote that unironically. I'm pretty sure, I'm a big fan of irony but no...this was serious.
That humorless and ignorant rule-followers exist is something that's always been apparent to me, ever since grade school. If someone in authority makes a rule, it must be followed, and there must be something wrong with people who don't. Following rules is happiness, or at least it reduces the emptiness, or the loneliness, because now we're following the rules...together.
They should settle it with a Pollock duel: Open paint cans with spoons at ten yards, at the count of three they throw spoonfuls of paint at each other. First one to cry or give up loses.
Rosalyn C.'s comment at 11:57 AM is the correct summary of this matter. Most of the other commenters here are simply using a fairly cut-and-dried dispute as pretext to make their own inane and inapt comments, according to their respective personal peeves.
I don't have a beef with rule-followers, but BB's comment cuts correctly if you do.
Her art isn't even awful. She shouldn't be surprised that the type of non-rule-follower who went through the effort to create a serious piece of art would retaliate. I would credit her with some moral priority so long as she didn't paint over anything actually worthy of preservation. It's a moral obligation to grant forbearance when your legal right if exercised would have severe adverse consequences on the public out of proportion to any cost in obtaining the permission slip.
I would be happy to live in a society of serious rule followers if the rule makers were not pricks.
Post a Comment