MCLA Home Page
MCLA NEWSLETTER
Volume 11, Number 1 -- Spring, 2001
IN THIS ISSUE: |
|
Silicate Paint and Substrata, by Nathan Zakheim
The Mural Doctor compares the two in the context of the local mural environment. |
|
John Valadez' Layers of Urban Life, by Margarita Nieto
Victor Clothing Building Sold Peeling back the layers of urban life in Los Angeles. Also, noting the sale of the landmark mural building. |
|
Hector Ponce Mural Threatened by Public Works Dept., by Robin Dunitz
|
| de la Loza Mural Painted Over, Settlement in the Offing, by Robert Rootenberg |
| African-American Murals Exhibit at Still Center |
| Romero's "Going to the Olympics", an image update |
| Robin Dunitz' Regular Column: L.A.'s Newest Murals Robin Dunitz’ regular column adds a look at the best new murals in the L.A. area. |
| Murals Protected by MCLA's Mural Rescue Program |
| Cultural Affairs Department's mural approval policy |
| Graffiti, it is well known, ebbs and flows with the constant coming and going of new generations of adolescents. The impact on public murals in the L.A. area is significant because tagging in general is far more widespread here than almost anywhere, and whenever it becomes a favored sport it spreads rapidly. But the sudden and nearly complete tagging of nearly every one of the more than forty freeway murals in Los Angeles is without precedent. Until late last year the freeway murals have actually enjoyed a period of relative calm for about eight years. Not that local taggers were entirely inactive, but the problem had grown steadily throughout the 1980s to become the focal point of considerable concern to area residents. |
 Earlier generation tags from 1992 on Kent Twitchell’s “Seventh Street Altarpiece.” Current wave of tags are much larger, with graphic color fills. Photo: Robin Dunitz. |
|
The emergence of a new generation of vandalism, however, has focused on freeway murals in a new and chilling way. No mural appears to be considered out of bounds, and the sheer size of these tags aggressively pushes the mural into the background.
MCLA has to date protected a group of eight of these murals with sacrificial coating, leaving over thirty others either protected under another aegis or unprotected altogether. No formal assessment has been made, but it is presumed that some of these murals may be damaged beyond repair. Unfortunately a handful of the murals have been further damaged by the state’s road maintenance agency Caltrans’ crews, who have painted out the offending graffiti irrespective of the artwork underneath. It has been reported that in two cases, Kent Twitchell’s “Seventh Street Altarpiece” and Alonzo Davis’ “Eye on ‘84,” murals that receive sacrificial coating protection from MCLA were painted over. While MCLA has had this paint removed by the contractor, the fact remains that Caltrans rushed to paint over the murals in spite of the fact that the agency has records showing that MCLA protects them. MCLA has sought to formulate a way to coordinate with state agencies in order to assure that these murals are protected (see accompanying article for this discussion). As a California Arts Council staffer pointed out, “The State has no policies nor procedures to account for the maintenance of public art owned by California.” The reference was not merely to public murals, but any public art. In certain of these cases a sponsor has stepped forward to foot the cost of restoring the affected mural, as was the case when the L.A. Amateur Athlectic Foundation provided funding for Frank Romero to recreate his “Going to the Olympics” mural, located downtown on the 101 Freeway. But the investing of relatively expensive commissions of this sort is the exception not the rule, and unless effective solutions are put in place soon Los Angeles as a host to significant murals in high visibility public locations could become a thing of the past. The State’s art agency may be sympathetic, but until helpful policies are in place the occasional Caltrans misadventure remains a real concern. L.A. City’s Cultural Affairs Department has been far more active in its efforts to develop assessment procedures that benefit public art that the City owns and has had commissioned. Last year a panel provided a ranking survey of about one hundred of these murals according to their merits. There is also a maintenance budget for conserving selected murals. Indeed, during the last year about ten City-owned murals received professional care. Unfortunately there are limits to this positive trend even within city government. At least two murals were recently destroyed, or theatened with destruction, by the city (see accompanying stories, page 7). The threat of graffiti is not only the most pervasive among these problems, it is a constant sword of Damocles poised against the vitality of the local mural movement. It not only draws resources that might otherwise go towards better enhancing the urban environment, it contributes to a psychological climate that stunts the creation of top quality public art. But it cannot be ignored that government has, on the whole, not only failed to be very helpful, but has served to make matters worse. It may well be that the simple understanding that public art is a very real and valuable asset may at last be translated into an appropriate set of policies. If it is not, at least in Los Angeles, those assets could well be lost. |
MCLA’s FREEWAY MURAL PROTECTION PROPOSALS |
