Comments on: Art Commission Votes Again on Mural Sites

By: Cindy Overmyer

Cindy Overmyer — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:13:07 +0000

I’m all for murals, but wish & hope that they will be much more visually interesting than the ones I’ve seen so far around town. With so many visual inspirations around, like the Huron River, people downtown, Ann Arbor views, I hope these new murals are not like the one on the back of the Grizzly Peak restaurant bldg., which looks quite graffiti-ish and out of place (and already has graffiti problems). No skull & crossbones imagery please, no matter how “hip”, “edgy” or “trendy” it may be!

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:30:34 +0000

Murals can add greatly, but they need to be done in a manner that clearly prevents the completed work from being little more than a “bill-board” or commercial-looking thing. The Sistine Chapel is mural work. The murals in post offices and courthouses nation-wide that were done during the Great Depression are certainly not “bill-board” or “commercial advertising-like” in their content and quality of workmanship. Murals can be long-lasting too. What it takes is an artist who is thoroughly knowledgeable of the medium and substrates that the mural is placed on and is also capable of quality work.

By: LiberalNIMBY

LiberalNIMBY — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:30:06 +0000

I truly appreciate the time and creative energy folks are dedicating to bringing more art to the city. But “more” public art doesn’t necessarily mean an overall increase in the quality of public art.

Sadly, I think that a mural rarely enhances an area and most often detracts from it. In my experience, they are typically placed in areas where 1) people need to be distracted from the unattractive surroundings, 2) it’s designed to annoy drug dealers, and/or 3) there’s a need to stave off graffiti vandals (and even this is temporary). In addition, if these murals do not come with adequate budgets to ensure ongoing repair and maintenance, they tend to quickly look worse than the original “blank slate.” (If we’re talking about simple graffiti prevention, major cities have found that a zero tolerance graffiti policy—where graffiti gets painted over within 24 hours—is both the most effective and cheapest option over the long term.)

I guess I have a problem with the fact that there’s a “mural program” to begin with. (Once a task force is given a budget, why, they’re going to spend it!) Was there a strong public sentiment that Ann Arbor needs more murals versus other art media? Can you think of any neighborhood in any city you’ve visited that you remember being really enhanced by the presence of an outdoor mural?

Sculptures? Yes. Tile work? Yes. Fountains? Yes. Trees? Yes. Murals? No. My vote would be that we save up this mural money for things of lasting value. This mural project smacks of just a way to “get more art, period” at a cost that sneaks under the $20,000 council approval threshold but doesn’t account for the hidden costs of ongoing maintenance.