LEOPOLD SAYS NO TO PUBLIC MURAL ~ Annapolis Capital Punishment
1:

Monday, January 7, 2008

LEOPOLD SAYS NO TO PUBLIC MURAL


I agree with County Executive Leopold that the outdoor mural on Arundel Center is inappropriate. I am going out on a limb here, and I know some folks may over-react, but he had a tough decision to make, and one that would certainly place him in the unenviable position of being, well something that's not a nice thing. But look at the photos and article about the artwork in The Capital (photos by The Capital to the left) www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2008/01_06-16/TOP and judge for yourself. While it might take thousands of words and hours of discussion to truly understand and make a position clear on such a matter, it's risky to come out and say "No", but Leopold did just that. I don't know about the agreements, process, history or the politics behind this display, but it's sure easy for former Exec Janet Owens, who has not been seen or heard from in a year, to come out of the dark and make a statement about it. While I greatly respect Council Members Benoit and Cohen, it is also easy for them to take a stance in opposition to Leopold, but if they were in his shoes where they had to say yea or nay, they might think differently.

The Arundel Center presents a hugely imposing brick wall to Calvert Street at the edge of our precious historic district. It's a poor design that instead of being grand or exquisite, as a public building should be, it's simply grandiose. Landscaping, facade changes or artwork would be nice, but the building may not lend itself to that very well. But, the artwork in question is out of place for a variety of reasons. As far as CP is concerned, our local leaders should be focusing on the crime and poverty across the street. While public art projects can sometimes be very positive things to alleviate crime and poverty, this project is not such a thing. It's an eyesore.

Having said that, perhaps it can be turned into something positive. Maybe it can be displayed for a month or two and a public discussion about the role of art in public, and not just that art, could take place. Perhaps local school children could write about it in an essay contest. Perhaps Mr. Leopold could invite local community leaders in for a discussion about cleaning up Clay Street. Or perhaps we could just do nothing and let everyone just fume about it.

6 Comments:

Anonymous said...

THe huge sign by near Starbucks at the city dock is much more inappropriate. Who allowed that?

Also.... at this point the propriety is less the issue than the collateral damage that is creates.

Paul Foer said...

frg...I counted about ten typos or errors in your three sentence comment. Would you care to send a more coherent comment that would clarify what you mean by "the propriety is less the issue than the collateral damage that is creates."?
Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I disagree. The painting seems fine to me, certainly not an eyesore. I just don't see why the county executive would concern himself with this. I guess it comes down to a matter of taste, which should never be left to the government.

Paul Foer said...

Someone or some group has to make such decisions and apparently it was his to make. We are talking about a highly visible public building. Beauty and art are always in the eye of the beholder, and so it would appear that the process to make such a decision has been flawed and unclear. Someone had to act and that apparently fell to Mr. Leopold.
Regardless of the historic reality or the political nature of the art, I find it unattractive and ill fitting. I hold to my original belief that it is an eyesore and inappropriate for a public place. Displaying it inside a public building or on a smaller scale or for a shorter term might be appropriate, but it's not aesthetically pleasing, is way too big and the face is in my face. However, as I said, I certainly hope something positive can come out of this.

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to argue about whether it's pleasing to the eye or not. In fact, I agree that the original mock-up is preferable. But more importantly, it's never a good idea to allow the government to become the taste police.

Paul Foer said...

Well, if the local government is being the "taste police" by not allowing an art exhibit, I suppose they are also being the "taste police" by permitting the exhibit. Should we allow anything to be displayed?

blogger templates | Make Money Online