AnonymousJanuary 20, 2013 at 10:03 PM
Maybe the issue is direction, or the lack thereof. It seems to be that a lack of direction, of unified theme, of a desire to not only celebrate art, but USE art to celebrate the heritage and history of the city.
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1649278,00.html
Take a look at one of the country's most successful mural projects and see if you can see the difference.
Just .02
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1649278,00.html
Take a look at one of the country's most successful mural projects and see if you can see the difference.
Just .02
_______________________________________________________________
[I thought this deserved a proper reply in its own post and I also left it in the comments section in the original.]
Putting aside the rampant condescension in your comment, my thoughts: I have nothing against the way Philadelphia handled their mural arts program. Unlike St. Petersburg, they raised money to fund the paint and pay the artists. The average was ten to fifteeen thousand dollars per mural. That is decidedly not what is happening here.
There is no reason we should emulate Philadelphia. This is not a question of decoration, as in having the art match like curtains and drapes. Has anyone noticed graffiti has stopped? Not because of experts telling us what to do or policing, but because of the initiative of the pioneering street artists to whom we are indebted for this wave of murals.
Direction? Someone wants to be Director, and as Anon states, "USE the art". What has happened in St. Petersburg is a celebration of art in its purest, independent form. Art does not have to be uniform, allow itself to be used for anyone else's agenda, or celebrate anything, in any particular way. It is up to the artist, as long as the work does not trample on legally established community standards.
There is no reason we should emulate Philadelphia. This is not a question of decoration, as in having the art match like curtains and drapes. Has anyone noticed graffiti has stopped? Not because of experts telling us what to do or policing, but because of the initiative of the pioneering street artists to whom we are indebted for this wave of murals.
Direction? Someone wants to be Director, and as Anon states, "USE the art". What has happened in St. Petersburg is a celebration of art in its purest, independent form. Art does not have to be uniform, allow itself to be used for anyone else's agenda, or celebrate anything, in any particular way. It is up to the artist, as long as the work does not trample on legally established community standards.
Anonymous does not seem to understand the most basic ideas about art.
I clearly SEE and reject the difference, and am more than impressed with the diversity, pluralism and quality of the Murals of Saint Petersburg. What the City should be doing is publicly and proudly honoring the artists who began this wave. Graffiti has become a thing of the past. People are coming here to see the works.
The time for all this desire for control and uniformity was back when there was nothing happening. You should have spearheaded it, and raised the $10-15,000 dollars/mural for the artists. That would have been a long line to apply for that money, but it is too late. St. Petersburg artists and their art are not mass-produced or uniformly conventional any more than its citizenry is, and the murals reflect it.
This City, its people and artists can see the murals and proudly say "This is who we are".
