The Great Wall of Chicago

Censorship is back in a big way. You would think that Chicago, Illinois; one of the largest cities in the one of the most powerful and advanced countries on the planet would be a safe harbor for art.

So, you would think...

Recently I fell into a meeting at the local Aldermans office concerning the white walling of a local series of murals on Bloomingdale street entitled the Great Wall of Chicago. This wall hosts pieces from  well known artists from New York to L.A. The wall itself has been published now in several art books and forums.

Four years ago several groups of artists approached the Alderman to have the walls painted. The Image Co-op group focused on the project and was granted some funding and permission.

After the project began, residents from the condos across the street began to complain about the content and style of art. 

The condo association had asked the alderman to paint the walls white. The Image Co-op was asked to redraft more appropiate sketches and submit them to a panel. They have suggested several alternatives ranging from framing the Graffitti inspired art or painting a Russian style history of the neighborhood. They have heard nothing in response. The condo association was supposed to contribute some funds in order to continue the project, but has frozen all monies. 

Each wall panel costs about $1000 dollars and the Chicago climate only allows for seasonal painting.

Manny Flores was quoted in saying "I support the mural and will continue to support the mural." He is caught in the middle of an issue that is bigger than the massive mural itself. 

The alderman was one of the first people to be an active part of the initial mural project, he was one of the first people to approve it and even painted a dove of peace on one panel with some of the children the Co-op mentors, but he claims he was never shown any preliminary sketches (which he had requested) and he has recieved complaints about some work that seems to have sexually condescending content towards women. The artists are trying to reach out to the residents to engage the issue, but it seems to be on hold. What confuses me is why the condo association should even have a say pertaining to public property. Besides the residents, the wall is viewed by riders on the train. Their opinion has not been recorded. There were also some complications before the project began due to conflicting opinions from other artists interested in the wall space, but that does not negate the core of the issue.

The condo group really don't want the "graffitti style" element in their back yards.

At the meeting a group of determined artists representing the artists from out of state vocalized their perspectives and convinced the alderman to postpone the white wall until an alternative was agreed upon or until more options have been sought out.

If the wall is painted over, it will most likely become fodder for rival gangs to mark up again which costs the city tax payer dollars to remove and instigates vio-le

nce while defacing public property. (In the four years the wall has been painted; it has not been defaced by any gang writing or tagging.) Not to mention the act of painting over the walls is alone very expensive. 

Over all, as stated by one of the artists at the meeting: The act of painting over art murals is equivilant to burning books. Another artists compared this ac

t to Nazi Germany. 

The alderman did not want these comparissions to taint his ward and was very interested in resolving the issue quickly.

Even so, the comparrisons ring true in other aspects of society. Culture is not safe, even in Chicago 2008.