before
after
Click here for a paper from berkley university
Here is a breakdown of how this whole thing happened:
1. a couple people (unknown - but referred to as important people) in the neighbourhood complained about piece claiming it to be "threatening" and sent in photos of supposed tagging around the area after the piece went up in October.
2. the City "investigates" and couldn't trace the piece to "commissioned art" therefore it was labeled as "graffiti" and ordered to be removed.
3. The City gives Robert Markovits a chance to defend the piece as a "work of merit". So he did, but since the piece was not properly "commissioned" to city standards, the decision was made due to taste / appreciation of this style of art, which is called graffiti.
The story is:
Genoveva, the owner of the incredible Concord Café that has transformed the neighbourhood for local artist and musicians, was approached by a group of youth to have a graffiti event at her café as a part of a festival that was happeneing at the time (last October). The graffiti artists used her café to give lessons on graffiti and support their youth programs and requested Genoveva to get permission for them to paint the side of Robert's building since it was covered with severe tagging (as shown in the photograph). Robert found out after the fact what the piece looked like yet he still considers it a work of merit and art.
Genoveva did not go through a granting process to have the youth paint the mural. She paid for their paint supplies and she helped them out as much as she could. I called Scott Mills, a Crime Stoppers / Graffiti Art Youth program police officer because I had heard rumors that the piece was done by his program. He said it was not done by his team, however he knew the leader very well and said that he would have approved of his work if he had approached him.
Genoveva had over 200 signatures from her Concord Café customers against the removal of the graffiti. She faxed it to the appropriate City department. Ineffective.
The questions here are:
Why is graffiti art considered a misrepresentation of the neighbourhood and why does "taste" in art play a role in city decisions?
Why does a property owner have to defend his own decisions on his property?
Should the property owner have to pay for graffiti removal? Should there be a respect paid to the collective youth group that put up the peice? What is the best way to resolve this sensitive issue?
The same property owner has given up his empty storefront to be TheStoreFront, meaning he appreciates creativity and innovation in community building.
Let Joe Pantalone (councillor_pantalone [at] toronto.ca) know what you think
cc Ghazaleh Etezal (ghazaleh [at] thestorefrontcommunity.com)
back