Boston Magazine reports on the bureaucratic no-go for a memorial mural at the old Bartlett bus yard, which is supposed to be turned into a temporary art and community center this summer before it's torn down completely for new construction.
The article doesn't explicitly say which city officials are blocking the mural plans, but it involves permits, which might make one wonder if it's the same TLA that once threatened to shut down a Boloco for serving burritos without a permit - at a city-sponsored event for which the city had asked it to donate food.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Not even two full weeks for us to stop caring
By Will LaTulippe
Fri, 04/26/2013 - 10:42pm
That's quick, even by Boston standards. Bravo. Take a bow.
I mean, the artists clearly care.
"The wall of hope"
By anon
Sat, 04/27/2013 - 7:42am
It looks like a bunch of graff artist doing pieces around a small mural. It just look more like self promoting than actual care for those hurt!
Bricks > Bad Art
By BlackKat
Sat, 04/27/2013 - 9:37am
I really hate to sound like a curmudgeon, but really murals just make a neighborhood look like they've got poverty and crime issues. OF course that neighborhood has had those issues, but you don't want to advertise. And artistically, I find murals to be tacky and not pleasant to look at.
Bare bricks will always look better than paint. It should be a criminal act to paint a brick building in a solid color on purpose (not to mention that just causes any masonry problems to be deferred and worsen). Painting it more than one color is just worse. They should sandblast off the paint that is there already.
The one and only exception to my feelings on graffiti art might be Banksy, but even then I find myself asking "Why not just use a canvas?" It would avoid situations like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/feb/18...
Ultimately, if the building is to be saved or re-purposed, doing anything to cover the bricks further would be a horrible thing to do. And if the building is not worth saving then anything painted there would just cause people to bitch when it was time to knock it down.
You need to get out more, then
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 04/27/2013 - 10:31am
Like, visit places like San Francisco, where they are a vibrant part of the urban landscape.
Besides, this mural is due to be torn down with the building. Who cares what they paint?
Pics or the vibrancy didn't
By anon
Sat, 04/27/2013 - 12:49pm
Pics or the vibrancy didn't happen.
Because once it's painted,
By NotWhitey
Sat, 04/27/2013 - 12:50pm
Because once it's painted, then they'll go to court to stop the destruction of a work of art. This is the right call.
You are correct, sir.
By anon
Sat, 04/27/2013 - 5:52pm
This is exactly what happened with a bus terminal in Arlington.
http://arlington.patch.com/articles/what-is-going-...
Actually, you're kind of wrong
By ABBQ
Sat, 04/27/2013 - 10:38am
Painting brick is not always a bad idea. I won't go into the artistic merit of city-wide murals or the defining of neighborhoods based thereof, but I have to point out that in some instances, painting brick can be a good idea.
It should noted that masonry lighthouses are often painted due to the extreme marine environment as well as the ability for ships to see the lighthouses, especially at dusk.
Further, there are varying quality of brick masonry and mortar and the lesser quality needs to be painted to ensure long life. It should also be noted that once the decision is made to paint brick, it's permanent and does add to the maintenance cost of the wall/building.
Brick needs to breathe. If
By anon
Sat, 04/27/2013 - 1:56pm
Brick needs to breathe. If painted with the wrong type of paint moisture will become trapped and the brick & mortar will start to fail over several frost cycles.
To give some context- these
By anon
Sat, 04/27/2013 - 6:13pm
To give some context- these buildings will be knocked down around November (a large development is going to take its place). So this will be a temporary mural either way.
Yup. Central Square,
By Judy
Sun, 04/28/2013 - 11:45am
Yup. Central Square, Cambridge. Crime central and armpit of the western world. http://bit.ly/12DWUCw
Do you even think before typing?
I seem to remember
By anon
Sat, 04/27/2013 - 5:34pm
I seem to remember hearing/reading about a Boston city policy several years ago about discouraging murals because of questionable artistic skill [there is/was a mural on Highland Ave (?) in Somerville where a girl is inadvertently depicted doing a kind of spread-eagle, come-hither look that is really pretty vulgar] and also because once the murals start to deteriorate they look pretty terrible. There's also some belief that they encourage graffiti (some of which is much better than the murals they cover...)
San Francisco aside, nothing says "helpless, low-income area" better than a mural painted on the side of a building.
Bland and Boring
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 04/27/2013 - 9:51pm
Nothing says "artless, gutless, innovation-fearing area" like piles of bland red brick everywhere, even in the middle of the roadways and on uninspired tall buildings. (but hey - some have palladian windows ... woohoo!)
I guess the tyranny of red brick is better looking than soviet bloc architecture - slightly warmer, cozier perhaps.
Wandering SanFrancisco, which is as old as many East Coast cities, I wondered how much different Boston would look if actual change were forced upon it more frequently by natural disasters. By 2100 we will know.
Yep. Oh, if only those piles
By Anon
Thu, 05/02/2013 - 3:11pm
Yep. Oh, if only those piles of unadorned red brick in the Back Bay, South End, and Beacon Hill could be covered with murals. Oh, wait....
Don't Put it in Roxbury
By anon
Mon, 04/29/2013 - 11:51pm
The mural should be in Copley where the event took place. Putting it in Roxbury would only gentrify the community further and attract people who aren't apart nor devoted to the community! With that said, leave Roxbury alone. It is not for sale.
Add comment