The Monopology mural that Jersey City destroyed after two months cost it $2K

iGreg wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

foshizigity00 wrote:
@caj11 - you aren't very smart.

Care to elaborate? It remains fact that a state grant, coming from our state tax dollars was used to paint this mural, and part of that included a stipend paid to somebody who used to vandalize the city with his stupid graffiti no one wants to see. A criminal was rewarded, with our tax dollars, to paint this mural, while there are plenty of artists in Jersey City who never committed any crimes who could have painted the mural and been paid something for it. No, I am not one of them, nor do I have any that are friends or family, I've just met a few in passing and I know they can always use the work.

Yup, agreed (with Caj11).

Shepard Fairy was arrested many times before becoming an acclaimed 'recognized artist' who now runs a multi million dollar clothing and print company.

Dis Obey

Holla @ Yo Boyz

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

foshizigity00 wrote:
@caj11 - you aren't very smart.

Care to elaborate? It remains fact that a state grant, coming from our state tax dollars was used to paint this mural, and part of that included a stipend paid to somebody who used to vandalize the city with his stupid graffiti no one wants to see. A criminal was rewarded, with our tax dollars, to paint this mural, while there are plenty of artists in Jersey City who never committed any crimes who could have painted the mural and been paid something for it. No, I am not one of them, nor do I have any that are friends or family, I've just met a few in passing and I know they can always use the work.

Yup, agreed (with Caj11).

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

foshizigity00 wrote:
@caj11 - you aren't very smart.

Care to elaborate? It remains fact that a state grant, coming from our state tax dollars was used to paint this mural, and part of that included a stipend paid to somebody who used to vandalize the city with his stupid graffiti no one wants to see. A criminal was rewarded, with our tax dollars, to paint this mural, while there are plenty of artists in Jersey City who never committed any crimes who could have painted the mural and been paid something for it. No, I am not one of them, nor do I have any that are friends or family, I've just met a few in passing and I know they can always use the work.

foshizigity00 wrote:
@caj11 - you aren't very smart.

DanL wrote:

and in tv news -

http://pix11.com/2016/07/27/jersey-ci ... TE6Lb7LYME2VCdnkNZB_gf9B3

sorry this cannot be imbedded.

ecoindie wrote:
his needs to be at Cultural Affairs handled by another person, that is familiar with artists in the city and a community input process, which mirrors what is done in cities like Philadelphia----NOT Brooke Hannson, who is in DPW.

ecoindie wrote:
The Problem with this program is that its located at Department of Public Works (DPW). This needs to be at Cultural Affairs handled by another person, that is familiar with artists in the city and a community input process, which mirrors what is done in cities like Philadelphia----NOT Brooke Hannson, who is in DPW.

TheJSQuare wrote:
Just found this interview with the artist. Look what Brooke put him through! She's gotta go! No integrity at all.

NCAC: How did you get involved with the Jersey City mural program? How was your Monopoly board chosen? Did you have to change the original idea to fit the City?s requests?

GW: I had posted the [Jersey City] Monopoly drawing on Facebook, and Brooke [Hansson, Director of the Jersey City Mural Arts Program], who is in charge of the mural department at City Hall, said we should make it a mural. Of course I agreed! Knowing that the city was about to pay me to make this on a grand scale, I knew certain things would have to be changed. My thoughts were: the cop-as-a-pig sending me to jail would have to be altered, and the random weed references sprinkled throughout the board would probably have to be removed. I'm okay with that, because this had grown from a personal piece to a large-scale commission.

Upon meeting with Brooke, I had to change a few more things. I found this to be pretty silly, but the goal was to avoid people?s hypersensitivities. First thing that got the axe was the names of the projects. When I asked why, I was told ?it?s offensive to display the projects as a low income area,? as if the people living there don't know! I was told that putting Martin Luther King Drive (another low income area) next to the box with the Jail was insensitive, and I had to change the low-income squares from their original monopoly color of brown, because brown for the projects was insensitive. So they're purple now. Also, the term ?Gentrification Tax? would offend people, I was told. So I suggested calling it ?Hipster Tax,? and that was accepted.
Imo

Dear Mayor Fulop,

I am writing on behalf of the Arts Advocacy Program at the National Coalition Against Censorship. As an organization dedicated to promoting the First Amendment right to free speech, including freedom of artistic expression, we are troubled to learn of the series of arbitrary changes imposed by City officials on a public artwork commissioned for Jersey City, and especially by the censorship of the work and painting over part of it. We urge you to take the opportunity to learn from the mistakes made in this case and develop a public art policy for Jersey City.

It is our understanding that, in May, the Jersey City Mural Arts Program commissioned local artist Gary Wynans, aka Mr. AbiLLity, to create a 33-foot floor mural based on one of his existing works: a creative twist on the traditional Monopoly board game. Located on the busy pedestrian plaza at Newark Avenue, the mural replaces the game?s street names and other details with Jersey City street names and familiar local icons. The game?s focus on money and real estate is used to bring attention to income disparities and gentrification in real-life Jersey City.

The artist worked with Brooke Hansson, Director of the Jersey City Mural Arts Program, until a final design was agreed upon. Ms. Hansson demanded a number of modifications so as to avoid offense and controversy: for instance, she rejected the inclusion of the names of low-income housing projects and the mention of ?gentrification tax.? While those changes to the artist?s vision are troublesome, as they suppress key aspects of his message, even more troublesome are the series of modifications required after the mural was approved.

The element of the mural that became most controversial was the ?Jail? square representing the artist?s self-portrait, which some interpreted as representing a black man behind bars (Mr. Wynans is Italian and Puerto Rican). A number of residents, including state Assemblywoman Angela McKnight, said the image reinforced negative stereotypes of people of color and demanded that it be removed or changed. The City quickly yielded to those demands and painted over the image of the artist, leaving instead a blank orange square.

The City?s actions, based on what appear to be a series of subjective interpretations and individual complaints, raise serious First Amendment concerns. The practice of public officials using their power to arbitrarily remove elements of an artwork whose message some individuals do not like violates First Amendment principles. Government should not be forcing an artist, whose work they have selected for public installation, to modify their message so as to satisfy individual complainants. To do so would be to grant these individuals a heckler?s veto.

Indeed, while some may have found the representation of what appeared like a black man in the jail square offensive, others may have interpreted it as a critique of the racial biases of our criminal justice system. Respecting diversity does not mean suppressing everything that could potentially generate an objection. Indeed, given the fact that art is open to multiple, sometimes conflicting interpretations, such a standard would jeopardize the City?s entire Mural Arts Program.

Public art programs are a wonderful asset: they create a positive image of a city; they help development and give local artists expressive opportunities. However, public art by its very nature draws complaints and is exposed to controversy. For that reason we urge the City to develop a public art policy. We have seen how, in the current case, the lack of a clear public art selection and review process has forced the City to respond to complaints in an apparently arbitrary manner and censor the mural. This action is not only constitutionally suspect, it is also likely to put the City in a vulnerable position when other groups decide to complain about different works of public art: satisfying every complainant is likely to leave the whole program in shambles and create a negative image of the City as a censor.

We strongly suggest that, in the future, Jersey City puts in place a policy for the selection of art, as well as procedures for reviewing and responding to complaints consistent with First Amendment principles. We would also suggest that a review committee including local artists forms part of this process.

Sincerely,
Svetlana Mintcheva

Director of Programs
National Coalition Against Censorship New York

Kalen wrote:
I would not even call this a mural. It looks like a grade school project. It does nothing to enhance or beautify Newark Ave.

On almost my final day out there, I ran into a fella named Paul. He asked me if I could put his name on the mural. I jokingly asked his name and said I'd add ?Paul Avenue? right away, and just continued to work. He stopped me again and said, ?No, I meant my company.? This guy wasn't joking! I told Paul that all the squares were already taken, and that City Hall had made the decisions quite some time ago. He then got on his phone for about ten minutes. Fifteen minutes later, Brooke called me. ?How can we incorporate ?Charles & Co.? on the board?? she asked me.

What the hell is ?Charles & Co.?? Well, apparently they're the company that has been building condos, and they help out the city with funding. Sponsored squares. Wow, is this what its come down to? I would have calmly explained what a terrible idea that is, but at this point the butting of heads had peaked and no rational discussion could take place. Paul got his square. Take a chance on Charles & Co. Know you know who's really in charge of your fine city. And my heart broke.

JCMan8 wrote: Quote:

TonyTwoPoops wrote: Quote:

JCMan8 wrote: Quote:

TonyTwoPoops wrote: Quote:

JCMan8 wrote: Quote:

TonyTwoPoops wrote: How is everyone missing the best part? Must be nice to be Paul Silverman and have city hall always ready to kiss your ass and stroke your ego. On almost my final day out there, I ran into a fella named Paul. He asked me if I could put his name on the mural. I jokingly asked his name and said I'd add ?Paul Avenue? right away, and just continued to work. He stopped me again and said, ?No, I meant my company.? This guy wasn't joking! I told Paul that all the squares were already taken, and that City Hall had made the decisions quite some time ago. He then got on his phone for about ten minutes. Fifteen minutes later, Brooke called me. ?How can we incorporate ?Charles & Co.? on the board?? she asked me. What the hell is ?Charles & Co.?? Well, apparently they're the company that has been building condos, and they help out the city with funding. Sponsored squares. Wow, is this what its come down to? I would have calmly explained what a terrible idea that is, but at this point the butting of heads had peaked and no rational discussion could take place. Paul got his square. Take a chance on Charles & Co. Know you know who's really in charge of your fine city. And my heart broke. Wasn't Chicpea originally the one promoting this artist because she's oh so down with the art scene in JC? And now she has Silverman sponsoring her events? Sounds about right.

Why be sexist? You should be happy to see a fellow resident achieving commercial success from her passion.

Where do you see anything remotely sexist in the above statement? I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming to be helping the Jersey City art scene while having the same person shitting all over it funding your events. Not that I expect a conservative right wing troll like yourself to see anything ethically or morally wrong with that.

She's a nice lady just trying to do her thing, yet you routinely shit all over her when she's mentioned. I'd say that's sexist, considering you can very easily just ignore her.

So where is the evidence of sexism? Can't wait to hear it! Is it because she's a woman so we need to treat her like a giant infant? Because it's actually you being sexist if you think she should be treated with kid gloves just because she's female.

You know full well what you are doing. She's never said anything bad about you, yet you just can't help yourself from digging into her whenever you get a chance.