This is a Letter to the Editor I wrote tonight regarding a recent article in the Pitt News. [EDIT: A slightly clipped version of this letter was just published in the April 22 issue.]
This is a response to Jenelle Pifer’s article about Bob Ziller’s mural painting initiatives around Pittsburgh. Murals are ubiquitous in just about every Pittsburgh neighborhood, most noticeably in ones which are, as the article describes them, “run-down.” Many of these murals are valuable and effective: for example, some carry strong overtones of environmental sustainability. Shepard Fairey’s recent murals publicly exhibit provocative content while implicitly legitimizing Pittsburgh as a fosterer of relevant and marketable art. While I appreciate the role that well-executed murals can play in affecting the collective consciousness of residents in an urban community, as well as the power that its content can have to influence ideas and galvanize action, an essential criticism is decidedly absent from Pittsburgh’s dependence on them.
Murals should not be considered a solution for anything except how to make a particular exterior wall more aesthetically pleasing. “Beautification” is an accurate term for what it describes–it makes underdeveloped areas seem prettier by covering them in paint. In fact, murals do nothing to solve the problem of abandoned and/or dilapidated buildings, of which there are disturbingly many in Pittsburgh. A lot is being done to renovate buildings in historic districts so that they may be repurposed and become useful to the community or potential residents (East Carson St. is a perfect example of how successful redevelopment can be), but the problem of downtrodden areas remains a major one for Pittsburgh. When the G-20 came to Pittsburgh, I was saddened to see abandoned buildings covered with flashy banners in areas through which dignitaries might pass. It seemed disingenuous to Pittsburgh’s claim as a progressive city in the midst of an economic and cultural renaissance of sorts.
While Ziller’s accomplishments in community-building should be applauded and his efforts taken seriously, it is important to realize that, ultimately, murals are to problem areas what very colorful Band-Aids are to broken legs. They “beautify,” but they do not in any way fix the real socioeconomic issues at stake for run-down buildings and neighborhoods. Making a neglected building more appealing from the sidewalk does not mean our job is done there.
I think it’s not only a matter of “beautification” as you point out, but rather a dependence on a misunderstanding of communal planning. I cannot claim to know Pittsburgh, but in New York City, murals have come to signify the gentrification of a neighborhood. At least that’s what planners would like to believe.
A breed of Deleuzian theory is creeping its way into planners and architects lately–and with good reason–but many seem to be operating on a misunderstanding or half-baked notion of emergent concepts. Too often, neighborhoods–and those who plan them–are given murals because it is believed a bottom-up reaction will occur. However, the murals tend to only be, as you say, Band-Aids because they do not engage the neighborhood in any way other than visually. For lesser neighborhoods to better themselves, there has to be a systematic push for revitalization efforts to engage not only the physical infrastructure of a neighborhood but also the variables which ultimately define the programmatic characteristics within: the residents.
The dependence on something like murals is, to me, a symptom of a larger problem. Rather than approaching community-building in such a way that encourages residents to take a stake in their neighborhood, planners and architects largely dress up the area in the hopes higher income brackets will be attracted. Ultimately, this results in only a displacement of the residents and an amplification of the issues affecting lower-income residents.
When I look up “mural myrtle beach”, the first result is the inside of our local Abuelo’s (a mexican restaurant with locations in fifteen states). I actually think that fairly accurate sums up the public’s attitude towards murals as “high art”.