Dear editor:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
On one hand, legally, Ed was probably “wrong” to paint over the mural. Some thoughts on that are: private property, contract for space, free speech. And I’m not familiar enough with the whole clean-up-graffiti-in-the-neighborhood program to know how that would serve as a reasonable justification. It is true that one has to feel a bit bad for the guy hired to paint the mural/ad. In fact, I saw him out there again today repainting it in the 90-degree heat of the day. Ugh (he’s probably getting paid though). But is it “art”? Broadly defined, maybe. Art for hire.
I hope that the “urban youth” market they seem to be targeting will see through all of this–I mean, when I first saw the ad/mural at Division and Hoyne I had that moment of “Hey, that’s new. What is that? That’s kinda cool (eyes scanning from right side of mural to left to bottom, left-hand corner). Oh, it’s a stupid advertisement for crappy cologne or some such thing, fake art. Ugh–of course.” But in general, lots of people/consumers are probably just stupid enough to fall for it. And there’s their target market. Another tiny step toward the commercialization of everything. Yet one more addition to the clutter that evidences big-business America’s never ending, capitalistic, moneygrubbing drive to sell, sell, sell.
