Detroit Beautification Project - Eastern Market Murals Vandalized

[warsaw7]

In the last 24 hours someone has vandalized several murals in Eastern Market, part of the Detroit Beautification Project [[DBP). The murals vandalized were on the Omnicorp Building and both sides of 1550 Winder Street. These murals were commissioned by each building owner and were untouched since their inception in 2012. This is pathetic, I don't care if you like street art/graffiti/whatever you want to call it, you don't go over someone else's piece, let alone building, after the motive of the DBP was to inspire and create some positive in the city. See below for pictures. Speechless, just plain out speechless.

[Gistok]

Sorry... neither image is viewable...

[warsaw7]

Sorry about that!

[animatedmartian]

I do suppose artists of these murals are aware of the risk, but really it looks like the vandal did this out of spite. Maybe another suburban kid thinking they're cool with a bucket of paint.

[mikeg19]

You know how it goes in this city. One step forward, 500 steps backward. I really applaud the people who stick it out and continue to dream that one day Detroit can become the vibrant city it had the makings to become 75 years ago. When you read stuff like this, it really just makes you wanna throw up yours hands and say fuck it. But we can't.

[cla1945]

Nothing surprises me when it comes to the destruction of Detroit. Nothing is scared in the entire city. Some people don't give two sHi&@ about historical, memorable places. It makes me sad to see what Detroit [[such a great place to live and work in years ago) has become. Now, all we have is memories.

[gvidas]

That sucks.

Murals are fundamentally ephemeral. I don't think that this entirely defeats the idea that a good mural is a graffiti deterrent -- these were up for a year or two, graffiti-free, before this happened.

Really, the part of it that's hugely dickish is that it happened right at the beginning of winter. If it were April, I'd just say "too bad, time for a new painting." But as far as I'm concerned it's too cold for outdoor painting -- even if you're willing to do the physical act, your paint won't cure properly.

[1953]

Promoting graffiti as art has its drawbacks, I suppose.

[Gpwrangler]

Nothing surprises me when it comes to the destruction of Detroit. Nothing is scared in the entire city. Some people don't give two sHi&@ about historical, memorable places. It makes me sad to see what Detroit [[such a great place to live and work in years ago) has become. Now, all we have is memories.

Scrappers are worse. The stuff they've destroyed to make a few bucks is amazing. There should be a bounty on them.

[Jimaz]

Maybe next time they can protect it with a stealthy layer of something like Saran Wrap. That way if someone messes it up, they can just peel off the damage. But that's probably not practical in the weather. Maybe there's an opportunity here for some other clever invention.

Silver Linings Я Us™

[Dumpling]

PPG makes anti-graffiti clearcoats. Also there is a product called "Elephant Snot [[TM)"
made by "Graffiti Solutions" said to be locally available at Fingerle Lumber in Ann Arbor.
I haven't tested these out but there is a graffiti field at the corner of my street and
Warren Avenue that really wants the attention. The clearcoats might repel intended
coats of paint as well; I don't know. Surfing, I was amused to see that Elephant Snot
cannot be used to remove graffiti from saguaro near Tucson because it is corrosive
and injures the saguaro. It is said to be good for removing graffiti from porous construction materials such as brick and can be washed away with a pressure washer and water.

[Jimaz]

Saguaro is a cactus for the curious. It's sad that they have a graffiti problem when their lifespan is over 100 years.

[sumas]

When one owns an old home, hardware stores become like life blood. Going to Busy bee Monday and wish I could capture on film requesting, elephant snot, for a local abandoned school. Too funny. love the name!

[Dumpling]

The neighborhood young folk will most likely want to pitch in and help - please if you
can make sure that they have the right gloves etcetera for their health and safety.
Parents on hand would be a plus.
My own little horror story goes like this. I didn't have a large wardrobe when I was
young. One day I realized that I'd gotten paint all over my last pair of pants that didn't
have holes in them or paint on them, so they needed to be cleaned right away, which I
used turpentine to do, then continued to wear these pants for the rest of the day.
The next day I felt like I had the flu [[though I was better the day after, other than now
having a tendency to keep clothes on hand long after they've become rags).

[Ray1936]

Promoting graffiti as art has its drawbacks, I suppose.

I dunno. The only thing holding up most of the railroad overpasses is the graffiti.

[warsaw7]

When one owns an old home, hardware stores become like life blood. Going to Busy bee Monday and wish I could capture on film requesting, elephant snot, for a local abandoned school. Too funny. love the name!

Please get out of the pool immediately.

[Wesley Mouch]

Promoting graffiti as art has its drawbacks, I suppose.

Was my first reaction. The irony of graffiti on graffiti.

Stepping back, I think calling any public art graffiti is oversimplification. Graffiti in my mind anyway was the illicit part of the act. Not the quality of what was put on. Clearly there is some modern-day graffiti that has high artistic value. Some does not.

In a civilized society, nobody should be destroying or marking anything that belongs to anyone else.

[gvidas]

Was my first reaction. The irony of graffiti on graffiti.

Stepping back, I think calling any public art graffiti is oversimplification. Graffiti in my mind anyway was the illicit part of the act. Not the quality of what was put on. Clearly there is some modern-day graffiti that has high artistic value. Some does not.

In a civilized society, nobody should be destroying or marking anything that belongs to anyone else.

Our fair city has recently offered a set of definitions.

What is defined as graffiti?

The city defines graffiti in municipal code section 9-1-3: "Unauthorized drawings, lettering, illustrations or other graphic markings on the exterior of a building, premises or structure which are intended to deface or mar the appearance of the building, premises or structure."

Are murals graffiti?

No. The code defines art murals in section 3-7-2 as "any mosaic, painting or graphic art, which is applied to a building and does not contain any brand name, product name, letters of the alphabet that spell or abbreviate the name of any product, company, profession or business or any logo, trademark, trade name or any other type of commercial message."

[Jimaz]

When one owns an old home, hardware stores become like life blood. Going to Busy bee Monday and wish I could capture on film requesting, elephant snot, for a local abandoned school. Too funny. love the name!

Marketing genius. eh? Who could forget that name?

Found a couple of demo videos:

• Elephant Snot Field Application
• Elephant Snot Graffiti Remover in Action on Split Faced Block

It looks like it works pretty well. I'd ask an expert before using a pressure washer on brick & mortar though. I've read they can weaken concrete surfaces.

Of course in this thread's case the Elephant Snot would likely remove the original mural as well unless it was somehow protected. Bummeroni with cheese.

[Mark Smiles]

Our fair city has recently offered a set of definitions.

The way I read it, the ordinance should be found unconstitutional, and those who enacted it are certainly guilty of not defending the Constitution.

“Commercial speech” is simply an arbitrary distinction, and restricts free speech, because commercial speech is simply a form of free speech. I don’t care if someone wants to call speech, religious, political, commercial, whatever, it’s all free speech. We should defend all our rights from government encroachment.

[Wesley Mouch]

The way I read it, the ordinance should be found unconstitutional, and those who enacted it are certainly guilty of not defending the Constitution.

“Commercial speech” is simply an arbitrary distinction, and restricts free speech, because commercial speech is simply a form of free speech. I don’t care if someone wants to call speech, religious, political, commercial, whatever, it’s all free speech. We should defend all our rights from government encroachment.

I found that a very odd distinction as well. Mr. Warhol's 'soup cans' would seem to have been prohibited.

I know many politicians don't like it, but the idea that individuals and groups of individuals [[unions & corporations) can speak freely has been clearly upheld by the highest court in the land. This is a very simple idea. Free speech can't be limited, except for a few safety and slander exceptions.

[animatedmartian]

All the vandalizations can be traced to a local graffiti painter by the name Sintex. He's having a fit that all these murals are done by out-of-towners.

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2014/1...ly-in-detroit/

[rjlj]

Narcissistic Loser.

All the vandalizations can be traced to a local graffiti painter by the name Sintex. He's having a fit that all these murals are done by out-of-towners.

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2014/1...ly-in-detroit/

[erikd]

The way I read it, the ordinance should be found unconstitutional, and those who enacted it are certainly guilty of not defending the Constitution.

“Commercial speech” is simply an arbitrary distinction, and restricts free speech, because commercial speech is simply a form of free speech. I don’t care if someone wants to call speech, religious, political, commercial, whatever, it’s all free speech. We should defend all our rights from government encroachment.

I found that a very odd distinction as well. Mr. Warhol's 'soup cans' would seem to have been prohibited.

I know many politicians don't like it, but the idea that individuals and groups of individuals [[unions & corporations) can speak freely has been clearly upheld by the highest court in the land. This is a very simple idea. Free speech can't be limited, except for a few safety and slander exceptions.

Mark and Wesley,

There are two basic issues that you are questioning here:

1. Are sign ordinances constitutional? Does the government have the right to regulate or place any restrictions on signage?

2. Is it constitutional to make a distinction between public art and commercial signage? Does the government have the right to draw a distinction between an art mural and an advertising billboard?

The answer to question 1 is quite clear and well established. The government clearly has the right to regulate and restrict signage. This is very common across the country, and there is little public disagreement about it. The only disagreement on this issue is over the various specifics of the regulations, which vary by municipalities, but not over the core issue of the constitutionality of signage regulation as a practice.

The answer to question 2 is also quite clear and well established, but would be more susceptible to a constitutional challenge, however unlikely that may be.

This is my defense of the codified distinction between public art and commercial signage:

The city code is written this way to make a distinction between commercial signage and public art. Without a codified differentiation between public art and commercial signage, we would not be able to allow many public works of art, such as the Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Campus Martius, or the Spirit of Detroit statue, unless we also allowed McDonalds to build a giant statue of Ronald McDonald as well. If there is no distintion between public art and commercial signage, then we have to allow Starbucks and WalMart to build giant billboards next to the Washington Monument and Vietnam Veterans Memorial in DC.

I would like to throw this question back to Mark and Wesley...

Do you really think that the distinction between public art and commercial signage is arbitrary? Do you think that McDonalds should have the right to build a Ronald McDonald statue on the National Mall because we allow public statuary and memorials to be built there?

[Lowell]

Murals are fundamentally ephemeral. I don't think that this entirely defeats the idea that a good mural is a graffiti deterrent -- these were up for a year or two, graffiti-free, before this happened.

Exactly. I think of murals as the art world version of May fish flies. Glorious for a day and then gone and replaced. It is not all vandals either. Sometimes ownership of the wall changes and it gets repurposed as the one below I did for the then Michigan gallery. It doesn't trouble me in the least because that is the nature such things. Today it is covered by a nice mural that serves as a gateway sign announcing entry into Corktown. Someday it will be something else.