public art

This one may actually make a smidgen of sense. Saturday's Gazette had an article on public art, or the lack thereof, and Montreal's lagging commitment to enhancing public spaces and encouraging artists.

I quote one Saskia Siebrand of Mosaika Art and Design, who says, "There is a lot of mediocre mural art that's done in the graffiti type of style. It might be nicer to have something with a bit more artistic value."

Well now, that statement irked me for a number of reasons. Actually, the article as a whole had me saying "yeah, but..." throughout. Let's go over this concept:

• This person, first and foremost, is the co-founder of a company who specializes in mosaics for public spaces. Selling your services is one thing, and saying Montreal needs more is fine, but attacking styles of art that are different than what you propose is ignorant at best. On appelle ça prêcher pour sa paroisse.

• The quote itself is odd. Is it taken out of context. Did she praise the graffiti murals that are well done further in her interview, which was subsequently cut? Or, as I suspect, does she simply not see the value of spray paint?

• More artistic value? How exactly does one gauge that, anyway? Monetary value? Time and materials? That's exactly the kind of art elitism that makes people abandon museums and inaccessible art forms.

• Next question: has it dawned on her that by putting down the aforementioned awful graffiti murals, she's indirectly knocking the building owners who commissioned them, and that they might yet own other buildings that require beautification?

• Has is occurred to her that perhaps these murals were specifically chosen because of their hip urban youth appeal, something that the mosaics on her website certainly cannot claim? (Mind you, I'm not knocking them at all; some of them are stunning. The pond reminds me of Monet and the birds are spectacular. But they do convey an entirely different art experience than graffiti-style murals and will speak to a whole different audience.)
  

• Given that everyone involved in the article agrees that more thought and resources should be allocated to public art (which they will be in coming years), shouldn't the focus be on the areas that have given no thought to art, rather than those who have, albeit in a manner deemed "mediocre"?

Lastly, the article asked a series of rhetorical questions on how Montreal could develop into an art capital, and one of the items was to encourage homeowners to beautify their homes. Hmm. Let me think: I seem to remember a man in St. Leonard (I think) who painted the flag of Greece on his garage door, only to be ticketed by the city. It was an eyesore, they said. What if everybody did it, they said. What would happen to the poperty values, they said. He took the city to court, and lost. I believe he was planning to appeal the decision, last I heard.

So are they saying that if everybody did it, it would be OK? Who would be the arbiter of good taste, anyway? A lot of folks enjoyed watching Weird Homes on what is now slice. But how many of these self-same people would react negatively if most of the folks featured on the show, the ones who dared to carry their art outside, moved in next door to their Plateau triplex? It all sounds great, until somebody tries it, and the collective Big Brother raises its ugly head, sending in the taste police. So we have a beige and grey city. Blech.

(602)