The very short answer is that I started this conversation in the hopes that, if I wasn't alone in my opinion, the artist/s will curate the works themselves.
The actual LONG answer would fill several large buildings with thoughtful analyses of the communities, gentrification, the social contract, the history of public and private art and those who play with the ambiguities in the liminal spaces (maybe with a whole wall devoted to Banksy), social discourse, the public forum, community standards and how those interact with different power dynamics in a diverse and progressive community in the early 21st century, a historical analysis of the demographics of Somerville and the role the bike path has played, etc. etc. until we get the very nature of art itself.
The still-very-short-but-not-quite-as-short answer is that the authority to remove them comes from the exact same place as the authority to put them there -- the impetus of a single human's will. I'll let attorneys and philosophers argue about the legal and moral implications of this, but in the end, if a drunken frat boy or outraged pearl-clutcher or greedy collector decides to take (trash/pee on/throw out/sell on eBay) a piece of guerrilla public art, there is not a whole lot anyone can do. The artist chose to put it there in the marginal space, making it a piece of the public discourse and part of that public discourse can involve someone just walking away with it.
That's part of being in a community. The tension and byplay between the individual actions and community good is complicated and multi-layered, often times self contradictory. Especially as you take into account the changing landscape, both physically, politically, and demographically. Different facets of the community can and do take different views on the same action. And in Somerville, we have a whole lotta diverse communities.
Clearly, calling in the DPW and saying "Clean it up," is heavy handed and outside of our community standards. But just as clearly, there are some folks who are unhappy with the direction the collection has taken.
As a thoughtful member of a community -- and one who prefers non-unilateral action -- I stared a conversation to see what people thought. Unsurprisingly, there are lots of views. And this is just a small sliver of the Somerville community. I suppose to be perfectly fair, I should stand on the bikepath for a week or so, asking passersby why they think. That is more work than I'm willing to do, though, so I suggested a compromise that allows the person/people who first took the unilateral action -- putting public art on the bikepath -- to take responsibility for that action.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-04-29 01:21 pm (UTC)The very short answer is that I started this conversation in the hopes that, if I wasn't alone in my opinion, the artist/s will curate the works themselves.
The actual LONG answer would fill several large buildings with thoughtful analyses of the communities, gentrification, the social contract, the history of public and private art and those who play with the ambiguities in the liminal spaces (maybe with a whole wall devoted to Banksy), social discourse, the public forum, community standards and how those interact with different power dynamics in a diverse and progressive community in the early 21st century, a historical analysis of the demographics of Somerville and the role the bike path has played, etc. etc. until we get the very nature of art itself.
The still-very-short-but-not-quite-as-short answer is that the authority to remove them comes from the exact same place as the authority to put them there -- the impetus of a single human's will. I'll let attorneys and philosophers argue about the legal and moral implications of this, but in the end, if a drunken frat boy or outraged pearl-clutcher or greedy collector decides to take (trash/pee on/throw out/sell on eBay) a piece of guerrilla public art, there is not a whole lot anyone can do. The artist chose to put it there in the marginal space, making it a piece of the public discourse and part of that public discourse can involve someone just walking away with it.
That's part of being in a community. The tension and byplay between the individual actions and community good is complicated and multi-layered, often times self contradictory. Especially as you take into account the changing landscape, both physically, politically, and demographically. Different facets of the community can and do take different views on the same action. And in Somerville, we have a whole lotta diverse communities.
Clearly, calling in the DPW and saying "Clean it up," is heavy handed and outside of our community standards. But just as clearly, there are some folks who are unhappy with the direction the collection has taken.
As a thoughtful member of a community -- and one who prefers non-unilateral action -- I stared a conversation to see what people thought. Unsurprisingly, there are lots of views. And this is just a small sliver of the Somerville community. I suppose to be perfectly fair, I should stand on the bikepath for a week or so, asking passersby why they think. That is more work than I'm willing to do, though, so I suggested a compromise that allows the person/people who first took the unilateral action -- putting public art on the bikepath -- to take responsibility for that action.