Offensive Mural Defacement [pt II]

MLKMuralPanorama.jpg
[click to enlarge]

After publishing this article on the demise of L.A. Freeway Kids, a rousing debate arose on the comments board. Good!

As a follow-up, I now present “Does MLK dream of 40s?”

When I drive to work everyday, I avoid the 105-110 interchange by heading north on Broadway. While stopped at the light at 95th, I noticed a liquor store on the corner with a really neat-o mural on the side. On the western end, MLK; on the eastern end, Tupac.

The mural, as you can see, was originally painted in 2004. Clearly a mural of this magnitude was done with the owner’s permission.

But here is the real question: Which is more offensive?
    (a) The discussion on whether graffiti can be art, or whether tagging can/not be considered legitimate;
    (b) The tagging which has been thrown up over the mural; or
    (c) The fact that MLK looks like he’s dreaming of ice cold beer and wine?

One Reply to “Offensive Mural Defacement [pt II]”

  1. Another nice post on the topic. Anything that stirs up comments and makes people think is great. Graffiti is art, just how they display it makes the determination whether it is illegal or not.

    I’m a bit more tolerant than most as I don’t see any harm in lining some of he washes, under belly’s of bridges with the stuff. Those murals along with their odes to the departed are pretty crafty and I’m OK with it.

    When its stuck on the side of private property without the owners consent it is a problem. Even when property owners give consent I think the city and county need to back off and let it happen. It’s about putting their talents to good not evil. (I’ll donate the 2 sides of my garage I can never see to the cause to encourage the creation).

    Tagging is just wrong. Tagging over established public art makes matters worse.

Comments are closed.