Art like print and internet resources tends to be brought up in censorship issues.
This article caught my eye about an artist named Gabriel Villa. He painted a mural in Chicago that showed how surveillance cameras effect the urban environment. Alderman James Balcer ordered the mural be painted over because he considered it a "threat to the community". His mural is actually protesting all of the surveillance cameras installed everywhere, and how people no longer have any privacy. He said that Chicago uses more that 2,000 closed circuit cameras to control crime. He was commissioned by a private organization to do the mural, and it was painted in the Bridgeport neighborhood, birthplace of the Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley.
The mural offended the police officers, and per the article the artist has painted other murals that have "provocative themes". By painting over the mural violates the rights of the artist. The artist was showing in his art that it was unlawful for the privacy of individuals be taken away, and by doing this his right to freedom of speech was taken away. The artist was not warned prior to the mural being painted over.
The mural was on private property and some found the art offensive, does the city government have the right to remove these images? What about the religious symbols and war flags?
What about the art books in the libraries and images that are offensive? Is a visual image more offensive then the printed word?
Chicago news article
It's unbelievable that the mural was painted over, as it was on private property. The article references no specific law that was used to make that decision. And when Daley commented on it he flippantly said "I'm sorry. This is not the end of the world." It may not be the end of the world, but that does not mean that the issue is not a serious matter.
ReplyDeleteAnd what does it matter if the mural was in the neighborhood that Daley was born in? The mural didn't seem like it was specifically an affront to Daley. Painting over the mural is like saying that discussion about policing in Chicago is off limits.
I rather like the mural's messaging, and based on limited legal knowledge, I do not agree with it being painted over. It was on private property, but it may still be subject to neighborhood association rules. I can understand the objectors' perspective to a certain extent; there could be mural images that I would likely disapprove of as public displays. I do not think that this picture is anywhere near that incendiary or offensive. Regarding visual images versus the printed word, I believe some people are further affronted by pictures. Consider the intense debates over pornography. You have to take more time to read an offensive passage than to scan a visual image.
ReplyDeleteAgnes Fusiek
Whoa this is a very interesting article. I can't believe this mural was painted over due to its content. I personally thought the mural was beautiful and educational. This mural clearly demonstrated that the people of Chicago are being watched and the city has no concern about their right to privacy. After reading this article, I feel Alderman James Balcer wanted the mural painted over because he does not want people to react to the use of cameras possibly by protesting and he does not want to remind the people of Chicago that what this city is doing is wrong and unlawful. It's a shame that this city uses cameras to monitor people in certain neighborhoods. Now don't get me wrong I am all for protecting the community, but you have to draw the line somewhere and using cameras is that line. If they want to protect the community and stop crime, hire more cops and train them to fight crime in a better way. I also think this goes against one's privacy and right to live a neighborhood without being watched. Who wants to live in a neighborhood where you feel like you are being spied on all the time!!!
ReplyDeleteI am floored by this article and most importantly that Chicago has these surveillance cameras. I agree with Kim hire more police and train them better. How can you really rely on a camera in a big city neighborhood ?
ReplyDeleteSue, You bring up a good point when you say is the visual image more offensive than the printed word. It is such a gray area. This is another way to think about it. Which guy in the library do you kick off the computer-the one looking at visual images of pornography or the one reading pornographic stories? How can you justify your decision of kicking one off and not the other or kicking both off, when they have a right to privacy even when they are wrong. I'm still on the fence.
Oh yeah Chicago has the cameras all over in the so-called bad neighborhoods. You can see them flashing on the corners when you drive by (to get to Chicago w/o the expressway you pass by a few of these cameras).
ReplyDeleteI want to say that they put these cameras to stop crimes like drug dealing or stealing cars in these neighborhoods. I remember hearing about when the cameras were put up.
I wonder if it's true when in Little Brother it said there are cameras all over London and that you get your picture taken over 500 times a day.
Cameras are everywhere-there's cameras for when you pass through the toll w/o paying. And if you go through a red light in Chicago-turning right on a red-you get snapped. I want to say you get your ticket or warning with your picture taken showing you driving in the car but I'm not positive.