nilsrva

nilsrva OP t1_jdvwa4u wrote

I appreciate your view on this. The artist of course had permission from the home owner to do the wall, and the artist being from Switzerland of course had no idea of CAR or anything of that matter. I too have wondered about the wild inconsistency of CAR in the neighborhood and their complete lack of action against the garbage going up around the area (both literal and figurative.)

I am also curious about the building across the street that is entirely covered in ivy. I think it is beautiful, but obviously completely obscures the brick and is of course actually damaging the building itself. But its been like that as long as I can remember.

I am openly completely biased in favor of the mural and murals in general, but that is not to say that I am against rules controlling how things look and have stated as such in other posts here. Paris looks like Paris because of such rules. But paint is not a structural change and this alley is just awful. The largest proponent of this wall is the direct neighbor this piece faces, which also seems like it should count for something.

I am also annoyed because in my separate dealings with CAR over a mural I want to do they are complaining about artistic decisions of mine which simply does not seem like something they should have a say on. Approve or disapprove of a mural and leave it there, dont tell me there is too much or too little of any element or color in the design.

27

nilsrva OP t1_jdv4xrt wrote

Hey all,

At long last the CAR is receiving public comments tomorrow starting at 3.30 over the question of whether or not BustArt’s mural in Jackson Ward should be allowed to stay. I am very appreciative of the many of you who have written emails to the board already. Tomorrow however will be the deciding day, and the greatest impact you can have will be to show up in person or on MicrosoftTeams via this link

Here is the wall before and here is the wall after

Feel free to still write alex.dandridge@rva.gov with your comments, although I do not know how effective that will be. I am considering taking your comments are presenting them, so if anyone would like to say something but can not attend please drop me a DM with your comment, name, and address (internet strangers mean nothing to them, name/addy adds legitimacy)

In the interest of full disclosure I will also be arguing on behalf of my own right to paint a mural on a location in Church Hill, completely unrelated to BustArt’s mural. BustArt is a friend of mine, and it is via me and this sub that the homeowner was connected to him- however I did not paint this mural and it is not an artwork of mine.

27

nilsrva t1_jdm4lj3 wrote

I am actually really curious as to how can ignore the outcome in deciding what is right. I would agree in principle for most things, but this is housing and should be treated like the necessary-to-life thing it is because there are no other alternatives. Unlike say, water, which as a society we generally agree should be as low a cost as possible and come into our HOMES despite there being additional private options. There just are so few public options for housing.

At this point we have a massive chunk of our society who can’t get a seat at the other side of the table in these private deals due to nothing but being born too late. That ain’t right. I am not saying a landlord cant set their rent, but surely you have to see why some kind of protection for the renter should exist in concert with that.

If we depend on the good-will of landlords you make renters the frog and landlords the scorpion. I dont even fault a landlord for raising the rent, its the nature of the game, thats why we need to change the rules.

8