I love this project & agree with Dan's statement.

Feel the same way, Dan

What eison said +1.

And next time anybody wonders what the full-time Common Council spends its time and attention on instead of, for example more work on pushing for chages in permiting, inspections, and the city real estate office.... keep this in mind:

Members of the Buffalo Mural Arts Program, an organization being spearheaded by Council President David Franczyk's office...

Too much focus on feel-good ideas and publicity seeking, nowhere near enough on representing the city's businesses and citizens to push for real reforms in how city government operates.

Figure out how to get some of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_art

There's more to public art than graffiti and murals. Although, given my druthers, I'll take graffiti any day.

"murals are for dying cities"

That’s specious reasoning, eison. Are you suggesting that murals have caused cities to die?

I don't know. I fear we're going to see a rehash of the 1970s and 1980s, when murals were painted onto mostly vacant buildings in a desperate attempt to enliven the streetscape when instead they just draw attention to the blight; for instance, the old "Entertainment" mural in the Theater District. I also fear that the pressure to display "feelgood murals" will be too great: for instance, those painted by groups with absolutely no artistic talent such as schoolchildren and special needs kids, or cliched themes like crime victim memorials and neighborhood nostalgia.

Find good, accomplished artists, and make sure the work is thoroughly critiqued before a single stroke of paint goes on a wall. Buffalo prides itself in having a unique built environment and distinctive local flavor, and its murals shouldn't just be the same-old same-old third grader's handprints and police officers that are in every other city.

That's a fair point davvid, but the way I interpreted that is that murals are a sign of a building being a lost cause. On a building being used (or likely to be used any time soon) for some serious purpose, are murals painted on the side? Perhaps in some cases there are, so I don't mean to paint with a broad brush (if I didn't write that, al-alo would've!), but it seems rare. In most cases I'd think a mural makes a building look less even potentially viable than without it. I'd say a plain paint job would be a better use of time and money. Just my take.

Cool idea, but what ever happend to the idea of having "AD's" put on blank walls such as this one? It creates eye movement and generates revenue to the city.

griff> The Mural Arts Program in Philadelphia is an asset to the city in so many ways - education, public art, community building. Philly made a commitment to the program over 20 years ago and it has literally transformed neighborhoods and contributed to the cultural, social, and political fabric of the city.

The murals in Philadelphia certainly reflect a lot of talent, and they are one trademark of that city. However, the vast majority of them are located in blighted neighborhoods. Hhe blank walls of rowhouses on an expanding urban prairie make the perfect canvas. The bulk deal with the same tired feelgood themes; social concerns, self-enrichment, ethnic pride, and so on. There's a few true artistic works without an underlying message, but most of them are the same old schmaltzy street glurge.

Can they really be credited with the transformation of neighborhoods? Are yuppies setting into rowhomes along Broad Streetbecause there are murals nearby? I really doubt it.

I'm not opposed to murals per se, but rather their most common use, as a superficial coverup to blight and "making someone feel better about themselves", rather than public art and creating a unique sense of place. If Buffalo gets a mural program like Philly's Mural Arts Program, I'm going to bet the resulting murals will be few and far between in Parkside, Allentown, Elmwood Village and North Buffalo, but quite plentiful on the East Side. Concentrating murals in blighted neighborhoods only reinforces the perception that they're "ghetto", or an indicator of decline. Aesthetic improvement programs in Buffalo are always weak on follow-through -- witness the sad state of new landscaping along Main Street in University Heights, for example -- so I also have doubts murals will be maintained.

the term graffiti artist is impolite towards a whole realm of painting and thought. Murals tend to look like one big tattoo and to make it look magnificent would take a lot of time.

I don't really know if there would be a point to painting this wall, it seems like too much work for so little action. The initial planning stages would be a lot of fun, spend a month or so just living for the wall. (something both martha stewart and michael vick have done)

The notion that a mural program is for dying cities is ridiculous. Columbus, Ohio is a vibrant, growing city and the Mona Lisa Mural in the Short North Arts District helps to define that neighborhood and conveys a real sense of place. The mural has become one of the icons of that city and photos of it have been used in city marketing efforts to reinforce the message that Columbus is vital, cultured and hip. This is what we should aspire to.

agree, murals tend to make people think of an area that is decaying and needs a quick fix up for a look of vibrancy. That Hotel has the potential to be the reigning queen of the city if cleaned up and rehabed. If they did it right they could bang out a few nice Orleans style balcony's on that huge blank wall for guests to enjoy or maybe a marqee sign.

What would you put on the building that could be cooler then having people live in it? Perhaps some kind of sports championship shrine? We could paint all the logos from winning teams and then have them come autograph it. That might be more convenient then having to meet with the president all the time.

I agree that poorly considered murals can negatively brand a place. The role of the Buffalo Mural Arts Program should be to consider the context and potential interpretations. (I hope this organization seeks advice from the Albright-Knox or Hallwalls for the selection process)

Video projections are a possible alternative.

Graffitti Research Lab comes to mind. http://www.graffitiresearchlab.com/

The relevance of the author and mural's content will be extremely important. A carefully considered piece that gets photographed and published in some strange artsy japanese magazine will obviously exist in a different context and project different messages than the "feel good" murals that were mentioned earlier.

Just some thoughts.

The Mural Arts Program in Philadelphia is an asset to the city in so many ways - education, public art, community building. Philly made a commitment to the program over 20 years ago and it has literally transformed neighborhoods and contributed to the cultural, social, and political fabric of the city. Welcome to the party Buffalo - don't think you are on the cutting edge on this one.

I agree MURALS ARE FOR DYING CITIES

spend the money on planting trees and putting some form of building there!

lol...marquis, damn I need a martini

damn...still no star

I would love to see some David LeBatard inspired murals ...

"Find good, accomplished artists"

Right on Dan!

"and make sure the work is thoroughly critiqued before a single stroke of paint goes on a wall."

I agree, and this should not be confused with choosing only the safest artists to do murals. Public art should be provocative and inspirational.

GDC, I agree with what you said:

"Cool idea, but what ever happend to the idea of having "AD's" put on blank walls such as this one? It creates eye movement and generates revenue to the city. "

I like David Franczyk but I think that GDC has a better solution.