And the children that died, there was seventy-three
Tuesday, April 5th, 2011 09:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rolanniSo, for those of you who have been paying attention to the political comedy going on in other parts of the forest, Maine has been having a little bit of an outing regarding a mural commissioned by the state and paid for by Federal grant money, which used to hang in the lobby of the Maine Department of Labor (the mural, not the grant money).
An anonymous troll took exception to this mural, as a supposed business owner, and sent an anonymous fax to Mayor LePage there in the Governor's Office. The Mayor is a man who can be moved deeply by anonymous commentary and he therefore ordered the mural removed, because, as he said, it was "one sided" (to quote the Daily Show's reaction to that particular comment: "Do you know how murals *work*?") and favored the story of labor over the story of business. He therefore, over citizen protest, during off-hours, had the mural taken down (it's reportedly being stored in an electrical closet in the Department of Labor building until a "more appropriate venue" can be found for its display.)
Now, leaving aside the essential boneheadedness of his argument, and the justifiable thought that perhaps someone who is being paid to act as the governor of a state might have better things to do than be moving paintings around in public buildings, there are a couple of things wrong with this high-handed removal of public artwork.
First, the State of Maine had a contract with the artist. That contract stated in part that the mural was to be hung in the Department of Labor. It also stated that, should the mural have to be moved, the artist would be notified and the Maine Commission for the Arts would be notified and involved in the relocation of the artwork.
Neither one of those things happened. Mayor LePage's apologist in the governor's office states that the contract was reviewed by lawyers who found there was no breach. I'm hoping that's just a fabrication woven to cover the Mayor's backside; otherwise, if this is an example of the work done by the lawyers who are going to be representing Maine, vetting and signing contracts with these businesses that we're supposed to be welcoming any day now? We are so screwed.
So, anyhow, breach of contract, a very bad sign, I think, from a man who venerates business. Maine has a considerable artistic community; art is one of the things that we do here, and the artist who painted the mural is a businessperson. Too small a business to count, I guess, and not responsible for enough, I dunno, air pollution or something.
The second thing that was wrong about the removal of the mural? You saw that note above, where I said that the work was paid for by a Federal grant? Right. Grants come with conditions. And one of the conditions attached to the funding of this piece of artwork was that it hang -- in the Department of Labor, amazingly enough, exactly where it had been.
Since the mural has now been removed, the Federal Government wants its money back.
Honest to ghu, this is more fun than comedy night at local blues club.
I'm making popcorn -- who wants some?
-----------
Footnotes:
FedGov wants its money back
Rally to save the mural
Federal suit filed regarding mural removal
An anonymous troll took exception to this mural, as a supposed business owner, and sent an anonymous fax to Mayor LePage there in the Governor's Office. The Mayor is a man who can be moved deeply by anonymous commentary and he therefore ordered the mural removed, because, as he said, it was "one sided" (to quote the Daily Show's reaction to that particular comment: "Do you know how murals *work*?") and favored the story of labor over the story of business. He therefore, over citizen protest, during off-hours, had the mural taken down (it's reportedly being stored in an electrical closet in the Department of Labor building until a "more appropriate venue" can be found for its display.)
Now, leaving aside the essential boneheadedness of his argument, and the justifiable thought that perhaps someone who is being paid to act as the governor of a state might have better things to do than be moving paintings around in public buildings, there are a couple of things wrong with this high-handed removal of public artwork.
First, the State of Maine had a contract with the artist. That contract stated in part that the mural was to be hung in the Department of Labor. It also stated that, should the mural have to be moved, the artist would be notified and the Maine Commission for the Arts would be notified and involved in the relocation of the artwork.
Neither one of those things happened. Mayor LePage's apologist in the governor's office states that the contract was reviewed by lawyers who found there was no breach. I'm hoping that's just a fabrication woven to cover the Mayor's backside; otherwise, if this is an example of the work done by the lawyers who are going to be representing Maine, vetting and signing contracts with these businesses that we're supposed to be welcoming any day now? We are so screwed.
So, anyhow, breach of contract, a very bad sign, I think, from a man who venerates business. Maine has a considerable artistic community; art is one of the things that we do here, and the artist who painted the mural is a businessperson. Too small a business to count, I guess, and not responsible for enough, I dunno, air pollution or something.
The second thing that was wrong about the removal of the mural? You saw that note above, where I said that the work was paid for by a Federal grant? Right. Grants come with conditions. And one of the conditions attached to the funding of this piece of artwork was that it hang -- in the Department of Labor, amazingly enough, exactly where it had been.
Since the mural has now been removed, the Federal Government wants its money back.
Honest to ghu, this is more fun than comedy night at local blues club.
I'm making popcorn -- who wants some?
-----------
Footnotes:
FedGov wants its money back
Rally to save the mural
Federal suit filed regarding mural removal
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-05 01:36 pm (UTC)Hmm, is the artist sueing for breach of contract? That would quickly tell them whether there was "no breach". See what a judge says.
(But there's an upside -- if just one complaint is needed, the ayor should be out pretty quickly..)
no subject
Date: 2011-04-05 01:43 pm (UTC)I had not heard this, and love it a lot.
I also think that, since the Guv made this decision on his own, he should have to pay them back out of his own pocket.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-05 02:11 pm (UTC)Stoopidity should be painful to it's perpetrators ...
Date: 2011-04-07 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-05 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-05 02:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-05 03:54 pm (UTC)This is just such a great example of some one who did not read the directions!
What an ass and yes he should pay the country back out of his own pocket.
Plus that poor artist.
Artwork, even commissioned pieces, are part of the artist and this is a disgusting act!
I feel so badly for the artist.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-05 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-05 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-05 07:32 pm (UTC)I heard about the eight GOP state senators who said Enough Already. In public. In a way calculated to make it Very Very Clear that This Is Not On. Now that's the New England Republican attitude I remember. Good for them.
The country seems to be suffering from a general attack of insanity. Arizona's Guv is if anything nuttier than yours, and the good Lord FSM knows our legislature has passed some arful bills.
Rumor around here is that it's all a plot to turn us into, basically, a William Gibson novel.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-05 10:00 pm (UTC)Nah. William Gibson novels are at least fun to read. I'd want to throw that one against the wall...
no subject
Date: 2011-04-05 11:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-06 05:21 am (UTC)C.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-06 05:23 am (UTC)C. and Gus
no subject
Date: 2011-04-06 05:29 am (UTC)Also, you'd think I'd know better than to read the user comments section on a newspaper site. The reaction posts in response to those articles make me want to shoot myself in the head.
Sue? That's not how we do things!
Date: 2011-04-06 01:57 pm (UTC)People may not remember lawsuits, but pictures can last a thousand years.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-06 08:09 pm (UTC)Edsel Ford commissioned Diego Rivera to paint several frescoes that line the entry hall of the Detroit Institute of Arts. These murals extol the virtues of labor and, although they also show Henry Ford and Ford Motors in a somewhat positive light, were considered extremely controversial when they were erected in 1933. Fortunately, no one removed them or painted over them. They are pro-labor, but also some of the finest fresco work in the world. Can you tell that Rivera was a communist? Sure. But he was a fantastic artist and that is the lasting impression. If you don't like the message, put up your own mural on an adjoining wall. Don't take down the one you don't like.
try this
Date: 2011-04-07 04:27 pm (UTC)department of labor mural picture Maine
select images
I think I want scotch with that popcorn
Date: 2011-04-06 08:34 pm (UTC)I was thinking of the scene in the movie Cradle Will Rock where -
I think it was Rockafeller - tried to remove Rivera's mural and
discovered he'd have to destroy the wall to do it. It's been awhile
since I watched the movie so I may mis-remember...boy that was a
great movie about censorship during the Depression.
Wow.
Lauretta@ConstellationBooks
PS For once I agree with the Feds