Why painting shields cannot be compared with murals on facades

Lev Vladov on a frequently asked question about the legitimacy of criticism of murals from the creator of drawings on electrical panels

In recent years, many murals have appeared in the city on the blind ends of residential buildings - large images paid for from the city or regional budget. The works began to appear en masse before the elections, and the governor actively took part in the “ribbon cutting.”

I made a post about this:

The era of new populism: filling the city with murals before the elections.

It costs a penny, very quickly, effectively for the crowd, like “the city is changing.” In fact, there is zero meaning, and it is sabotage for the appearance of the city. But the majority of Chelyabinsk residents will understand this in five years. They will get tired, just like they will of populist porn coverage.

Essentially another totalitarian invasion into people's daily lives, without any coordination with the local residents, who will have to live with it every day, like a painting in the bedroom. Any voices of those who disagree with such an invasion will be suppressed by the voices of others who “like” it. Not just cheap populism, but sabotage populism with a waste of the budget on short-lived, insincere pseudo-art.

Some Chelyabinsk residents, having read my publication, could not resist the temptation to make a logical mistake and get personal - ask the question: “that is, you criticize the murals, but is the painting of boxes that you arranged three years ago normal?”

I am happy to answer this question, even though it is based on logical manipulation:

1. The projects have different scales and a disparate impact on the appearance of the city: the areas of the drawings differ by 1,500 times.
2. We weren't making art (and didn't even pretend to be), but we were removing rust and illegal advertisements by placing some kind of design on the surface. As practice has shown, they stopped gluing anything to the cabinets for several years.
3. The main goal of the cabinet painting project was to involve citizens in caring for the city. We did not spend public money on tactical urbanism. The townspeople chipped in, chose the design themselves, and even cleaned/cooked/painted it themselves. Everyone who participated in the project can be seen here - https://chelurban.ru/persons/
4. The secondary goal of the project was to create a kind of portfolio for the movement in order to have an argument for populist commentators on the claim “they are only talking, let them at least do something for the city with their hands.” We developed in a very aggressive environment, when people did not understand many things, and government officials fought, discrediting us with the help of budget media.
5. The project is a grassroots, unpaid initiative of citizens, and not an official activity of the executive branch. Citizens can do whatever they want and not answer to anyone. The authorities must solve the social problems of citizens. It is strange to compare the activities of activists with the activities of the governor.
6. The project has not been carried out for three years now. During this time I learned and rethought a lot. I would not have started this project now if I had understood then what I understand now. I used to resent it when someone painted over our work - now I believe that anyone has as much right to the image on the box as we do. I understand that any picture can be terribly boring.

Well, in conclusion, regarding getting personal when commenting on my opinion about the murals.

— Murals from the governor are populism.
— Why did you draw on the cabinets in 2018?

Yes, I could even paint murals in 2018, what’s the point of appealing to this in 2021? Don’t you change your opinion with age/new experience?

Murals have a right to exist, and in some places they are appropriate. True, this is a subtle art. Each project must be reviewed by the city architectural council, since such work greatly affects the appearance of the street or even the entire area.

A blank wall is almost always better than a picture, since pictures have an inherent emotionality that affects the psyche. The neutrality of the environment does not limit the rights of citizens, and any image can become very intrusive for someone. At the same time, it will be impossible to remove a picture the size of a house; you will have to live with it every day. This reduces the level of happiness of a city resident.

There are people who claim that any picture is better than a blank wall. Such theses should be taken calmly. This is not a question of “taste preferences” - taste is cultivated, it either exists, or it has yet to appear. I always ask people like this whether they are ready to live in such an entrance:

So what about empty walls?

Tags: design code