Public art vs. historic preservation

For a larger image of this Washington Post graphic click through to the article.

Yesterday's Post has a story about a proposal to put murals in various locations in the Annapolis (Maryland) Historic District, "'Wall Huggers' Fend Off Artists In Annapolis," subtitled "Building Can Tell City's Story Better Than Photos, Preservationists Say." From the article:

To the arts community, it seemed like a simple plan: Celebrate Annapolis's 300th anniversary by hanging huge pieces of history-themed art in public places around town. Public art, history, featured in one of the nation's most historic cities -- perfect.

Then the plan hit the wall. Specifically, the parking lot's wall. Preservationists called its scarred surface -- full of cracks, graffiti and mismatched layers of faded brick -- a rich tapestry of history. Artists, looking to cover it with photos, had been calling it something completely different: ugly.

Now the proposal to install art in the parking lot and five other sites has split the city's cultural elite, pitting the art community against historic preservationists. The controversy, both sides say, has prompted questions about the town's very purpose: whether it exists to preserve or to create.

This is a tough issue, pitting my historic preservation sensibilities vs. my support of public art.

Just yesterday I wrote (edited):

But we have to figure out what our marketing message is. Our challenge is to figure out what the messages are with history in all its manifestations and how to touch people in terms of their deeply felt values.

I don't think we've done it yet, or we wouldn't be having the problems we're having... I mean, in a couple weeks the National Archives is sponsoring a presentation about the rise in public museums (On January 18th, click here for the calendar) yet, the Archives just massively reduced night-time and weekend access hours because of a $6-$8 million budget cut...

Why do house museums, museums, cultural institutions, libraries and archives, and historic preservation efforts have such difficulties resonating with people generally and with elected officials, who most often provide funding?
---------
I think part of it is that we aren't "marketing" or communicating very well why these resources matter and how they impact people. The University of Florida has just released a pathbreaking study on this as it relates to Florida. I haven't started reading it yet, but I have downloaded many sections. We need to be thinking about this issue constantly.

So I think it's worth considering temporary murals on the sides of buildings (where appropriate) in historic districts, having a good historic marker program that communicates to a community why particular properties and sites have special meaning (most places do this already, DC doesn't), etc.

While the artists "shouldn't" have called the wall ugly, recognizing its value as a layered piece of history, an artifact, the mural project needs to be considered in the context of achieving broader aims in support of historic preservation. The murals aren't permanent and they call attention to the value of history.

In the slide show that accompanies the online Post article one of the images is captioned thusly:

Commissioners argue that the art could create precedent for other large-scale displays. Others just want the content to be changed. They would prefer for the photos to be of buildings and landscapes rather than people.

I always joke that I prefer buildings and landscapes to people, and that the buildings will be here long after we're gone. BUT, people relate to stories, to narrative, and people connect us to the places. People not just buildings, give meaning to places.

Think strategically about this issue, and communicating about the value of history and historic preservation, always.

(Also see the blog entry "Main Street and getting schooled in politics, constituency building, and building support for your program.")

Index Keywords: historic-preservation; public-art