Mural proposal: Freedom of expression
I was asked to paint a mural in a South-east London secondary school in collaboration with a group of the pupils. It was suggested by the Head teacher that the mural would not only brighten up the main stairway, camouflaging its lifeless appearance, but also discourage the kids from tagging the wall, for I was lead to believe they would respect artwork.
I must admit that I wasn’t to sure about this last opinion held by the Head because as far as I could determine during my month’s residency at the school the main cause of the tagging in the stairway was due teachers in adjoining classrooms using it as a space to regularly exclude pupils who misbehave. What would you expect a frustrated and disruptive pupil to do armed with a pen or fat marker in an unsupervised and boring stairway, mural or no mural?
Secondly, when you witness typical street art/graffiti in its’ natural habitat (underneath an inner-city flyover, or illuminating the track sidings on the Hammersmith and City line) it should be apparent that this is very much an ephemeral art form, where an individual’s effort is gradually consumed by each additional tag, message, slogan, or illustration the passing time records. With this in mind, coupled with the fact that a high percentage of the pupils view my mural as being no more than a highfalutin type of graffiti, I never expected the mural to remain unadulterated for long, unless of course the powers that be decided to do something about the root problem- unsupervised pupils in the stairway!
Since the kids helping me had volunteered it seemed a good idea to make the most of their enthusiasm by giving them an idea of the murals’ history, identifying how and why styles and traditions change over time and from place to place, recognising the contribution by artists (self trained or not), crafts people, and designers. Although what follows only scratches the surface of what could have been written on the subject, due to the time constraint it was always intended to act as an introduction and a means of encouraging the pupils to consider the potential of visual images as a means of communication.
A potent method of expressing one’s opinions and ideas is through the use of visual imagery. It is immediate, usually has greater durability than the spoken word, and speaks to both literate and illiterate alike. Since the action was possible life forms have been engaged in mark making whether voluntarily or not (I.e. a foot print left In moist soil, tracks and patterns engraved on the earth through the actions of travel or agriculture, body painting, or the fossilised remains of an unfortunate primeval vertebrate who inadvertently got stuck in the mud. Some of the oldest surviving and intentionally meaningful manmade marks, for example Aboriginal rock paintings and the Lascaux cave paintings could be described as murals.
Such murals spanning mankind’s existence in Peru, Africa, Tibet and other non-Western cultures not only inspire the constant development of the modern mural, but also help to quash the myth that ancient Greece was the cradle of culture.
As with most early professional artist, early professional muralists’ work was restricted to the theme of religion, the Church being the leading client of the era, and the process usually employed was, and still is, known as Fresco (the application of pigment on to a wet, recently plastered wall), prime examples of which being Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper”, and Michelangelo’s “Sistine Chapel”. With the advent of wealthy private patrons and their preference for portable framed artwork, the mural fell out of favour in Western culture.
The modern mural came of age in Mexico in 1920, where a group of artists began a movement in support of the revolution, painting murals which expressed their shared belief in erasing all Western influence in Mexico, while celebrating their own culture. Their canvas was usually an impressive Government building or a church, and the work they contained spoke of the beneficial advances in education, technology, agriculture, science and medicine. Most importantly they addressed the masses, and the masses could relate to the imagery.
The influence of the Mexican muralists had a similar effect in Britain some ten years later. Instead of illustrating the domination of Church and State, murals were for the first time being used to assert the interests of the working class. Similarly in the u.s.a two connected factors caused the resurgence in mural painting. The late sixties witnessed the climax of radical movements in the West, fighting for racial equality, equality for women, condemning oppressive aspects of Governments, and empowering alternative cultures.
Many artists seized the opportunity murals offered in breaking away from the restrictions of the art gallery, not only providing them the freedom to express their views to the general public and not just the elite who regularly visited galleries, but also gave the community a voice as many artist organised collaborative projects with community members.
Successful collaborations have not only empowered both artist and community to express political and social statements that would otherwise have gone unnoticed, their has often had a positive effect on the environment, triggering improvements to the locality and bringing to attention major environmental issues.
The murals of Northern Ireland.
You don’t have to go far to find examples of murals charged with communities’ expressions of social and political credence. The walls in Northern Ireland’s cities and towns, particularly Belfast, have been painted with murals since 1908.
Since the murals generally express what both republicanism and loyalism stand for and revel the current status of each of these political beliefs, to attack or restrain either party of painters would be to violate their right to freedom of expression.
The first mural to be painted, by loyalists in Belfast, depicted the protestant King William III defeating Catholic King James II at the battle of the Boyne on July 12th 1690, and fresh paintings have been made annually since 1908 to coincide with the Battle of the Boyne celebration. On account of the displacement of yesteryear’s muralists come sign writers and house painters, by young men with more militant politics, the themes progressed from King Billy murals, Union flags and red hand of Ulster motifs, to sinister and threatening anti-nationalist and anti-Catholic images. Should such expressions of hatred, that half the population may find offensive, be permitted?
Republican murals, many of which are just as abhorrent, did not emerge until visual statements of endorsement appeared on walls in support of the 1981 hunger strikes demanding the status of political prisoners. Their delay at arriving on the streets had everything to do with the nationalists’ / Catholics’ imposed ghettoisation (confined to lower status, greater poverty and higher unemployment), and the severe harassment the painters would suffer from the armed forces and the unionist state if caught.
The hunger strikes of 1981 were catalytic to the proliferation of republican murals which rapidly evolved to address a wide range of themes: military action, protest against repression, prison conditions, media censorship or Britain’s continued hold on Ireland in general, historical events and figures in Ireland, identifying with anti-imperialist struggles taking place elsewhere in the world, and election murals, which were more impressive and effective than posters.
Both sides of the political divide have produced memorials in the form of murals, commemorating specific victims such as the killing of civilians by plastic bullets which compels me to ask whether such freedom of expression is a positive attribute? For, although it may be argued that they act as an essential release of tension, they also stir up emotions every time somebody steals a glance, ensuring the fires of resentment, hatred and hostility are regularly stoked, and so intensifying ghettoisation.
The effect on both communities of such emotional upheavals has been well documented, but the murals also fall victim. Both Loyalist and republican murals suffer bottles of paint being thrown against them by those who object to them who often include members of the army and police force. The irony of these destructive expressions of disapproval by such agitators is that their wrath is interpreted as proof that the murals have been effective. Paradoxically a destroyed mural is as powerful as one in pristine condition.
Gerard Kelly, one of the most prolific and accomplished republican muralists whose comment “…people would stand and look at the mural before they would read a newspaper” affirmed the immediacy of visual images over the written word, added the following when speaking what enticed him to paint his first mural:
“Prison was supposed to be a breakers’ yard for republicans. You were stripped of your dignity, your clothes, anything that showed your identity. You were only allowed to paint hankies of the Pope, the Virgin Mary, Mickey Mouse and things like that. They censored everything.”
Censorship
Censorship, derived from “censor”, the name bestowed upon ancient Roman supervisors of public morals, is defined in most dictionaries as the examination by officials of plays, books, news, images and methods of correspondence to suppress what is immoral or seditious. However censorship exists in imperceptible guises, and it is precisely when we ceases to be attentive to its subtler methods that human rights such as freedom of expression are under greatest threat.
Perhaps it would be prudent to ask yourself a number of questions regarding censorship:
Who is censoring and in doing so assuming the right to judge others: the law; government; the media; civil servants; employers; pressure groups?
What or who is being censored: expression; artists; writers; political opposition; critics; information; access to information?
Why is censorship being carried out: to protect government policies; to hide corruption; to protect privilege or power?
How is it being carried out: by pre-emptive measures or punishment after the event?
The pressure group Article 19 reported that in sixty-two of the seventy-seven countries they surveyed individuals remain imprisoned for having peacefully expressed their opinions. One infamous example of this happening on a massive scale was in Beijing, China, after the brutally enforced collapse of the 1989 student protests where the tyrannical round up of “criminal counter-revolutionaries” resulted in the misappropriation of mass executions and wrongful imprisonment. The suppressive and authoritarian nature of the Chinese government, the severity of their imposition of censorship was made apparent on the morning of June the 4th when the order to fire on hundreds of thousand peaceful demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, followed by the advancement of tanks which literally crushed the life out of the remaining protesters and hunger strikers who lay in their tents.
I must concede that censorship should not always be viewed in the negative. Consider a mass media without reporting restrictions, or specifically, consider the effect this might have on delicate court cases, informers, child victims of indecent assault, or on juveniles accessing a glut of unchecked information.
Images and words are powerful tools. In the hands of racists they not only entice each other to progress to acts of violence against the subjects of their hate ridden proclamations, they also cause the unnecessary fear, pain and intimidation suffered by the very same victims. With this in mind, should racists have the right to the freedom to express their controversial views?
On a some what aesthetic level I return to the reason why the mural I worked on was commissioned in the first place- tagging. In any built up area, particularly inner-cities, it is not hard to find private property defaced by tagging. I wonder how taggers would react and feel if the house proud owners of the tagged gable end walls, and the architects who see the product of their time consuming designs defaced, sprayed their names all over the taggers’ prised possessions?
Of course, this being a democratic society we live in, we should have the right to freedom of expression, but surely practicing a little diplomacy and sympathy to others’ feelings and points of view (self-censorship?) would go a long way to creating a more tolerant society. Such diplomacy and sympathetic feeling tend to come with maturity, and unfortunately most taggers are far from being mature.
