Alderman Covers Artist's Bridgeport Mural Painted on Private Property

2009_05_16_Balcer.jpg
Ald. Balcer: Art Nemesis or Civic Saint? (bad MS Paint by Marcus Gilmer/Chicagoist)
Artists beware. If you plan to paint anything on your own property that depicts even the slightest vestige of the Chicago Police Department, you run the risk of being brown-washed. At least that’s what happened to well-known Chicago artist and muralist Gabriel Villa Thursday. He received a call that a large-scale, outdoor mural he had been painting in Bridgeport for two weeks had been covered in brown paint - at the insistence of 11th Ward Alderman James Balcer.

The mural, painted on the side of a bar and liquor store near 31st and Morgan Street, depicted three CPD blue light cameras, each emblazoned with the force’s logo and a peculiar icon: a crucified Christ, a deer head and a skull. But Villa says there was nothing anti-police about it.

“I wanted to upset people a little bit, I wanted to be provocative,” he told NBC of his design choice. But he says he wasn’t trying to make a statement for or against the department. “I wanted to create a platform for dialogue but the mural was never given a chance,” Villa said.

Villa was asked by the building’s owner to paint the mural as a part of a local arts festival. Villa says many residents told him they liked the art and that several police officers approached him as he worked.

Balcer, a long-time and well-known Daley ally, has called the shots on permits and zoning issues in his South Side ward for more than a decade. Balcer came under fire from the Tribune in February 2008 for helping Daley supporters rezone their property in his ward, allowing them to flip it for millions in profits. Balcer says he asked the city to remove the mural because the building owner did not have a permit for the artwork. And three or four residents had called to complain about “graffiti.” Oh, and he had gotten some calls from local police who didn’t like it either.

“You know I don't know if there was hidden gang meaning behind it with the cross, with the skull, with the deer, with the police cameras,” Balcer told WBEZ. “Was there something anti-police about it? I don't know what's in his mind. That's how I viewed it.” Balcer says he did not trounce on the artist’s freedom of speech. The complaints came in, he said, so he had it removed. “Everyone has a right to their opinion, but there’s limits,” he told NBC. “He has to follow the law, this artist, like everyone else.”

The question remains, did Villa really need a permit to paint his mural?

According to WBEZ, a section of the City Code for the Chicago Buildings Department says building owners need a permit for painted signage or to alter painted signage. But a spokesperson for the city’s law department says you don’t need a permit to paint a mural on the side of a private building - so long as it’s not an ad and the owner gave you his or her permission. Villa is upset the city removed his mural so quickly and without notifying him or the building owner. “I don’t think a city should have that much power,” he said. [WBEZ, NBC via Windy Citizen]

For before and after pictures of the mural, check out this WBEZ blog post.

Email This Entry


Comments (21) [rss]

Chicago-style neofeudalism at its finest! The artist and property owner should sue the shit out of the city.

Chicago under Richard J. Daley: "The City That Works"
Chicago under Richard M. Daley: "The City Of Political Perks"

If he wants to paint something with apparent anti-police sentiment then he can certainly do it in a location that is not visible from the public way.

There is no "right" to have this mural stay.

Wow ... any other time, you'd be defending the right of the property owner to have his property painted however he wishes. I guess even libertarians have limits on the consistency of their values.

Uh, I'm not sure what part of "was commissioned by the building’s owner to paint the mural as a part of a local arts festival" wasn't clear, but this wasn't public property and the alderman has no business wasting the Streets and Sanitation's time by making them go over there and paint over someone else's property; time, I might add, would be much better spent fixing the thousand of potholes all over the city. Or gang grafitti.

I am pretty sure you can write "Cops Suck" on your wall and as long as it's your wall all the city can do is maybe ticket your house, or cite you for some ordinance.

Painting over your wall is definitely stepping over the line. "Public way" or not it is still your property not the cities.

The mural was interesting- it doesn't seem to be blatantly anti-police. It is not like there is a cop car with a target on it saying 'cop killer' or a picture of porky the pig with a badge- ya know stuff that could really be considered over the top offensive.

So he was trying to upset people but at the same time not make a statement for/against the CPD. Gotcha.

Villa should sign a complaint & have Balcer arrested for criminal damage to property!

Not the first time an alderman became an art critic.
Anyone remember this?

Mirth & Girth
Main article: Mirth & Girth

On May 11, 1988, a student painting of Harold Washington, the first black mayor of Chicago, was torn down by some of the city's African-American aldermen - over the protests of many who attempted to block them - based on its content. The painting, titled "Mirth & Girth" by David Nelson, was of Washington clad only in women's underwear holding a pencil.[2] Washington had died on November 25, 1987.

The painting was returned after a day, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department and the aldermen. The ACLU claimed the removal violated Nelson's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth amendment rights. Nelson ended up receiving a monetary settlement for damage to the painting which occurred during its confiscation

I agree that the Alderman had no business having the wall painted over. However, the whole "it was on private property" reasoning is irrelevant, seeing as how graffiti is very often painted on private property (garages, on the sides of buildings).

Uh, the difference would seem to be whether the property owner gives permission.

Ward Up: Remember this thread the next time you bitch and moan about "Leftcagoist" censoring the views of god-fearing real American conservatives. Man, you right-wingers are hypocrites. And you're not even good at it.

Graffiti painted on private property is ONLY removed by request of the property owner, or by the property owner themself. No city official or employee has the right to remove graffiti from private property without permission.

I tried writing a complaint to Balcer, but his official alderman email is apparently full.

Guess I'll have to give him a call. I encourage others to do so as well.

I think his actions here are illegal censorship. There is no way around it.

I was wondering what went on over there. This is only a couple of blocks from where I live.

The irony of the location is that it's about a block west of one of the blue light cameras it was depicting.

If the alderman's taking it upon himself to cover up painting on private property, however, there's plenty of tagging in my alley that could use to be cleaned up.

The City has the right to remove "graffiti", although it would be interesting to know if they followed their own ordinance. If not, I feel a lawsuit coming.

Graffiti Removal Ordinance

Ok, that link doesn't go to the exact section. Hopefully this one will LINK.

you can defend freedom of speech.and the rights of an artist.and im all for that.im no saint.i used to be involved with graffiti when i was younger myself.

however

the owners of this building are drug dealing gang bangers.and are an eyesore on the community.

so give me a break.

get them out of there balcer!!!!!!!!!

i commend you for havin balls.this is the first time im proud of my aldermen.

That's ART? HA! I call this grafitti RUBBISH. I'm glad it was covered over. Kudos to Balcer and the Grafitti Busters for doing their job!

I nominate you as Chicago's art czar, Dan B. From now on, you get the power to approve or disapprove art on private property.

1st Amd? Some bullshit from the late 18th century .... and Enlightenment thinking is soooo old school.

Looks like a couple of the machine's useful idiots have just found this article.

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

About Chicagoist

Chicagoist is a website about Chicago. More

Editor: Marcus Gilmer
Publisher: Gothamist

Contribute

Latest Tip:

where is the chicagoist facebook fan page?
[more]

Latest Photo:

Recent Comments

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from Chicagoist.

All Our RSS