Miki Warren's Mural - Guantanamo

[Davhead]

the council say it is a conservation area .. and no planning permission was gained for the painting of the wall ... so he has to take it down

heap of sh*te if you ask me ..

I agree with what you say about the churches ... religion, or so it would seem, has killed more people that paintings have hahahaha

[humndislocation]

Conservation of what? Are there rare species of mould growing on the wall that are killed off by paint or something?

I don't see how planning permission should be required for a painting either. Unless people start building using unsafe paints that can fall down? If there's a building already there, then I don't see how the colour of the building is anyone's business but the owner of the land.

[corduroyboy]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

So, as an atheist, if I object to a church or mosque being built across the road from me, I have the right to have it pulled down? Or does that not count? You could argue that "oh the majority wouldn't want it pulled down, so it doesn't count", but I'd bet that in todays political climate, you could probably manipulate the majority of people in an area into opposing a mosque, depending on the area, and the people living there. Does that make it any more right?

If a christian living in the city centre objects to the office of some gay rights society being opened across the road from them, do they have the right to have it closed?

Well, up the West End loads of people were going mental about that proposed mosque. Oh, the Muslims get everything.. and letters like this in the paper. I don't think this kind of thing is directly comparable. These things are places of worship or something for a sizeable part of the community. People don't have the right to have it closed or torn down, but I guess they do have the right to object to it at the planning stage. I think a building or something is more something you could "switch off" though because it's not like you'll be forced to attend meetings for those despicable gays or muslim ceremonies. Also in a city centre area, a gay rights society's offices, is probably not going to get enough objections proportional to city centre population.

I think it's contextual, I think people could more easily object to a methadone drop-in centre or a BNP headquarters or someone painting a giant swaztika or a giant Tesco being built in their neighbourhood, so I guess your freedom of speech is only acceptable if it's a kind of popular opinion, which is kind of part of your point. It is common sense though, but a gay rights offices are just going to be a building, you don't have to go to it if you don't like it, and it's not going to create much of an impact on your local environment, whereas you could object to a nightclub or a pub because it'd generate more noise, light, litter, social disturbance and such.

That is probably why they would opt to have gay rights society office in the centre of town or a cosmopolitan area rather than in a middle-class suburb or an area populated mainly by old people. With freedom of speech, you do have to take the rough with the smooth, and no one is to say "What you're saying is wrong" but it then comes down to thinking "Ok, these elderly people have been living in this area for almost their whole lives and they've paid all their dues and they are fully paid up with their mortgage and they like it here but the majority of them here object to the proposed *whatever they're objecting to*" and that is actually a fair enough viewpoint, if enough of them disapprove, I don't disagree with that logic entirely. If *whatever they're objecting to* happens to be a mosque or a gay rights centre then I would be completely taking the side of the proposed movement. I still see their point. A lot of research is done as to what areas would be sensible in which to put a certain type of building before it is done, so to be honest, as I say, I don't think it's entirely directly comparable.

To be honest, if it did get painted over, at least it's brought the message to the local and regional media coverage, and it may not have got this attention if there wasn't such an outcry about it. It would have had its moment, done its job, most people in Montrose would probably know about it by now and formed a viewpoint, or had the situation brought to their attention, and then yes, if it is offending enough people in the area by being an eyesore or politically, then fair enough, it's not like she's being silenced by some overbearing government that doesn't want you to know the truth.

I know it's on private property with permission, so I guess that's where it is a bit of a sticking point, but accept that if it really *was* on the street it'd probably get painted over by other artists anyway, or a graffiti clean up team would clean it up, and I guess that's the transient nature of street art.

[corduroyboy]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

We're probably not going to come to an agreement on this one, but personally I don't think "you can say what you want, but OK, enough is enough, you can stop saying it now" is freedom of expression.

In street art, then yes, I think that is just the way it goes. Pieces don't last for ever, and they say their point, usually something very up to date topically, and then they're gone, replaced by other pieces.

I know, it's on private property and I guess like I say, that's the sticking point, they *should* be able to do whatever they want to their building. But conversely they don't have to look at it if they are inside the building mainly.

But just talking generally about street art, if you're doing it in the street you're not being silenced as such, you're just replaced with other more topical stuff, mindlessly vandalised, or cleaned up.

[corduroyboy]

Originally Posted by Davhead

the council say it is a conservation area .. and no planning permission was gained for the painting of the wall ... so he has to take it down

heap of sh*te if you ask me ..

I agree with what you say about the churches ... religion, or so it would seem, has killed more people that paintings have hahahaha

Och, without knowing more about the area and stuff I can't really comment on whether it should be or not. If it's an area of natural beauty, or densely residential, then that's something to consider. I'm not campaigning for it to be painted over, just trying to understand the situation surrounding this..

[corduroyboy]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

I don't see how planning permission should be required for a painting either. Unless people start building using unsafe paints that can fall down? If there's a building already there, then I don't see how the colour of the building is anyone's business but the owner of the land.

Some listed buildings are the exception I guess, you have to paint them in a way that won't harm the materials and I think there are limitations to the colour too.

But I do agree with this, and I keep forgetting it's on private property.

[cowfreak]

i kno what ure sayin corduroyboy so i'll say at least some folk hav seen it who would never otherwise hav a clue that that kind of Art exists...
In relation to what kj (thanx 4 sayin 'hi') says about fascist graffiti, when i lived in the netherlands i used to come ax a few swastikas here and there which i would jam into a little house (like a kid'z drawing) with the swastika becoming one of the windows- gave me a warm feeling inside. Btw the funniest graffiti i've seen here in france is on a mo-way bridge near me- 'Ceci n'est pas une tag'

[: : Scott : :]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

Given that she had permission from the owner to paint it, and they wouldn't, then no, they don't. If they get permission to, then I'd say that they have just as much right to paint over it as she had to paint it.

Forgive me, given that there was a discussion about the council considering painting over it I assumed it was on some derelict building on private land without permission.

[Davhead]

the building it is painted on belongs to the artists dad .. it was an old warehouse, which he has demolished to build some new houses .. at the moment, most of the area is just a pile of rubble ..

the council have ordered the owner to remove it, not paint over it. They say it is in a conservation area and permission is needed to paint building there.

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Tayside and Central | Detention camp mural causes row

News - Montrose Today: News, Sport, Jobs, Property, Cars, Entertainments & More

The Daily Record - NEWS - YOUR MURAL IS TAKING THE MICKEY

Scotsman.com News - Residents object to Miki's mural

[Gladerunner]

Since Miki is unable to comment at the moment on the controversy surrounding her mural, I, as her dad, should perhaps say a few words about it.
Miki believes that kidnapping people, flying them around the world to torture them in less squeamish countries, before interning them in a concentration camp for endless bad treatment, is a very strange way to attempt to win hearts and minds in an unstable world.
She, or we, believe that these people should be fairly tried under the conditions clearly laid out under the Geneva Convention, because to abandon the hard won human right to a fair trial is surely to abandon the whole point of civilisation. Can we call ourselves a civilised nation and then support the use of torture, the use of information gathered from torture, and long term imprisonment without trial? We think this is very dangerous, especially since it is just bound to incite violence against our troops abroad, who have been placed in a vulnerable position.
But how and where is it possible for an 18 year old girl in Montrose to express her opinion? I gave her an opportunity to do something, and she took it. But many people in Montrose don’t want to know about what Miki, or young people in general might think, especially in a conservation area. Perhaps they would rather young people followed the more traditional pursuits such as kicking mirrors off cars, breaking windows, and/or being permanently intoxicated. It seems to me that people think that anyone who stands up or stands out, should have the wind taken out of their sails as quickly as possible, before they spoil the view, and I suspect that those youngsters move to a city as soon as they can, or just numb it all out with the local substances of preference. Why is it, for instance, that Scotland has more drug addicts by population than ANY other country in the world? Might it be that young people here feel disempowered, trapped in a negative attitude of crushing anything or anyone who tries to do anything? In what way would making Miki feel bad about her art or beliefs help Montrose? It’s only ever been a temporary mural, and we have all been able to express our opinion on whether we like it or not, which is what art is for, is it not? When did you last get Montrose in the media?
I would like to thank all the people who support Miki’s mural, thank the complainers who got it on TV three times in one evening, the Council, who have allowed it to remain on show for free for 28 days, and keyline who kindly gave me 2 new caps after I was on the news wearing a grubby keyline cap. Cheers guys and girls!
Incidentally, I’ve owned that plot for 5 years, and I got planning to knock it down and rebuild it only 3 weeks ago. That’s a heck of a lot of letter writing into the night, and struggling to get somewhere with it before it busts me. I’ve lived here for 4 years, for the first 3 years theft and vandalism costs ran at £300 a month. It’s a hard place to run a business. Local people have constantly phoned the council to harry at my heels, they complained about the state of it when it was up, when it was down, when there were pigeons in it, when it was gone and the pigeons found other roofs after it was gone, now the mural, and soon I expect about the noise when I build it, the dust, and anything else that they can think of. Well we can only do our best, under difficult circumstances, it must be a lot easier from where your standing.
I should also state that I like Montrose, and chose to live here, and don’t think we have discredited the place in any way.

[kizzy1601]

Originally Posted by corduroyboy

Och, without knowing more about the area and stuff I can't really comment on whether it should be or not. If it's an area of natural beauty, or densely residential, then that's something to consider. I'm not campaigning for it to be painted over, just trying to understand the situation surrounding this..

Although I am a fan of the mural I can partially agree with what you are saying. The area in which Miki painted the Mural is that of the Montrose links, a row of gardens and parks which streches through the centre of Montrose! This is an area where the majority of the public will pass by on a day to day basis whether its just a for a leisurly walk, a walk to school/work etc. If people are objecting to it than it means they have seen it, and are aware of the point in it is portraying and the point of Mikis art work has been achieved. To make ppl aware as well as express her own opinion, I would consider this freedom of speech!

One point I do have to make relates to children. I no this is probably going to deep into it, but my cousin saw this and asked what mickey was doing. Mickey Mouse is a childhood idol across the world and for any young children who are still a fan and see this it could lead them astray, thinkin that Disneyland is a place for those who detain and tortue presumed members of Alkaida and Taliban. With access to the internet, children could easily confuse these traits with that of the prodigy that is Walt disney, and I no if i had been a child and seen this i would have been highly upset! I LOVE WALT DISNEY!!

Coming from Montrose myself, I have found some of the comments on here and in the news quite offending! Loving the community you are in and becoming used to the comforts of small town living (i.e knowing everyone, putting a lot of work in preserving buildings and areas of beauty which have been so for hundreds of years etc.) may to some seem as though you are in "bubble-wrap", it does not mean you are a hill-billy from the back of beyond, ignorant to what goes on in the world! We do read, write and watch tv and have travelled outside the town walls, take me for exapmle! I think the only reason people from my hometown object is because it is a change and we all know how much people hate change. Montrose, has never experienced such portrayal of opinion and this as well as it being placed on one of the most preserved and beautiful areas of the town, are the only reasons I believe townfolks are objecting.

However, I agree with freedom of speech and I am highly aware that it is on private grounds and as such I believe it is your right to do what you wish with your own property! As such I believe it is up to Miki and her father what they should do with it! I am a huge fan of banksy, and I believe a pictoral portrail of his work is pure genius!

[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by corduroyboy

But just talking generally about street art, if you're doing it in the street you're not being silenced as such, you're just replaced with other more topical stuff, mindlessly vandalised, or cleaned up.

Yeah, I don't see it as being silenced so much when people have a legitimate claim to having the artwork removed, such as when it's been done without permission, but it pisses me off when people are clamouring to get it removed, when it's on private property, because I'm very much into freedom of expression.