UPDATE 10/26: Mike Oz and I put together an in-depth story about the Palomino's mural controversy in today's paper. Of particular interest: information about a 1990 amendment to the U.S. Copyright Act known as the federal Visual Artists Rights Act, which gives artists -- including mural artists -- specific rights to a work. If a work is destroyed, the artist could seek recourse in federal court.
If you want to wade through a whole lot of ugly, check out the reader comments on the Bee story, many of which seem to come from folks who 1) are fierce law-and-order types except when 2) they don't like the law in question.
Questions remain about this latest Tower mural controversy. Will another mural go up on the blank Tower Theatre wall, and will artist Josh Wigger be involved? Or will he pursue his rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act?
I have some general questions as well, especially considering the recent activity in what some are calling the "Mural District" in the north part of downtown. Are property owners who contract with mural artists aware of the potential copyright issues involved? Are commissions that are being signed today including specific terms about how long a mural is guaranteed to stay intact? What about issues of preservation, including the use of removable panels?
I'm also intrigued by the obvious artistic divide in the community about how murals are regarded in terms of longevity. Some people feel they should be considered temporary and have a short shelf-life. Others feel they should be preserved just like any other painting or sculpture.
On the jump: the original mural post.
ORIGINAL ENTRY: Folks are buzzing about the painting over of Joshua Wigger's big iconic mural on the side of Palomino's restaurant in the Tower District.
Bee business writer Bethany Clough talked to Susan Neville, box office manager of the Tower Theatre this afternoon, who said: "We painted over it. I don't know what we're going to do with it. I know we're trying to clean up the building. It was starting to look a little bit shoddy. Sometimes kids would come and put little stickers on there. So we thought, let's just clean it up for now."
Here's where things could get sticky: It appears the murals are part of a series of projects in the Olive Avenue business district paid for in 2006 by $50,000 the mayor requested for the area in the city budget.
Reaction from the artist: It's a bit of understatement to say that Wigger, who is based in Los Angeles but returns to Fresno frequently to paint murals, is annoyed over the news. He told me by phone this afternoon: "I really think they should have gotten hold of the artist. You just don't paint over the wall. If it's looking shoddy, you have the artist come back and touch it up."
He first learned about the mural being painted over from a friend who wrote: "I can't believe they took your mural down."
Wigger has been trying to contact Bill Kuebler of the Tower District Marketing Committee, which acted as a liaison when the Tower District murals were painted, to find out exactly what happened.
Back in 2006, when the mural was painted, Palomino's kicked in a portion of the money to pay for the mural, with the rest coming from the city. The Bee reported that the city's share of the cost was about 70%.
Wigger points out that with city money involved in the mural project, questions remain unresolved about whether a property owner (in this case the Tower Theatre) has the right to unilaterally paint over a public art project paid for by the taxpayers.
"There were contractual agreements beforehand," Wigger says. "I do know I signed some papers. I don't know whether those agreements went into retaining my contractual right to the image. And we didn't talk about the property owner having the right to paint over it. I don't believe that was discussed."
As for what's ahead: Wigger, in a comment on this very post, writes:
I believe that there should be just compensation for the loss of this mural by doing a new one funded by Tower theatre, those who want to have a mural on the same wall (donations) and myself.
I have a call in to the city to sort out the public-money part of this and whether the Tower Theatre owners blew it by arbitrarily painting over the mural.
Meanwhile, at this point it's hard to know whether the closing of Palomino's -- which Bethany Clough confirms on The Bee's news/business blog -- was related to the painting over of the mural. Clough talked to Daniel Renteria, owner of The Pinot Wine Bar and Bistro, scheduled to open in mid-November, who said he did not have any say in the mural decision.
He declined to give his opinion on the change, except that: "Maybe we'll ask them to do something else. That was a really beautiful mural."
[photos: Edward Stewart's blog]
Much improvement! It does not look as ghetto now.
You are VERY wrong on this. Every great city has original art. The fact that this was done without contacting the artist, not to mention anyone involved in the story the art depicted, is despicable.
This art told a story of someone very dear to me. More important, it told a story of someone very dear, period. Wrong.
Oh boy. Yet another ignorant PR fail by a local business.
Little stickers bugged you so you solved that by painting over a prominent muralist's COMMISSIONED mural.
You don't clean up a commissioned mural by painting over it.
My guess is you painted over it because your new tenant asked you to. great way to be a custodian of the arts, Tower Theater of the Performing Arts
It states in the articles that the new tenant of the old Palomino's had nothing to do with the decision to paint over the mural. They don't own the building, they are just renting a space inside like the hot dog people were.
I don't speak for Josh, but it seems obvious to me that he or any muralist would have been glad to come and retouch their work if it was "starting to look a little bit shoddy" as the box office manager claimed.
Kwamii James, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "ghetto", but whitewashing commissioned artwork from the landscape is not an improvement.
Donald,
thanks for the link and using my photos. I wish I had a fuller pic of the mural.
I have to say that I wholeheartedly disagree with Kwamii James' comment. The mural was a warm visual in the neighborhood. In no way did it look ghetto. Furthermore, the big, white wall is much more likely to look ghetto specifically because it's blank. Easy, high visibility target for taggers, who leave the murals relatively untouched.
And how did it look ghetto Kwamii, i'm curious? I think tower should be covered in ART!
Either that's a big load of nonsense or somebody is naively optimistic about graffiti. Everyone knows that white walls and graffiti go together like peanut butter and jelly, but I guess the building owners will just have to find that out that hard way. They be painting over graffiti in that spot on a weekly basis, I'm sure. And that will be a much bigger headache than some cute little stickers stuck to the building.
That's a bogus a$$ reason to remove a mural. If anything you should be compensated to redo the same or another mural. That's a straight up rip off!! I've been thru a process like that because of "miscommunication" and was compensated to redo the Welcome to Fresno one. Don't let that bullsgit slip by. Go for it, if not we'll get the art posse together and we hold up a protest!! All that $50 grand and where did all the $ go to? Get em Josh!!
And to Kwamii, I don't think you ever been to a ghetto, because murals are not ghetto and neither is the tower district.
I am the one responsible for the Palominos, Landmark and Teazers murals. I was commissioned by Bill Keebler who delt with the beautification project in Tower district 6 years ago. These walls were meant to be preserved as they were paid with city money and if they become "shoddy" or littered with "stickers" then someone needs to contact the artist to have them touch-up the painting. I believe that there should be just compensation for the loss of this mural by doing a new one funded by Tower theatre, those who want to have a mural on the same wall (donations) and myself.
That is incredibly lame. As a Tower resident amd homeowner I feel that the value of my daily cultural experience as well as my property value has been diminished. Apparently, my taxes helped pay for the original mural as well. So what's this really about?
I agree with my brother in art Josh when stating taht the entire tower needs to be covered in art. This was not an eyesore by any means, this is the product of douchebags with money doing whatever the F they want without fear of consequence... for "our" (Fresno Artists) sake I hope this does get rolled through a legal battle and I hope Tower Theatre has to eat it... and if all else fails just wait and see what happens to that beautiful blank canvas you just made for #projectmayhem...wont be white for long.
This is such crap! The Tower Theater folks should be ashamed of themselves! As others have said, you don't "clean up" a mural with whitewash! As for it looking "Ghetto," that is ridiculous! The thing that makes The Tower unique is that is supposed to be a place that embraces art and artists! I think Tower Theater (of destroying art) should have to foot the WHOLE bill for a new mural!
I have been a resident of the Tower District for seventeen years, I worked in the Palamino's building when it was Java Cafe, and I wish that beautiful mural occupied the wall while I worked there. It was my favorite mural in Tower, and I'm so sorry that it's gone.
I love working with the Tower Theatre. I believe they care very much for the district, the theatre, safety and of course the arts as a whole. They consistently and constantly work with charity events, other artists, and listen to the property owners on their block.
So I'm glad to defend them in ALMOST everything they do.
This was a rare gaffe, and a big big one. It altered the entire overall look and feel of the Tower District. That mural has become iconic on the very icon of the district. Destruction of art is a horrid decision and shouldn't ever be taken lightly without consideration for the entire area.
Laurence and Susan are Tower stalwarts who are doing the very best they know how for the area. This was just a mistake, and we all make mistakes.
Sad to hear about Paul closing his place, but it's absolutely no surprise. Business there hasn't been good for quite some time - he was using the nightclub thing to make ends meet and try to keep solvent, but the police sweep and Rick Mirigian ended that dream.
Best of luck to the new owner, and I trust Paul will land on his feet soon. Paul's one of the good guys.
They should put a Wal-Mart in the old Palomino's spot. That would solve everything.
Thats unbelievable!!! I would think only the city has a say in the removal. Doubt I will be visiting that section anytime soon! Thats two big thumbs down to the people responsible and Kwamii for living in fresno and not knowing what ghetto is.
The mural was absolutely beautiful and brought a distinction to the Tower District. The Tower community is synonymous with art, and that should stand out. Describing this destruction as "cleaning it up" is ignorant. It took approval for the funds to paint the mural and it should as well take approval to remove it.
The mural was absolutely beautiful and brought a distinction to the Tower District. The Tower community is synonymous with art, and that should stand out. Describing this destruction as "cleaning it up" is ignorant. It took approval for the funds to paint the mural and it should as well take approval to remove it.
It is a disappointment to see artwork painted over in such a cavalier fashion. The whitewashed wall is now a prime target for graffiti which will create that ghetto feeling.
Thats unbelievable!!! I would think only the city has a say in the removal. Doubt I will be visiting that section anytime soon! Thats two big thumbs down to the people responsible and Kwamii for living in fresno and not knowing what ghetto is.
It's gone. Get over it. We're all going to still wake up in the morning.
Besides, it's the perfect opportunity for it to go back to works done by the indigenious "artists" ready to "claim" their area rather than hipsters and their self-pretentious defintion of what art is.
I'm sure it'll soon be tagged up and some flaming hearts wrapped in barbwire will be sprayed up in no time.
Are you saying graffiti on that wall would be superior to a planned mural?
I've lived in Fresno for more years than I care to admit, and I have NEVER seen graffiti here that was anything other than an eyesore, and I certainly wouldn't call the people who do it "artists."
No it's not gone and we will not get over it until there is a new one up, there are rules to this game and Tower theater just made a foul. I will not stop until i am paid to paint that wall again and if you want to argue about legalities then dribble on because i am completely backed by California.
I think i might just add a flaming heart with barbed wire since i am not "indigenous" to Fresno...HA! and i am some pretentious hipster who knows nothing about art and turn it into something beautiful just to remind you how ignorant you sound...balls in your court now dribble on.
So you'll only do it if you get paid again?
Way to go, 'artist'.
Screw this guy, if another mural goes up, let's at least have someone from fresno do it.
Thanks for showing your true colors Wigger... it is all about the money for you... some artist! You state they should have notified you when the mural fell into disrepair? I say you should have taken the responsibility to maintain the mural yourself if you cared so much about it. But obviously you did not care about it, afterall it was a just paycheck for you! Go away and paint your graffiti somewhere else. HA!
I'm a huge fan of Wigger's work. He's one of those people who is so incredibly talented in so many ways that it would just piss me off if he wasn't such a cool guy as well. Fresno is honored to have Josh's presence in the community and his work on display. This is an artist who has already achieved greatness and is destined, it seems, to continue to become ever greater. I am happy to a few of his pieces in my home and hope to acquire more in the future. For anyone to purposely destroy a Josh Wigger original of such beauty and magnitude is the height of ignorance. I am reminded of the Taliban destroying the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan. This mural, in particular always gave me a Goddess positive comforting and maternal feeling as I walked or drove by. I feel a tremendous sense of personal loss and a sense of shame for the stupidity of the morons with whom I apparently have the misfortune of sharing my neighborhood.
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart
Josh Wigger is a Fresno native and a gift to our community. His work is honored and respected all over the world. It's a terrible shame that the same respect hasn't been paid to him by his own home, and by the recipients of such a gift. I hope, for the sake of our community and the future of local art, that this injustice is handled swiftly and with a firm hand. As a member of this community and a taxpayer, I stand by Josh and I stand by art.
why did palominos close, thought the place was doing well, this is the first ive heard of it
Suzanne could not have said it better. What a short-sighted, ignorant move.
My 11 yo says:
"I really liked that mural. It added interest, and now that wall looks boring."
I can't say I personally like the art but that is what art is all about each person looking at it saying for yourself what you feel good or bad. The thing is it was art. I don't feel it should have been removed. What is not art is all the tagging that may well already be on the wall now. No one small group should choose what murals stay or go. I would think at least for some amount of time there will be a backlash for painting over it. If the theater is hit in the bank account that is where they will see residents are not happy about removing art in any form.
Another sad day for public in Fresno. Stickers can be removed, original art cannot be so easily replaced. How dare they! As tax payers they just destroyed something that we all contributed to. They should pay for a new one. That was an awesome image that always made me smile. Now they've just created a blank canvas for taggers. Doh!!
Wow, that was a really beautiful mural and I'm really surprised the Tower Theater just painted over it without consulting anyone. I definitely think the loss will be felt by Tower's residents and visitors.
Sorry, I agree with none of you. I, too, live in the Tower and have for many years. I have always hated that mural because it looked like a psycho witch on acid, viewed by another tripping individual.
I applaud the Tower Theatre for cleaning that wall up, and for those of you who predict - or promise - a graffiti tagging party, grow up. Those threats are as welcome as the youths who used to come to my door, stating they were selling (whatever) so they wouldn't be out on the street robbing people. None of this is appreciated.
The TT has a right to do whatever they want with their property, despite the idiot expenditure of the previous administration. I had no idea taxpayer monies were behind that ... project - I figured it was the TDMC. Regardless, the TT has the right to the image they wish to project, and perhaps having a giant tattoo on the side of their building isn't among their ideals. I hope in the future business owners will be more careful about what their tenants are doing.
Next Week: Fulton Mall Renoir chiseled into a foot stool for police officers to rest their weary feets.
I don't get it either.
...it raises a lot of questions about 'who actually owns the artwork? -doesn't it.
(that's an issue that needs to be 'sussed out, for sure, what, with all the murals being done all the time...)
I mean, if the owners felt that the work had served its purpose -and were up for something new? okaythen. (they owned the wall it was on, and controlled that surface.)
Was the work owned by the artist? (was it on the artist' property?)
-or was the artist paid to do a work, (the work (then) owned by whomever paid for it...?)
-if the work was paid for by a committee of some-sort, yet did NOT own the wall...
-how does THAT work?
-all of this:
-good reason to commission work on panels or removable surfaces?
-The 'long in the tooth/shoddy' aspect of a long term work also raising 'art-maintenance' issues (rather than just letting the thing 'sit there' -to the elements and vandals?)
I liked the mural, (but) always considered it to be part of Palominos'presentation,
-but-
-with Palominos closing, understand that the 'owners' of the building wanted a clean sheet of paper for new projects.
I've also always felt that murals in general (especially public ones) are fluid and subject to change.
Life goes on, public art is to reflect the society it's found in, and six years ago is a lifetime in some ways.
Hopefully the wall will be blessed by new work, if not by (the previous) artist?
-a new one...?
I'd think that there are other credible 'Fresno based' 'large scale' painters who can bring new creativity,
-just as the previous artist did (more than half a decade ago.)
And I really hope the new venture (wine-bar) is not held in some juvenile derision, -especially if they had nothing to do with the former mural's removal.
Onward and upward...
Windygirl, the mural wasn't to everyone's taste, but it was public art like any other sculptures or murals and it was commissioned with taxpayer money. The owners of the buildings would have had to have given permission for the mural to go up in the first place, and probably needed to seek permission to remove it.
As for your admonishment to "grow up", I'll point out that nobody here is really saying that they're going to go out and tag the wall themselves in retribution, but that now that the wall is a nice blank canvas, taggers will find it and use it. How will the Tower Theater like that image, I wonder?
Some friends of mine had their Engagement photos taken throughout the Tower and this mural featured prominently in one or two of the shots. Photographer Wilson Lee did an amazing job of not only capturing the spirit of this couple, but the color and vibrancy of the Tower District with his artful photography. The fact that this mural was taken down and replaced with a bland, white wall shows no real understanding of or sensitivity to the ARTS district it called home. And that saddens me.
BTW: You can see the Tower Engagement photos here (a completely selfless plug) http://www.wilsonleeweddings.com/brooke-and-jay
I thought that mural was beautiful. Sad to see it go along with Palomino's.
Heather P, those pics are awesome! Thanks for the link. =)
Murals are totally ghetto. Like the Chauvet Cave paintings in Ardèche, France. All those silly Egyptian tomb murals, and the ones preserved in Pompeii. Totally Ghetto. Who would want to travel to see those? And what about all those Ghetto Mexican muralists? You know...Diego Rivera, David Siqueiros, and José Orozco. Vato locos forever.
Vatos Locos Por Vida!
Here we go again there Eric ;)good times eh?
California civil code section 987 states
(a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the
physical alteration or destruction of fine art, which is an
expression of the artist's personality, is detrimental to the artist'
s reputation, and artists therefore have an interest in protecting
their works of fine art against any alteration or destruction; and
that there is also a public interest in preserving the integrity of
cultural and artistic creations.
He is the document if any one wishes to read more.
http://fresnoartscouncil.org/programs/mural-guidelines
I have read this thoroughly and the only way this can be terminated is if there is a contractual agreement stating a termination date of the mural image or if "the artist is contacted and agrees to termination". I was never contacted or in any way agreed to have this wall painted over. I do believe i am owed a wall to paint on...Here's to painting engorged tattoos on walls there Windygirl.
..oooohkay...
So, it comes to this...
-Are people going to consent to having a mural painted on their wall, (if) they find out that it HAS to be there forever and ever (and can only be removed by consent of the artist(due to law??)
--THAT's gotta be known (and may be a deal-killer in these strange realestate and economic times.)
I'm guessing the owners of the wall, figured they owned what went on it too... (just a guess.)
-and this isn't some big-bad wal-mart-right-wing-anti-christ group that has no interest (nor finger) on the pulse of the Tower...
-it was the folks who OWN (are?) the Tower...
-oy-
If, by law, you (Josh) are owed a wall to paint on... then... okay, by law, you should have that wall... (does it say 'that wall.' or can it be any wall?)
I dunno... I mean, I was just looking at (this particular) mural about a week ago (was working on projects down in the tower m'self,) and I really liked the color-work,
it flowed well,
and particularly remembered the font (looked bastardized -but well done)
--of 'Palominos' on the side... ---honestly--- I thought it was one of your better pieces.
-so, I'm sorry to see it go.
(if) they have to give you a wall, perhaps even better work will come of it...?
-(it's been 6 years, no doubt your work has progressed.)
Either way... I'm kind of 'iffy' on public artwork being 'forever,'
--privately owned? sure...
but public? (meh.)
-and that's regarding anyone's... Public space has to be open to change (in my opinion,) so I don't freak when it changes from time to time.
What I do find (sort of) alarming (more just 'weird.)
1. -NOBODY (owners) tell you that it's going to be removed (okay, that's a bit discourteous,)
2. -It had been reportedly 'falling to seed,' (not maintained,)
I see that still being a problem...
I don't think you're the sort of artist who just fathers works and lets them run amok...
that nobody contacted you and said '...the palominos lady needs a bit of freshening up..' concerns me...
-leads me to believe that nobody really felt/assumed responsible for the mural, (as they were letting it be messed with w/ nobody thinking to call you..
-and ya know? -it's not an all day project, -but painting a wall that size does take (some)time...
Nobody who cares and is that involved with Tower, in a town and community this small called, texted, twittered, FB'd (anything) you
-or any of your buds from 6 years ago --to say '...Josh's Palomino Lady is getting painted over, like, right now..'?!
If people were THAT protective (and concerned about 'art in the tower' --especially a high-profile piece like this -where were they then? (was this done in the middle of the night? or deliberately when nobody was looking?)
-I mean: There's a FB page that updates 'crimes in the Tower' by the minute... -nobody commented on this (at all.)
-Just a blog, after the fact?
THAT's odd... -that nobody thought to say anything in protest (and gahd don the Fresnish live to protest)
-and nobody let you know, (at all...)
Lots of this just sounds bizarre.
A "rare gaffe.?" A "mistake" and we all make "mistakes." I am a paramedic, and we are frequently faced with difficult decisions about patient care. A "mistake" is when, for example, you consider a person with an ambiguous chest pain and end up treating it as a possible heart attack when in fact it turns out to be asthma. It is not a "big mistake" if instead I just decide that the situation is too confusing and that it would be best to just kill the patient myself and dump them by the side of the road (a metaphor...for any of you art killing morons who may require some clarification). I feel confident that such a "mistake" would not, and indeed should not be tolerated by the community. There are "mistakes" and there are willful acts of criminally stupid destructiveness, and one is not the same as the other. Who are these morons "Laurence and Susan Neville," and what misguided, culturally destructive businesses are they involved in so that I, and others in the neighborhood who feel similarly outraged can direct a systematic boycott campaign in the proper, methodically targeted direction? Less significantly: "Windygirl," you have well articulated the sentiment of the boring and ignorant demographic....congratulations on your long held majority status in the nation, and in your recent victory in the Tower (a rare bastion of artistic decadence in an otherwise suitably bland community). Soon, you will truly destroy the last vestiges of dangerous creativity left and your world will finally be "pure." "Eric Field," obviously "life goes on," but if we, the defenders of creativity and culture, become so numbed as to be able to feel no outrage over senseless acts of destruction such as this, then we have already lost. I personally will assume that the owners of the new business had a say in the decision until it can be proven otherwise to my satisfaction, and I vow to support nothing that these idiots at the Tower Theater (Laurence and Susan Neville) are involved in until such time as my indignation somehow mellows or is assuaged....and I suspect that might take a very, very, very long time.
There are many tragic things happening here:
First: an iconic business is closing its doors. For this we are all just a bit poorer.
Second: a mural is being destroyed. This is an unfortunate sign of the times.
Third: Tower residents are witnessing an erosion of the beloved Tower District, it is all very sad, and I believe wholly unnecessary.
What was so "iconic" about Palominos?
the tower looks like a rat hole with or with out the mural. Starbucks and Bobby Sal'S fueled the decline. what was hip in the tower has gone south to the Fulton area. the tower is nothing more that a few bars and a past of better times.
This will be interesting to watch, especially given the proposed changes to the Fulton Mall. Who retains control of City-funded artwork? What rights does the artist hold once the work is commissioned?
If this were a building (some might say architects are artists), would we have the same discussion?
I admit it wasn't my fave mural. But somebody dropped the ball here big time. There are legalities that should have been looked into. Does the owner of the art or the owner of the wall take precedence? Were I the wall owner, I would never consent to having a mural painted on my wall that I had no right to remove. Were I the artist I would make sure I understood whether it could be removed without my consent. Everybody needs to read the fine print.
What a shame. It was wonderful. Painting over a taxpayer funded mural should be a criminal offense. If this happened because the Tower Theater ordered it, they should be required to repay the city.
"They should put a Wal-Mart in the old Palomino's spot. That would solve everything." this one made me laugh. nice shot 'michael'.
"Standardization is the Final Solution" is what I say (with irony intended).
I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and this mural was no beauty to my eye. I live in the Tower and I didn't know it was gone until I read your article in the Bee. Some of the murals are beautiful and others are not.
"Public art builds identy for a neighborhood," says Donavan Byrn, the chair of Creative Fresno's mural poject committee. The mural on the Neighbor Thrift Store does not represent this neighborhood. Anyone who thinks it does needs to take a real good look at it and ask the artist what it really represents!!!!!!!!!!! It is and eyesore and it is distrubing to see every day but it stays in the name of ART.
"Art disturbs, science reassures" ~Georges Braque
If you're disturbed by any mural-- either arrested by its beauty or challenged by its ideas or viscerally horrified by its aesthetic-- it is art. It has done its job. It has moved you. Believe me, the Neighborhood Thrift mural speaks to a lot of people who live and work in the Tower. It rose people out of their proverbial seats when it went up. The Palomino's mural did the same for a lot of people.
Again, I am often befuddled by the lack of understanding of or sensitivity to the arts district from the people who live here.
sharon,
i live in the tower district, i have seen the mural on the side of neighborhood thrift, and would say that it does represent many elements of the tower neighborhood very well. in that mural we see the influence of agriculture and farmworkers on the value. we see the idea of water use and damming of rivers. we see the impact of police on citizens. those are a few of the themes that are there, and that the artists themselves would say are there. if you don't see how those relate to the people of the tower, i suggest you take another look around, as well as a look at the demographics of the tower.
The appro. headline should read "Goodbye Ugly Mural" Then we can debate from there....
^^Please don't feed the troll.
Big surprise for all you HATE bloggers and trolls and in no way do i mean people who disliked the mural but these button tapping chair dwellers who inspire hate and lack of true action (like creating) ones who can't see past the meaning of what is happening here...BIG surprise!
trolling chair dwellers...hahahaha. I wonder, what would these passive aggressive warriors do for fun if they couldn't anonymously comment on the beehive? They are descendents of the "nothing to do in fresno" tribe.
I'm sorry to see it go. Hopefully you'll get the opportunity to do another mural in tower. Don't let the unenlightened get you down Josh. Good art inspires discussion so it's bound to upset some. . .
Look at it this way. You guys can now start over and paint something that actually looks nice!