Frequently. From what I’ve seen of local street art (and I follow it keenly) - the vast majority of it has been done with permission by the landowner.
I’ve added asterisks to the subjective parts of your rhetoric, for which valid opposing arguments exist.
I was disappointed that some really talented bits of art were painted over. It wasn’t just Bowen’s angry characters painted on that hoarding. But nice try at undermining the consistency of my argument.
A bold move to throw out a random unsubstantiated statistic before pivoting to picking someone up on subjectivity (not sure what’s actually wrong with posting a subjective view in any event).
Let’s ask the experts.
@Lionel, in your opinion, is it fair for me to say that the vast majority of street art (specifically, murals) in Forest Hill is done with permission?
What about this?
Well, sure - he’d be able to explain his reasons, but bear in mind, no one is less objective about the artwork than the artist himself.
That’s funny, I thought it said 99%…
I edited it (prior to your comment, actually) because I knew someone would be pedantic about my use of this turn of phrase.
ETA: I’m not going to get drawn into silly tit-for-tat with you, @PV, as I have been before. Please, let’s hear from other people.
If only this forum was a little less pedantic eh? Then people might not have to put up with people inserting asterisks at each point of their post that is deemed to be subjective.
I’ll take that as a “no” then.
Hear hear, these bickerings are draining.
I like it. I like Nathan’s work and it adds something to our local area.
No all art should make you feel comfortable and if this makes people ask questions and explore their assumptions, then good.
In fairness I think that is a valid, albeit personal viewpoint on this piece of mural painting. An individual’s reaction to any piece of art can be quite varied. Even quite different from that intended by the artists. Which is often why artists can be loathe to ‘explain’ their work. I am reminded of a quote by George Bernard Shaw.
You use a glass mirror to see your face; you use works of art to see your soul.
And that often is case. How a person reacts to a piece of art gives us an insight to their character, their personality and most often their belief systems (and not to mean religion).
From my perspective, referencing the past to explain the present is a common practice in all forms of the arts be it literature and theater or in this example, the visual arts. It helps to reference events past and often demands the viewer to contextualize it in the present. The source work for this piece is not simply a protest of the 60s but a symbol noting the journey to true equality is far from over. Despite government legislation, racism is endemic and institutionalized. If you can accept there is anti-semitism institutionalized in one political party and islamphobia institutionalized in another, how far a reach can it be that racism exists in our society as well.
Art can be light and fuzzy… like a painting of a pretty girl in pig tails. And it can be challenging, even make some people uncomfortable. If that were a reason to remove art then our public spaces would be empty and our galleries filled with echos.
I for one am thankful for art like this. And let’s be clear… street art has for many years has acted as a commentary of current social and political issues. This Nathan Bowen piece may be new, but this type of work is as old as the quest for equal rights and treatment or people of colour, as well as LGBTQ, women, people with disabilities and many more who feel marginalized in our communities.
Long may this piece last (or until Global find an advertiser) as may others.
There is another empty billboard a few metres past this one. I’d welcome another piece by another artist to compliment our new Bowen.
I think you double posted - feel free to delete one, I’m not choosing in case they’re slightly different and I get the wrong one 
Oops. I was typing from my laptop. And then tried to add the picture from an edit on my phone. That didn’t seem to work so I then Whatapped the picture to myself to copy and paste into the message.
I’m going to blame the heat. El skorchio.
I liked your thoughtful post, @starman
This is the point that raises the biggest question for those of us who sincerely want to “fix” this issue.
If UK law is entirely fair to all races (and I believe it is), what more can we do?
What concrete changes would we make, if democratic/legal/judicial avenues have been exhausted?
…and are there dangers associated with this line of reasoning?
Yes - there is racism in everyday society, because there is racism in people’s minds. The law does defend people from manifestations of that racism (the law is currently looking into institutionalised problems you referred to), but the law cannot change how people think.
Efforts to “re-educate” people can backfire, and exacerbate their prejudices. Efforts to stigmatise certain thoughts (whether via the law or via social pressure) can lead to people getting defensive about those thoughts. Efforts to collectively organise one race against another definitely make things worse.
I think a better overall solution to the “hearts and minds” problem is for society to focus less on colour, and instead focus more on unifying aspects of society.
A side note on permission for the new Perry Vale street art - Global were publicly criticised by some of their own radio presenters for the company’s response to Black Lives Matters.
It is possibly that Global commissioned the work to try and have a stronger response. Or Nathan may have targeted a Global billboard specifically because of the other coverage.
Or it could all be a co-incidence.
Yes, I’ve noticed a lot of activists trying to coerce corporates into publicly announcing support for the Black Lives Matter organisation. And many corporates have done so.
Even if BLM was just about race (which it’s not), I still think it’s inappropropriate for corporates to comment on it. Not all employees agree with the promotion of identity politics, and the divisive statements made by advocates of BLM.
Since you asked.
I am appalled at the level of racism, abuse and threats levied at people like Shaun Bailey, our black Conservative candidate for Mayor and Sadiq Khan, our incumbent Muslim Mayor. I liken racism to a iceberg. What we see above the water pales into what we don’t easily see below.
Let’s take ownership of racism, even if we as individuals are not the problem. People from BAME communities suffer the effects of racism. But racism isn’t their problem, it is our problem… and for me personally that is from the position of a white male.
Laws can only go so far. So what this means is we should take the opportunity, when able, to challenge racism (or indeed prejudice of any type) if we are able and where we see it in our communities… in pubs, on the street and even on community forums.
At the same time, we must recognise that not everyone will change their minds. And when their core beliefs are challenged their prejudices may be exacerbated. That in itself is no reason to take positive action.
Understand that words have meaning… even if that meaning was unintentional. As much as we’re encouraged here to think before we post, the same adage should be adopted in our day to day life. Acknowledging that what we have said may be misconstrued, even apologizing is, in my opinion a place of strength not weakness. I wish many of our corporate and political leaders would understand this better.
On a practical level, act positively on recommendations on reports and commissions we already have and that are most often commissioned by government already. There is no real need for another one. Without positive action on those existing, and I’m not saying there haven’t been outcomes, these can been seen as nothing more than lip service. Throughout these reports trust, or a luck of it, is a prevalent theme. Let’s rebuild that trust.
And recognise there is a difference between Black Lives Matter (BLM), the de-centralized activist organisation AND Black Lives Matter (#BLM) the movement. While both have similar objectives specific to the black community, support of #BLM does not expressly mean support of BLM.
There is probably a few more I could add… and maybe someone else want to. And while I have written this treatise, I will be the first to admit that I do not fully follow it myself. I have faults, but I am trying. Unconscious bias exists in everyone. We cannot avoid it. But we can work to understand and address. I would highly recommend anyone who feels they do not have unconscious bias to take a course in it. I was shocked at how I found what I thought to be perfectly reasonable ideas and understand the negative impact they had on some of my work colleagues. It was eye-opening.
I can find some middle ground on that. Far too many corporate bodies jump on bandwagons. As it is a personal experience I will speak to when it affects the LGBTQ community. I value when corporate bodies show they are allies and support LGBTQ both within their organisations and in the communities they operate. For my own personal development, the use of a pride flag has essential for my own personal development where in my early years the discrimination I faced was destroying. But I am also sick to death in last couple of years with corporate bodies that now rebrand for Pride Month with a rainbow flag, and without any clear indicator of what that means to them. It becomes nothing more than June’s version of the Valentine Heart of the Halloween pumpkin.
I frequently challenge companies on their use of the pride flag in the absence of any stated reason for it. If you feel as strongly about corporations use of #BLM I would strongly encourage you to do the same.
But on the matter as to whether companies should or shouldn’t do that? On that we are opposed. Companies are profit-making centres. But frequently the most successful companies are good community citizens with CSR at their heart. Good companies are generally responsive to the social concerns of their employees. If that policy goes against the grain of an employee, they will have to make a decision on whether that in itself is a reason to look for a new employer.
Now back on topic. I wonder if we can encourage another street artist to bless us with some work on that other billboard.
Agree with most of your points, Jason.
But this one…
This idea of “collective ownership” of problems by identity groups.
Should all Muslims “take ownership” of Islamist terror, even the many peaceful Muslims who are not terrorists?
Should all black people “take ownership” of the violent Brixton riots and looting of 1985, even the many peaceful black people that stayed at home?
I mean, I can kinda see what you’re getting at. It is easier for people within the social / cultural group to effect change upon their peers.
But conversely, I’d argue that it’s society’s responsibility to distinguish perpetrators from innocent people regardless of race, and really we should be tackling societal problems at a societal level.
