Let’s start with a straw poll to see how people feel:
0 voters
Note that this poll is:
This poll could miss the point. What about people who prefer the old one, but believe the new one should be there at the moment?
Is it possible to simultaneously prefer it wasn’t there and believe it should be there?
How about this (which I mean as a polite suggestion): consider your vote to represent your opinion on the hoarding. Not what you think other people feel about it, or what other people should be compelled to view on the hoarding.
…
Or just click the “other” option?
I don’t think that’s what beige said…
If this really just a poll PURELY about the aesthetics then the question and options are valid, but, imho, that’s only part of the conversation on this topic (of waldram park road).
I don’t think we need another poll. It’s not really about the new artwork or the old one. It’s about wether that space should be used as a temporary canvas. You’re opening up a whole other avenue where people have very strong opinions… Ceci n’est pas une pipe
If you want to ask this question feel free to start a poll of your own.
See: How to create a poll
I wasn’t the one who originally posted about this new banner on the forum. Perhaps take it up with @starman if you disagree with this banner being discussed here?
I think we should use the space as a giant consultation board on traffic calming measures, then we can wrap up two threads at the same time.
Why should he take it up with me?
I rather thought chamonix’s thoughtful response came in nicely under ‘other - please comment’ if indeed they chose that.
And I sincerely wish there was a 
option for the Magritte reference.
Sigh. I can’t vote for whatever reason and despite asking to be verified. I’m all for it though.
Lol did you just start pointing fingers like a child with chocolate on their hands? Your poll is essentially A) do you prefer the anti racist slogan or B) The pretty pictures
Let’s keep politics out of this. I think we can all agree on the message.
Let’s be respectful of each other.
And let’s acknowledge the fact anti-racists may reject some of the goals and methods of this particular organisation/movement, whose founders have made clear is more than just an anti-racist organisation.
Let’s also bear in mind that not all black people support BLM, despite the fact it purports to speak for them.
As I said, I was not the one that brought BLM into this thread, so if you want to point fingers, or if you don’t think it should be discussed here, please flag the original post, and @moderators can consider removing that (and the subsequent discussion)
Just as when Starman posted an update simply saying the art had been refreshed, your response here is unnecessarily political and digresses in to areas that I think some members of the forum would like to rebut, but don’t as it’s against the forum rules.
No, sorry. My response above is not “political.”
It’s a measured statement of fact and does not discuss politics at all.
Oh good so we should be able to continue the conversation.
I think it’s a shame that when this movement is gaining traction and shining a light on decades of institutional racism that people will take the opportunity to point out perceived flaws in the organisation that started it, or to make statements like “Let’s also bear in mind that not all black people support BLM, despite the fact it purports to speak for them”. Not only does this painting not purport to speak for anyone (where is that motion from?), this to me is equivalent to saying “of course black lives matter, but white lives matter too”. Both can of course be statements of fact but these types of statement detract from a cause that needs support to succeed against institutional racism.
I also think referring to statements from individuals that you might disagree with, or activities of other protestors as criticism of this art or any other use of the term black lives matter is another distraction. The people painting this sign didn’t make those other statements, we don’t know if they employ the methods of protest you disagree with, they just painted a widely recognised message of support to the black community. If you take issue with other forms of protest then here is a good peaceful one to support. I think it’s a real shame when people’s first instinct is to respond by saying “yes but some protestors are violent, and the artwork was nice before”.
I did not point out or suggest any “flaws” in those people.
Please don’t make straw man arguments against me.
Be aware that the founders’ motivation was more than just anti-racism. And “anti-racist” / “anti-fascist” organisations are sometimes used as a Trojan horse for other agendas.
Which statements did I refer to? Which activities did I refer to?
Bravo
The painters’ motivation wasn’t, though (which is the point of this post). It was to visualise and voice a movement of great significance, both on a global level and to our community. Most people will look at this artwork at face value and see it as a sobering reminder to educate themselves and consider their own privilege. There’s no coded message inciting violence and mass gatherings. It’s topical, it’s important, and as with any cause, the actions of the few should not be clouding the motivations and the ideals of the many.
Well your original post read:.
“What a shame to see all that wonderful art destroyed and replaced with the polarising slogan of a political movement” and linked to an incendiary article badging BLM a radical neo Marxist movement, by the same Alexandra Phillips that threatened a journalist for investigating her involvement in Cambridge analytica.
Then you referred to methods and messages from founders (activities and statements) here:
“And let’s acknowledge the fact anti-racists may reject some of the goals and methods of this particular organisation/movement, whose founders have made clear is more than just an anti-racist organisation.”
Of course if you didn’t mean to suggest that these are your views and you were just suggesting views others may hold then I apologise for being presumptuous.
It was only an “incendiary” article because it explodes some of the arguments presented in the last few posts, and proved some points that commenters in this topic would probably rather we didn’t explore. The article didn’t “brand” the founders. The article quoted the founders themselves.
BLM is much more than just “anti-racism,” and there are reasons why non-racist people may disagree with the slogan being painted in 20 metre stretches of public space.
Imagine if I painted “Let’s Take Back Control” on a hoarding. I could argue that as a painter, I’m just posting a positive message about self-confidence. But others may read more into that message and disagree with the other connotations that it promotes. Thus it would be divisive.
For the same reason I edited my original comment, I’m not going to take this conversation deeper down the rabbit hole, out of respect for the forum’s guidelines and the long-suffering @moderators
You’ve made your points, I’ve made mine. I’m going to leave it there.