Community Debates Mount Washington Mural Proposal
A request for a letter of support to create a new mural project on Mount Washington Drive resulted in lengthy debate about the proposed public art project.
Antonio Villaraigosa Jr. has spent enough time watching his father conduct business as both a representative for Council District 14 and now as mayor of Los Angeles to know that any project requiring public takes time to complete.
However, even Villaraigosa might have been surprised by what he witnessed during Monday evening's Arroyo Seco Neighborhood Council (ASNC) meeting, when his group's request for a letter of support in their effort to create a mural along the hillside bulkhead on Mount Washington Drive devolved into an hour long debate about policy and procedure.
Villaraigosa, along with friends and fellow artists Zach Christensen and Robert Sipchen narrowly received a letter of support from the council, which will be sent to the city's office of cultural affairs, but not before they heard several arguments from community members who were opposed to their proposed project.
According to Christensen, the mural would be in tribute to Mount Washington resident Jack Rohman, who took his own life after suffering for years from schizophrenia.
The work would not only memorialize Rohman's life, but his summer of 2010 effort to create a mural along the same bridge abutment--a project that briefly dazzled and dismayed locals for a few weeks one year ago.
Unlike previously reported on Patch, Christensen said the mural would not replicate last summer's work, but would instead be the product of a shared vision between the artists.
"It would be something that Jack would like," he said.
However, as he heard on Monday evening, the proposed mural may not be something residents of Mount Washington like.
Arguments Against the Mural Project
"The Mount Washington community offers a sense of peace and quiet, and a retreat from the sights and sounds that assault our senses," said Mount Washington resident Ruth Mehringer. "It's a visual intrusion; it's in your face no matter what."
Laurie Schneider, also of Mount Washington, said she "did not understand" the type of art the three muralists were proposing to install.
Arguments in Favor of the Mural Project
The artists weren't without their allies at the meeting, though.
Pat Griffith, of Mount Washington, said it "was a great thrill" to witness the summer of 2010 mural.
"It's a lot nicer than the cinder block bulkhead, which is not a pretty sight and often tagged by graffiti," Griffith said.
Griffith also pointed out that the mural would be created on canvas and adhered to the wall via wheat paste. It would not be created with spray paint.
Warren Christensen, father of Zach Christensen, also spoke in favor of his son's effort.
He said the community's feelings about his son's style of art were beside the point.
"We need to frame this debate in terms of whether or not we want to allow a mural on this wall," he said. "How people feel about the particular style of art is beside the point, as the First Amendment has already weighed in on that."
Procedural Wrangling Among ASNC
Ultimately, the artists earned the votes they needed, but not before the debate broke down into wrangling over council policy and procedures.
Joseph Riser, who represents Hermon on the ASNC, made a point of order motion in an effort to send the request back to the Mount Washington local issues committee, where it was tabled last month after originally being booted there by the ASNC in May.
Update: Patch erroneously reported that Riser represents the community of Hermon on the ASNC. In fact, he is an at-large representative for Education & Youth issues. For a full list of board members and their positions, click here. We regret the error.
"I believe the president [Martha Benedict] erred in putting this on our agenda," Riser said. "If local issues committee tabled it, then it shouldn't be here."
However, ASNC member Mark Legassie, argued that the community in Mount Washington had ample opportunity to speak out against the mural, including the Mount Washington local issues committee meeting in June, a recent recreation, culture and arts committee meeting and Monday evening's full council meeting.
"If the community is so against this, where are they?" Legassie said.
Elizabeth Herron, who sits on the recreation, culture and arts committee, and who is Christensen's mother, abstained from Tuesday's vote on the issue. However, after the meeting she said she would likely wait until after the August 30 meeting of the Mount Washington's local issues committee before sending the letter of support to the Cultural Affairs office, in an effort to gather more community input.
Villaraigosa, meanwhile, was unfazed by Monday's proceedings.
"This was not a huge blow to us. The planning is going to continue. We're still crafting the creative vision for the art," he said. "What we saw tonight was some procedural wrangling."
Bill McCallister
10:11 am on Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Stop looking like the U.S. Congress and say "Yes" to something. Do it!
Charles Tsu
11:02 am on Tuesday, July 26, 2011
I just paid $22.87 for an iPad2-64GB and my girlfriend loves her Panasonic Lumix GF 1 Camera that we got for $38.76 there arriving tomorrow by UPS. I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 40 inch LED TV to my boss for $675 which only cost me $62.81 to buy. Here is the website we use to get it all from, http://BuzzSave.com
David Fonseca
12:10 pm on Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Sorry Joseph, I've made the change in the article.
JosephR
12:16 pm on Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Sorry, there is no "education & youth commitee, either. I am just, as I said earlier, the "Education and Youth At-large" Representative of the ASNC Board. The ASNC communities elect 12 "geographical" representatives (each is elected by only the stakeholders of the community they are from), and 7 "at-large" reps, each for a different are of interest, but all elected by voters from all five communities.
Our committee structure is not necesarily related to those positions. -- Joseph Riser
David Fonseca
12:22 pm on Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Okay, I think we've narrowed it down, Joseph. Thanks for clarifying.
Andrew Loos
3:22 pm on Wednesday, July 27, 2011
This should 100% go through! I can't see anyone thinking this would "take away" from the already beautiful scenery up here in Mt. Washington.
Anna Carpenter
9:12 am on Thursday, July 28, 2011
There has been minimal public input on this mural project. The Mt Washington Association Board did not sign a letter of support based on this fact, feeling that it really needs more discussion in the community particularly as we don't know yet what the mural is going to look like and it is planned on a scenic entryway to the hill. SRF, the church located right above the proposed mural had not been approached or notified about it when I spoke with them yesterday.
Rob Schraff
9:47 am on Thursday, July 28, 2011
It is also interesting that this issue was tabled in the Mt. Washington local issues committee of the ASNC, yet pushed through by the ASNC President with minimal notification. My understanding is that the Cultural Affairs Department will also need to be involved, at that they will hold well-notified public meetings including all community stakeholders.
Charles Inman
2:41 pm on Thursday, July 28, 2011
Issue was tabled by Liz Herron (Zack's mom) when she saw the opposition instead of taking a vote. Then promised it would be submitted to SRF. Instead 5 community ASNC voted on it. Mostly Herman officers. This tainted vote should be cancelled and MWHOA should take over the issue. This is pure graffiti imho. signed: Half Century resident of Mt. Washington
Rob Schraff
2:56 pm on Thursday, July 28, 2011
I would separate the issues of art and political process, myself. But I am also, personally, a big fan of public art, even graffiti art. Your post does make the excellent point that there needs to be a more open discussion - where all these issues could be hashed out. As this surely involves more than "homeowners," and was an ASNC action, I think it could (should?) have been referred back to the ASNC local issues committee, with a directive to have a full, well-notified discussion.
David Brunk
7:13 am on Sunday, August 14, 2011
I have been a resident of Mt. Washington for over 50 years and was a founder and Board member of the ASNC at start up and am just now hearing of the proposal to redo two young men's idea of art on a public bulkhead, the same young men who illegally painted it a year ago. The property above and below the bulkhead has been owned by Self Realization Fellowship for 85 years and contains their Headquarters and Monastery that are holy ground for over a half a million people.
This cultural and religious organization has been serving the community and the world for all these years in many ways including feeding the hungry and working for peace and harmony between the world's great religions. They are totally non- political but no one has cleared with them their ideas about appropriate art projects or with the bulk of residents on the mountain who will see it every day.
This should require an outreach to the residents affected to educate them about the proposal and get their reaction. I live on Mt. Washington Dr. and am not alone in being unaware of this as there was no outreach. The Board that voted will never see what these young artists plan to do as they are from other communities.. The last illegal effort was like cartoon art. I respect the Rohmans and the Christensons as well as our Mayor and their feelings for the young man being memorialized but they are not alone on Mt. Washington.