If walls could talk...

"The Mexican muralists produced the greatest public revolutionary art of this century, and their influence throughout Latin America - most recently in the wall paintings in Nicaragua - has been far-reaching and continuous.  There was a time, during the 1930s, when it was also felt in Britain, and in the USA, but since then they have rarely entered artistic discourse."
(Dawn Ades, Art in Latin America, 151)

Man, Controller of the Universe by Diego Rivera

Murals are cool.  They make places more interesting.  People have been painting on walls for a long time.  Some murals are considered great works of art.  Sometimes they serve political purposes; sometimes they’re just to look pretty.  I’d guess that most times they are commissioned works of art.  Mexican murals turned out to be a big hit – they served a distinct purpose at a time of political and social change.  The purposes murals serve are highly varied, and I’d argue that there’s always an underlying motive for creating them.

downtown Provo

You don’t have to go to Mexico to see murals – we’ve got some here in Provo, even on campus.  I think that relief sculptures can also count as a type of mural (carved, rather than painted).  There are plenty of those around too.

relief sculpture on the LDS Mesa Arizona Temple (source)

Murals are a unique form of visual art because they’re stationary.  I think this adds to the artistic experience - in order to see a mural in person, one must travel to its location.  This forces the observer to also experience the sounds, smells, and general ambiance of the mural’s location.  But I think in most cases, people don’t travel to a place specifically to view its murals; the murals add to the general ambiance of the place.

(source)

What about painted walls that aren't commissioned works of art?  Most people call it graffiti.  It often serves the same purpose – to send a message to the masses in a public place.  I didn't think much about graffiti until I heard about Banksy, an anonymous street artist from England.  If you haven’t heard of him, you should definitely read up on him – he’s a super-interesting figure.  He definitely has a political/social agenda, but I think he does much of his work for his own enjoyment (and to make places more interesting).  Reading through one of his books completely changed my attitude toward graffiti.  What do you think – is graffiti a legitimate form of art?  See what he has to say about it:

“Graffiti is not the lowest form of art.  Despite having to creep about at night and lie to your mum it’s actually the most honest artform available.  There is no elitism or hype, it exhibits on some of the best walls a town has to offer, and nobody is put off by the price of admission…

They say graffiti frightens people and is symbolic of the decline in society...

The people who truly deface our neighbourhoods are the companies that scrawl their giant slogans across buildings and buses trying to make us feel inadequate unless we but their stuff.  They expect to be able to shout their message in your face from every available surface but you’re never allowed to answer back.  Well, they started this fight and the wall is the weapon of choice to hit them back.

Some people become cops because they want to make the world a better place.  Some people become vandals because they want to make the world a better looking place.”

(Banksy, Wall and Piece, 8)

(source)