Mural Conservancy of Los Angeles

HEAVY WAVE OF GRAFFITI HITTING MOST FREEWAY MURALS

by Bill Lasarow

Graffiti, it is well known, ebbs and flows with the constant coming and going of new generations of adolescents. The impact on public murals in the L.A. area is significant because tagging in general is far more widespread here than almost anywhere, and whenever it becomes a favored sport it spreads rapidly. But the sudden and nearly complete tagging of nearly every one of the more than forty freeway murals in Los Angeles is without precedent.

Until late last year the freeway murals have actually enjoyed a period of relative calm for about eight years. Not that local taggers were entirely inactive, but the problem had grown steadily throughout the 1980s to become the focal point of considerable concern to area residents.

Earlier generation tags from 1992 on Kent
Twitchell’s “Seventh Street Altarpiece.” Current
wave of tags are much larger, with graphic color fills.
Photo: Robin Dunitz.

The emergence of a new generation of vandalism, however, has focused on freeway murals in a new and chilling way. No mural appears to be considered out of bounds, and the sheer size of these tags aggressively pushes the mural into the background.

MCLA has to date protected a group of eight of these murals with sacrificial coating, leaving over thirty others either protected under another aegis or unprotected altogether. No formal assessment has been made, but it is presumed that some of these murals may be damaged beyond repair.

Unfortunately a handful of the murals have been further damaged by the state’s road maintenance agency Caltrans’ crews, who have painted out the offending graffiti irrespective of the artwork underneath. It has been reported that in two cases, Kent Twitchell’s “Seventh Street Altarpiece” and Alonzo Davis’ “Eye on ‘84,” murals that receive sacrificial coating protection from MCLA were painted over. While MCLA has had this paint removed by the contractor, the fact remains that Caltrans rushed to paint over the murals in spite of the fact that the agency has records showing that MCLA protects them.

MCLA has sought to formulate a way to coordinate with state agencies in order to assure that these murals are protected (see accompanying article for this discussion). As a California Arts Council staffer pointed out, “The State has no policies nor procedures to account for the maintenance of public art owned by California.” The reference was not merely to public murals, but any public art.

In certain of these cases a sponsor has stepped forward to foot the cost of restoring the affected mural, as was the case when the L.A. Amateur Athlectic Foundation provided funding for Frank Romero to recreate his “Going to the Olympics” mural, located downtown on the 101 Freeway. But the investing of relatively expensive commissions of this sort is the exception not the rule, and unless effective solutions are put in place soon Los Angeles as a host to significant murals in high visibility public locations could become a thing of the past.

The State’s art agency may be sympathetic, but until helpful policies are in place the occasional Caltrans misadventure remains a real concern. L.A. City’s Cultural Affairs Department has been far more active in its efforts to develop assessment procedures that benefit public art that the City owns and has had commissioned. Last year a panel provided a ranking survey of about one hundred of these murals according to their merits. There is also a maintenance budget for conserving selected murals. Indeed, during the last year about ten City-owned murals received professional care.

Unfortunately there are limits to this positive trend even within city government. At least two murals were recently destroyed, or theatened with destruction, by the city (see accompanying stories, page 7).
The threat of graffiti is not only the most pervasive among these problems, it is a constant sword of Damocles poised against the vitality of the local mural movement. It not only draws resources that might otherwise go towards better enhancing the urban environment, it contributes to a psychological climate that stunts the creation of top quality public art.

But it cannot be ignored that government has, on the whole, not only failed to be very helpful, but has served to make matters worse. It may well be that the simple understanding that public art is a very real and valuable asset may at last be translated into an appropriate set of policies. If it is not, at least in Los Angeles, those assets could well be lost.

MCLA’s FREEWAY MURAL PROTECTION PROPOSALS

The current crisis of freeway mural art falls within the jurisdiction of the State of California. When a public mural is painted on a freeway location it becomes the property of the people of California, and it is the State that holds sole authority regarding any and all procedures used to maintain them. That means however much local City officials may wish to protect the murals located on freeways, they can only issue encouragement, not directives, to California officials.

The Mural Conservancy has concluded that the State of California must be petitioned to provide direct assistance in order to best ensure the long term preservation of the murals. First, a regular annual budget directed to the protective maintenance of public murals must come directly from the State of California. Probably via the California Arts Council as opposed to, say, Caltrans, since the CAC’s organizational culture would be in sympathy to the appropriate use of this money. We believe it is time that money budgeted for public art projects must include a component that pays the cost of ongoing protective maintenance. Rather than a hit-or-miss handful among our public murals, all that warrant protection should receive it.

Second, public agencies must be held liable for the damage or destruction of public art. When a mural is painted over, inadvertently or intentionally, the perpetrating agency must be responsible to assume the cost of paint removal and repair insofar as it is consistent with the Visual Artist Rights Act.

MCLA also looks to the local business community to recognize that its own economic self interest is affected by the existence of these murals. A Los Angeles that boasts itself to be the mural capital of the world, but which is unable to generate the support of local businesses that benefit from cultural tourism, is unlikely to maintain that position.

Would these proposals serve the goal of providing long-term protection of our public murals on the freeway? Let us know your opinion.

PONCE MURAL THREATENED BY BUILDING AND SAFETY

by Robin Dunitz

Los Angeles’ Building and Safety Department has threatened to paint out a mural at 6th and Westlake that features Zapata and Chiapas hero Sub-commandante Marcos. It's by Hector Ponce and it's his second one. His first was painted out a few years ago. At this writing we are attempting to register the mural with the Cultural Affairs Deptartment, but the building inspector seems to be in a hurry. The story on Hector Ponce's mural may be concluded in a matter of days. If it hasn't been hurriedly destroyed shortly after presstime by Building and Safety, MCLA will have helped Ponce to obtain the protection of the permit. The owner of the building is happy to help protect the mural.

Hector Ponce, “Chiapas Hero
Sub-commandante Marcos,” 6th St.
at Westlake, Los Angeles.
Photo: Robin Dunitz

The complaint leading to the possible paintout came from a hotel down the street that objects to the gun in the hands of Marcos. Without the CAD’s permit a mural is regarded as a sign, and so isn't protected by the 90-day law. In essense such murals are treated like graffiti: they are subject to being painted out. Cultural Affairs claims they can't do anything to protect a mural if there isn't a permit. However, the city is also full of important murals that were created prior to the permit requirement that don't have permits filed. Their status, and potential vulnerability, remains unclear.

DE LA LOZA MURAL SUDDENLY PAINTED OVER,
SETTLEMENT WITH CITY FINALIZED

by Robert Rootenberg

Inadvertently or intentionally set-up by the City of Los Angeles, the owner of Peerless Hardware, located on the corner of Sunset and Alvardo, painted over Ernesto de la Loza’s mural “El Nuevo Mundo: Homage to the Worker.” Painted in 1995 and funded by the Echo Park Pride Committee, the mural depicted the contributions of the immigrant population and workers to society, and in particular, Echo Park.

After researching the property site and conducting an investigation, we discovered that the City of Los Angeles had recently purchased the hardware store site with plans to build a library. Escrow instructions indicated that the City would require the building to be delivered “clean.” Without knowledge of the Visual Artists Rights Act, and apparently without consultation of legal counsel, the owner of Peerless did just that, painted over de la Loza’s mural, along with a mural by Nathan Kayser, so that the building could be delivered “clean.”

Ernesto de la Loza, “El Nuevo Mundo
(Homage to the Worker),” 2011 West
Sunset Blvd. (at Park Ave.), Echo Park.
Photo: Rich Puchalsky

Initially, we decided to file a lawsuit for violation of VARA against Peerless. They were the party that committed the illegal act, and we would allow them to “point the finger” at the City, if they were so inclined. Further proving the “conspiracy” theory would be difficult, as no documentation existed other than the escrow instructions, which indicated that the City in fact made requirements of Peerless that were in violation of the law. Proving fraud and conspiracy against a municipality is very difficult and costly, so a “wait and see” position was adopted. Approximately three days after filing suit, attorneys for Peerless contacted me. Over the next couple of days, a settlement was negotiated out of court.

Although no amount of money is sufficient to compensate a muralist for the loss of a mural, de la Loza decided to accept the settlement, not pursue the City, and to move forward. The mural was gone, and any attempt to resurrect it or to pursue further compensation was not worth the financial, emotional and physical commitment required of him. With the damage done, some cash in his pocket, and his paintbrush in hand, de la Loza is ready to paint the next wall. We can only hope to have educated another group of people--building owners, insurance companies, and lawyers--that public art is indeed protected by federal law, that it is an extremely important cultural asset that should remain in place, now and for generations to come.

Robert Rootenberg is an attorney located in Los Angeles, specializing in litigating Visual Artists Rights Act claims. He can be reached at 323-664-0202.

The Mural Doctor: Nathan Zakheim

SILICATE PAINT AND SUBSTRATA

Have your own question? Mail it to the Mural Doctor at MCLA, PO Box 5483, Sherman Oaks, CA 91413, or by by e-mail to mcla@ lamurals.org. Note: we omit names of those questions selected for the Newsletter in favor of the questioner’s initials only; it’s their substance, not who posed them, that’s important.--Ed.

Nathan Zakheim,
the Mural Doctor.
[no screen size image]

Question--I notice that acrylic paint is generally used for murals in this area. My question is this: is there a reason artists do not use silicate paint, such as the Keim products from Germany? Having painted in both acrylics and silicates, I know the silicate paint has a much longer outdoor life and requires less maintenance, yet is no more difficult to use. I have examined silicate murals in Switzerland and Germany that are more than a century old and still in good condition. I am trying to figure out why silicate paint has not made more inroads among muralists in the U.S.--WC

Response--Acrylic murals when painted on a properly prepared wall can last a century too--if good quality, light fast paints are used. In adition, acrylic murals that are "faded," or where the acrylic material is beginning to crystalize, can be revived by spraying them with a 5% to 10% saturation coat of Acryloid B-72 in Xylene or Diethyl Benzine.

This however, is not the most important factor in using acrylic paints for outdoor murals.

Acrylic paints create a stable, and when varnished with Soluvar, a non-porous surface that can be subsequently be coated with sacrificial wax as a preventative for graffiti. In Los Angeles, murals are subject to being "hit" with markers and spray cans that strongly attack an unprotected mural surface, and this sacrificial wax has proven in most cases to be a satisfactory means facilitating the easy removal of graffiti from the mural surface. If a mural has been applied on a well prepared wall, the hot water blast that is used for melting the sacrificial wax on which the graffiti has been applied will not damage the mural at all.

Without doubt, silicate murals provide a superior longevity on a prepared wall, and a unique aesthetic that is more subtle and and in some cases can be more pleasing than the strong, bright colors of acrylic.

The drawback in using silicate paints such as Keim in areas of public art lies in the prevalence of graffiti. There presently is no coating that will adequately protect a silicate mural from graffiti. There is a material in Enland that can be used to coat Keim murals, but it is not endorsed by the manufacturer at this date.

I have not tested this graffiti barrier, but I do not believe that it uses the satisfactory method of sacrificial wax. In any event, to recommed a graffiti barrier or coating, it would be necessary for the manufacturer's "stamp of approval" to be in place. What's more, a mere barrier (such as urethane) entails an enormous amount of hand work with solvents to remove spray paint from any surface, not to speak of Keim silicates.

In addition, the Keim silicate murals that you saw in Europe do not use the same formula as that marketed in the USA. Keim, anticipating that American artists would not take the trouble to learn the intricate process of painting in silicate paints, created a MODIFIED SILICATE paint that is far less stable than it's European counterpart.

Basically, the American version of Keim paints are not chemically stable on the basis of their silicate content.

Local muralist Terry Shoenhoven painted a truly excellent mural in Keim pigments on the 110 Feeway’s Wilshire Boulevard freeway exit ramp downtown. As a consultant conservator, my firm was called upon to prepare a series of tests to determine the feasibility of removing the heavy spray can graffiti from the Keim mural.

Our tests revealed that the Keim paint readily dissolved in plain water when the surface was scrubbed. It also dissolved readily in any of the solvents that would be strong enough to remove the graffiti spray can paint. Since we were under the impression that the Keim paint was held together by a mineral bonding, we could not understand why it would dissolve in Xylene or Toluol. After months of pressuring the USA distributor and European manufacturer for answers, it was finally disclosed to us that the American Keim is a "modified Silicate" which turns out to have been modified with an acrylic resin such as a form of Rhoplex!

This means that the "so called" molecular mineral binding simply does not take place at all. Instead, the modified Keim paint turns out to be a very weak and unstable acrylic paint itself. The hyper-expensive (and very diluted) medium sold to extend the colors is apparently not much more than a very dilute acrylic medium.

To conclude, Keim mineral paints have a surface that is too sensitive and open to enable the removal of graffiti. Because the American product is modified with a weak acrylic emulsion it readily dissolves in aromatic hydrocarbons, and as such are much less stable than regular acrylic murals.

Of course, if you paint murals in a part of the world where there is no trace of graffiti or tagging, then the silicate paints manufactured by Keim may be quite safe and long lasting.

Question--Since all of my previous work has been either indoors or murals painted directly on the exterior building surfaces I am looking for technical information about substrates for exterior use in a Northeastern climate and a compatible exterior paint. Are you familiar with Alucobond and Di Bond? It has a resin core with an aluminum skin on both sides. The manufacturer says it doesn't warp and it can be drilled and cut with hand saws, jig saws. It is available with a variety of primed surfaces.

Any referrals or suggestions that you may have will be gratefully appreciated! Thank you.--RH

Response--The material sounds like the sort that is used to make large billboards. Such material also comes with a foam core and a plastic skin on each side. That particular material is very light and easy to handle, as well as dimensionally stable.

The trick is having the correct primed surface so that your paints will remain attached to it for a long period of time.

Primers can be layered in a succession of compatibility so that a surface only suitable for automotive enamels or bulletin paints can be coated with a series of primers that will leave you free to paint with (say) acrylic emulsion paints or Keim. Surface preparation is EVERYTHING! We have seen the best constructed murals using top quality thick mural paint "fall off" an ill prepared wall after only two years.

A well prepared mural properly varnished, should remain in excellent condition for 100 years or more.
Additional suggestions:

Read the Materials Data Sheet for the panels, and be sure that they are engineered for as long as you want the murals to last (The manufacturer will fax or mail you the MDS).

Study the primers that are on the pre-primed sheets for compatibility with other paint systems. If you are painting with acrylic paints, you will definitely not want a hard, smooth, primer on the sheet as the acrylic gesso, which has low adhesion properties anyway, will not form a strong bond on the sheet. If they offer a surface that is MEANT for acrylic emulsion, then that will be ideal. . .otherwise, you may need to use a succession of primers to prevent peeling in the future.

JOHN VALADEZ’ LAYERS OF URBAN LIFE

by Margarita Nieto

John Valadez, “The Broadway Mural,” 240 S. Broadway, Victor
Clothing building, downtown Los Angeles, o/c, 8 x 60’, 1981.
Photo: Adam Avila

Muralist-painter John Valadez’s photo-realistic language is rooted in his inventive and insightful utilization of the camera as a means of capturing the image. This body of images in turn, find their counterpart in the space of the mural or painting. And it is there, through those images that Valadez creates an aesthetic of dichotomies: a new social reality, a conflictive juxtaposition of those images, re-arranged for the viewer, through his painterly eye. The result is a narrative that reveals the ironic dimensions and layers of urban life in Los Angeles through images of its inhabitants.

Born and raised in Los Angeles, John Valadez earned his Bachelors Degree from CSU Long Beach, where he also worked at the La Raza Center, producing murals and prints. It was during this time that he began creating a book, a 1956 Encyclopedia Britannica which he began to “update” by filling in and editing the entries with current events and phenomena, spray painting pages white, burning them and transferring current images on top of the old photos and text. Two significant decades: the fifties and the seventies. A commentary on social change seen through two views, the institutional, authoritative and established historical record of the Britannica and the critical, rebellious, fresh eye of the young artist.

His first exhibition, held at Otis Art Institute in 1979, was a three person show (Carlos Almaraz and John Woods were the other two artists) entitled “LA Parks and Wrecks.” Even then, the ironic dichotomy of his vision was already established in his “heroic” portraits of street people, of “barrio” types, rucas, cholos and homies. A large drawing of a “mom and pop” grocery store also give an indication of Valadez’s understanding of visual counterpoint. The juxtaposition of advertising labels for Knudsen Milk or Coors Beer are superimposed with graffiti, a confabulation of two worlds coming together in one space.

That imagery continued to be developed during the four-year period between 1978 and 1981, when Valadez produced murals alone. In 1978 Valadez, Carlos Almaraz and Barbara Carrasco painted the “Zootsuit” mural above the Aquarius Theatre on Sunset Boulevard (now destroyed).

Another mural “The Beauty of Our People,” at the corner of Brooklyn Ave and Soto, served as testimony to the ephemeral life of murals, for Valadez’s mural covered a Frank Romero mural, and in turn Valadez’s mural disappeared under the extant mural by East Los Streetscapers. In 1978 Valadez and Almaraz also collaborated on a City Arts Summer Youth Project mural, “The Return of the Mayas” in Highland Park.

In 1981 Valadez completed “The Broadway Mural” located in the interior of the Victor Clothing Company at 240 S. Broadway (see accompanying news item in the box, this page). This street scene is based on images produced over a five year period, photographing life on Broadway while working for the Community Redevelopment Agency. By now his imagery of people walking, selling, buying and living along Broadway was fully mature. This mural mirrors a world of contradictions: simultaneously a homage and a critique, it reveals the richness of cultural diversity as well as the harsh economic reality of L.A. urban life.

In the eighties, Valadez traveled to Europe on a fellowship and as part of the exhibition organized in France, Sweden and Spain, “Le Démon des Anges.” In the nineties he received commissions to produce murals in El Paso, Texas at the border crossing (1993), and at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and the U.S. Courthouse in Santa Ana, California (1998). He is currently working on the design for a public commission, an installation, his first, for the MTA Blue Line Memorial Park Station in Pasadena.

Throughout his career, John Valadez has never wavered from his early commitment of seeing and utilizing art, particularly public art, as a means of social criticism and change, and of creating an awareness in the viewer, of the social, political and cultural dichotomies of contemporary society. His murals bear testimony to that commitment.

VICTOR CLOTHING BUILDING SOLD

After having announced its availability some months ago (see the Newsletter, v. 10, n. 3) longtime property owner Ramiro Salcedo has ceded ownership to Clinton Financial Corp. According to an item in the L.A. Times’ March 31st edition, “More than a dozen artists who live in the building’s lofts have been given a 30-day eviction notice. . . .The developer intends to restore the facade to its oritinal 1920 status, turn the building into loft living/work spaces [for artists], and add some restaurants on the bottom floor.” We are also told that the new owner regards preservation of the important collection of murals on the exterior and interior of the building as a given. We’ll look at the sale and what it means for this landmark building in the next Newsletter.

CITY REQUIRES CAD APPROVAL
ON ALL L.A. AREA MURALS

All murals located within the City of Los Angeles, whether on public or private property, and whether City-sponsored or painted by independent artists or organizations, must obtain final approval from the Cultural Affairs Commission before they are executed.

The procedure for approval of murals is as follows: (1) Obtain an application from the Murals Coordinator at the City of Los Angeles, Cultural Affairs Department. Applications may be mailed or faxed by calling (213) 485-9570 to request a Mural Application. (2) Schedule an appointment to submit Mural Application and all necessary support documents to the Cultural Affairs Deptartment. (3) Once submitted murals are placed on the next Public Art Committee meeting agenda, attend Public Art Committee meeting and answer any questions about the project. (4) Attend Cultural Affairs Commission meeting and answer any questions about the project. Obtain conceptual and final approval from the Commission.

Joe Smoke
Public Art Coordinator, L.A. Cultural Affairs Department