Graffiti that once was considered the bane of urban existence is now a recognized and sometimes highly sought after art form unique to the inner city. All over America, cities are electing to brighten once-blighted neighborhoods with murals and other forms of street art. The biggest challenge? Finding them.
[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 2px”]We frequently travel across a little stretch of road that is strictly utilitarian in nature. There’s no reason for its existence other than to connect one part of town with another. The asphalt runs adjacent to a railroad track with a hospital at one end and an industrial area at the other, but there is nothing useful in between, simply overly-littered clumps of weeds and dirt the department of public works tries to clean up occasionally. Then, just last year, the city decided that the area needed some sprucing up. So, they commissioned a large mural to be painted under the stretch of Interstate 65 that dissects the area. The mural is very attractive, very bright, and appropriate in its depiction of the people who live in the area. Hooray for public art!
Yet, the rest of the area, even the right-of-way between the mural and the road, remains a blight. Trash still punctuates the aesthetics of the road, soot still gathers on the girders of the overpass, and none of the mural is visible unless one is stuck on that very short piece of otherwise forgettable road. Might this be a case of expecting art to do more than it is capable of doing on its own? Possibly.
Cities have long had a love/hate relationship with outdoor urban art. While graffiti has been around almost as long as men have been building walls, only recently have we as a society started looking at it as a legitimate art form. Artists with names such as Banksy, Mr. Brainwash, and Retna, Shepard Fairey, and David Choe have become both celebrities and millionaires spraypainting their works on the side of buildings such as Facebook’s headquarters. What once would have gotten a person arrested for vandalism is now welcomed by many urban building owners and often comes with a very hefty price tag.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”4px 2px 0 8px”]For all that popularity, we’re still not always sure what to do with urban wall art. Today’s picture is shot in front of a very large and attractive piece of work in Fountain Square. Yet, you won’t see it as you take a casual drive through the area. The graffiti art is on a wall tucked back in an alley next to a gravel parking lot used primarily by employees of adjacent businesses. If one doesn’t know the work is there and seek it out, it goes completely unnoticed. Sticking Diablo, at the time one of Fountain Square’s better-known residents, in front of the wall might have brought it some attention had we included a map of how to find it. We like urban wall art, but we’re not always sure we want everyone to see it.
One also has to consider the fact that a lot of street art is intentionally temporary. Traditional graffiti artists never expect their work, welcome or not, to be permanent. Even under the best of circumstances, sunlight fades the colors and changing weather eventually chips away at the paint. Many walls where graffiti is welcome get completely repainted two or three times a year. If one visits an area infrequently or is unaware of an art wall’s rotation, one might easily miss a real masterpiece of urban painting.
Wall art is an exciting part of the contemporary urban landscape and photography helps preserve this all-too-temporary art form. Perhaps one day we’ll no longer relegate such creative work to back alleys and the underside of Interstate bridges. Until then, the search-and-discovery process of finding these exciting pieces is an adventure that defines the uniqueness of the urban outdoors. Get out your camera and start looking; they could be anywhere![/one_half_last]
Free Information
Freedom of Information (Composite, 2015)
James Madison, the fourth President of the United States and a principal author of the United States Constitution, was born on March 16, 1751 and it is because of his commitment to a balanced government and informed electorate that we celebrate Freedom of Information Day on his birthday. But wait, with such freedom comes responsibility. Are we up to the challenge?
[one_half padding=”2px 6px 0 2px”]Anyone my age or younger has grown up with a concept that government has an obligation to be open and honest with its citizens. President Johnson signed the first Freedom of Information act on July 4, 1966 with some hesitation, but it set forth a standard for the federal government we pretty much take for granted today. We fully expect that our federal government has to tell us, within reason, what it’s doing.
At least, that’s what the history books will tell you. That law was actually repealed by the 89th Congress and replaced with Title 5 of the United States Code, which contains language substantively identical to the Freedom of Information Act, but also contains a great deal of additional regulation over civil service functions and responsibilities.
Hold on, we’re not done yet, though. There have been amendments over the years and they’ve come with some political turmoil. Consider the Privacy Act of 1974, which most importantly gives an individual the right to see what information the government has about them, correct that information if it’s wrong, and sue the government if it is being misused. Opposing the Privacy Act was then federal attorney Antonin Scalia (prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court), President Ford’s Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld, and a deputy named Dick Cheney. They convinced President Ford to veto the bill, but could not stop Congress from overriding the veto.
They weren’t done. In 1976 (same President, slightly different Congress) what was laughably referred to as the Government in the Sunshine Act (it was the 70s, forgive them), added some restrictions to the act. Most notably among them, information regarding matters of national defense and preventing federal agencies from speaking regarding active court cases. Suddenly, that picture of the federal government started having huge holes cut from it.
President Reagan limited the act even further, using Executive Order to allow government to hide pretty much anything it wanted under that “national defense” clause. President Clinton vacated that order in 1995, and went on to issue Executive Orders of his own to allow for the release of documents older than 25 years old that were of “historical interest.” President Clinton also oversaw the Electronic Freedom of Information Act in 1996, requiring federal agencies to make documents available electronically (which is why federal websites are so important).
There were some smaller Executive Orders here and there, but the next major change came as part of the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007. Among other things, the act redefines what qualifies as a member of the news media (includes bloggers not directly associated with a traditional news outlet), and establishes the Office of Government Information Services to mediate claims against federal agencies.
Whew. Being an “open” government isn’t quite so easy, is it?
And therein is the challenge. Not only does government have a responsibility to be open about what it’s doing, what information is being collected and for what purposes (we’ve been arguing about the whole cell phone thing for how long now?), we have a responsibility with regard to what we do with that information.
Specifically this: we have to ask for the information.
Freedom of Information merely means that government agencies have to provide certain information when it is requested. They don’t have to mail it to your door. No one is going to sit down and make you read it. You have to ask.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”2px 2px 0 6px”]In my aged (in an oak barrel) opinion, the need to figure things out for ourselves has never been stronger. Since 2007, there have been a number of politically-motivated websites who have gained some level of prominence by making Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and manipulating that information to serve particular political purposes. There’s no sense blaming one party or another because it happens in abundance on both sides.
And both sides get it wrong more than 60% of the time, according to studies released last year regarding information integrity.
The unintended result of so many people having what is essentially quick and easy access to so much information is that our news and information sources are now flooded with misinformation more than anything that is actually factual and helpful. Even our most trusted news sources have been caught in outright lies, and more frequently are guilty of taking raw information gleaned from federal sources and twisting that in ways never intended.
When we allow others to interpret information for us, it becomes very much like the composite image we choose for today’s PotD: challenging to know exactly what we’re seeing. Was this a single picture from one event? How many people are actually in the picture? Is anything important being omitted in the “redacted” portions of the image? How does one tell what is real and what is reflection? What is that child eating?
Think of information as though it were a basket of fruit. On one side, the government has its basket with a small, carefully lettered sign that says, “Free for the taking.” No one takes the fruit, though, because it hasn’t been peeled or washed and would just be too much trouble to prepare. People on that side of the street complain about being hungry but ignore the basket of fruit completely because it’s just too much trouble.
On the other side of the street are fruit vendors. They take the free fruit from the government basket, wash it, peel it, slice it, and make it look attractive on a plate. As a result, people flock to that side of the street to consume their fruit. There’s just one problem: some of it is poison. [Remember, Maleficent dealt in fruit, also, much to Snow White’s demise.] But even knowing that some of the fruit is poison, people still consume as much of it as possible and consider themselves well fed.
We do exactly the same with information. We consider the raw sources too difficult, so we let someone else do the parsing for us, knowing that a great deal of what we read is “poisoned” with editorial bias, but we consume as much as we can and consider ourselves informed.
I’m fairly certain that if James Madison were alive today, in addition to being totally freaked out by technology and vehicles that move without visible means of propulsion, he would encourage, if not demand, us to take a more active and deliberate role in how we receive critical information from and about our government. We don’t have to take someone else’s word. Proposed legislation is typically available online within hours of it being presented and given a bill number. Verbatim transcripts, and in some cases video, of committee hearings are available online as well.
The information is there, and it’s free. Now, what are you going to do with it?[/one_half_last]
Share this:
Like this: