Storytelling through Murals
In our discussion last class, we just scratched the surface of the history of Chicano resistance in Los Angeles. The Blowouts in 1968 embodied much of the anger and dissatisfaction with social and political systems that, time and time again, left out POC and low-income individuals. The blowouts were effective in organizing the Chicano community in Los Angeles, and responsible for a lot of the way neighborhoods in LA, specifically on the East/Northeast side, are shaped today. Even though the walkouts eventually stopped, and kids returned to class, the force they represented forever changed Los Angeles and Los Angeles politics. Antonio Villaraigosa, a student leader of the walkouts, later became the 41st Mayor of Los Angeles, and Vickie Castro, a student at the time and an organizer of the Brown Berets, became the first Latina to serve as a school board member in 1993.
While the walkouts were an extremely important turning point in LA (and national) history, they were also very isolated on the Eastside. Eventually the walkouts ended and kids returned to class. However, another huge part of the Chicano movement was the creation of public art- specifically murals that continued the story. Chicano muralists depicted a lot of the struggle facing Latinx people in Los Angeles and the democratic nature of murals allowed for more inclusion in their creation. Murals have addressed issues of educational inequality, racial violence, poverty, and other social and political injustices. Murals popularized messages of Chicano resistance and made visible stories of people in Los Angeles.
How do murals make stories accessible? How is the effect of murals different from the effect of other storytelling devices?
How do they contribute to the greater LA narrative (or do they)? What is the significance of murals being in communities versus being housed in museums? How does the literal space that a mural takes up contribute to its meaning/impact?
Here's some cool links to explore more about LA's murals and the stories they tell:
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI love seeing murals around LA. Not only do I love the important story attached them but seeing impactful and beautiful art while riding around LA is always nice. I think murals being painted in certain areas of LA allow the stories to be accessible because anyone can read or look at them whether they walk past and spend some time looking and reading or while they drive past in their car. The difference between storytelling audibly and storytelling through a mural is that when hearing a story, the listener is able to create their own image that goes along with the story. In a mural images are painted by the artist and I think they have a slight influence on the observer and how the observer looks/interprets the story (I don't think that is a bad thing though because it allows the artist to tell their story or tell the story in their own way). I think there is a concealed importance behind murals being held in museums versus around the city. Like I said above, it's nice to ride around LA and see beautiful murals but I also think it gives the city an interesting and beneficial characteristic. Regarding the size of a mural and how that contributes to the impact it makes, I think it does. I don't think murals would have the same impact on a city if they were a fraction of the size they are now.
ReplyDeletePublic art has long been a platform in Los Angeles for political messages and places for the people of the city to express themselves, whether that be in cases where they’re specifically commissioned or when they’re graffitied. One of the greatest examples of important and politically charged murals in Los Angeles is América Tropicale, the mural that is now (in a restoration) up on Olvera Street that many of us walked past on our trip there. It also took place much before the blowouts of 1968, as it was commissioned in 1932 and became a major controversy after the artist depicted a brutal yet honest depiction of racism towards Mexicans at the time. I think that Los Angeles in particular over time has given a platform for spaces like these to arise, and while América Tropicale was painted over only a short while after it was made, it set the framework for much of the future of what muralists would do in Los Angeles.
ReplyDeleteI think that murals are a particularly effective storytelling device because of how accessible they are to the people of L.A. who are simply driving through certain areas, and they’re something that forces people to look at them rather than something that is read and or/watched voluntarily. Because they aren’t placed behind the walls of museums that often cost a lot to get into and are unrealistic to attend for people who work constantly, they serve as a place to see such art in more accessible places.
Murals allow local artists to create artwork in public areas. It also forces people to view the pieces because of their size and location. Murals make stories accessible through telling them without words. This enables anyone regardless of what language they speak. Murals and other visual art forms allow a story to be told about Los Angeles even when there is nobody there to tell it. Murals are not housed in museums because they represent, and our property of communities and the people who live inside of them. If you remove a mural from a community you strip the area of some of its character.
ReplyDeleteThe murals around LA are so important to the story of the area. I believe that murals make stories more accessible for surrounding communities near it because they are able to see their history from their own space. By having a piece of history nearby it creates a closer relationship with your community and surrounding area. The effect of murals are different from stories because they give a visual representation of the event that happened. Murals contribute to LA's narrative because they show the non-dominant narrative of groups in LA and their struggles. I also feel that it is more significant that murals stay in their original communities because they were meant to be seen in their original spot.
ReplyDeleteI believe murals and other forms of public art not only enrich the community that they are in but also encourage a space that promotes discourse and different viewpoints. Public art can be used used to bring a community together which inevitably stimulates the local economy and diversifies the art scene. Public artworks provide a space for everyone to view and interpret on their own accords. Unlike a traditional setting with a museum, murals are designed for the community they're in rather than a disconnected viewer at a gallery. A 2013 ACTION survey was conducted in San Luis Obispo County which showed over one-third of the residents attended a gallery show or exhibit. However, many expressed their concerns about access to other cultural opportunities within their community. It is clear that a discussion of the importance of public art and its accessibility is not only beneficial to communities but is often already wanted in the first place. I'll link the study below because it also covers some other interesting topics like voting, local Government, and hate crimes.
ReplyDeletehttp://actionslo.org/assets/Social%20Environment.pdf
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSeeing that murals often reflect the values and history of their immediate community, space is crucial in understanding the significance of a public art installation. Murals vary drastically based on their local, meaning that the stories and histories they illustrate are neighborhood-specific and facilitate community expression and discussion. Therefore, a mural in a museum is art taken entirely out of context... stripped of its creative intent to reflect the unique identity and dynamics of its origin community.
ReplyDeleteThe Business Improvement District's painting over of historically significant murals in LA (specifically in Highland Park I think) to make room for formal, commissioned pieces has been an interesting, recent topic of debate as the city struggles with determining its protocol on permitting and commissioning artists and distinguishing between public art and graffiti. I'm wondering if more regulation on public art/stringent qualifications to obtain permits will consequently prevent the painting of important, community-specific histories in murals.
This is Luke's comment, his computer isn't working.
ReplyDeleteLike many other groups of people that do not belong to the dominant culture, Chicanos have struggled to define themselves in the face of a society that seeks to do it for them. Their history has been whitewashed and bears little resemblance to the actual experience of those who do not have the power or the privilege to create what we come to know as history. It is out of this need for self-expression and self-determination that this art form developed. It is an opportunity to tell their stories from their perspective in an unedited and unabashed way. These audacious pieces that grow organically from the concrete walls in the various Latino neighborhoods of Los Angeles, give the artists the opportunity to give voice to a community that has been historically silenced. It is a truth that is splashed across this concrete canvasses, a truth that, with its bright colors and massive dimensions, that demands to be seen. Our class viewed on such piece at the Museum of Natural History that had previously been on display at Union Station. During its time on exhibit there, when the space was rented out for private events, they were often asked to cover the mural, as a number of the images were thought to be offensive to those in attendance. Many do not want to be confronted with the realities of exploitation, discrimination, or forced displacement that are all part of the Latinx experience in this city. These murals, most at home on walls around town where they give meaning and contour to the inhabitants of the community, find their way into the mainstream by gracing the walls of museums and galleries. It is there that an entirely different population of people can enjoy them. From school children on field trips to those individuals that may never make it to the streets where the artists create these works, the influence of their political and social messages are expanded.
Murals are a way to convey written messages through art. The art can actually be more meaningful and touching because it portrays messages through visuals. Usually, stories are said through the means of poems and essays; therefore, the audience is hazy since they have to imagine an environment or a situation. Murals, on the other hand, convey their message through visual effects, and objects in the art can replace the literary devices found in written works. Therefore, the audience has a better understanding of the message since they are able to visualize the situation at hand. Since murals are more common in communities than they are in museums, it is more likely that the message of the mural will be displayed in front of the general public instead of tourists walking through a museum. All in all, I think that murals are able to convey strong messages in a widespread manner.
ReplyDeleteMurals give way for additional narratives to be shared aside from the dominant one. Murals are visual representations of “something” and in the case of Los Angeles, most murals reflect a community's history, experience and in going legacy. It differs from other forms of storytelling because it is a collaborative and prideful piece of work. Everyone is involved in the process creating a more intimate relationship with the art and its artists. There are hundreds of murals, big and small, that are scattered around the greater Los Angeles area forming a diverse variety of rich history. Having several communities and people represented in and around LA is what makes the city so unique. The literal space that the mural takes up represents something that many people can feel proud about. Kind of like the way some white supremacists wake up and salute the flag everyday haha… Murals can be patriotic (for lack of better term. not in a national sense) in their own respective location. People find it more meaningful if there is a symbol in their neighborhood rather than in a museum.
ReplyDeleteAt discoverlosangeles.com, there is an article dedicated to discussing Latino heritage through murals in LA. Similar to what everyone has already said, murals are a canvas through which the community can express themselves on. They are free and allow everyone to contribute to them. I don’t want to repeat what everyone has already said so I wanted to post a link to a website that discusses and shows various murals around LA, and their relevance to Latino culture in LA. https://www.discoverlosangeles.com/blog/latino-heritage-los-angeles-murals
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBased on readings about the history of murals in the Latinx (especially Chicano) community, what's been interesting to me is that murals, at least in LA, have definitely become "trendier" over the years, appearing on the walls of buildings holding symbols of gentrification culture, eg coffee shops etc. People seem to have forgotten the strong ties between murals and Chicano cultural history, making the fact that murals seem to be appearing more in gentrified areas especially ironic. As stated by Rachel's post and in the articles, murals typically depicted political or social statements, further emphasized by their public / "defacing" nature. As discussed in the 1st article, many murals from the days of the Chicano movement have been whitewashed or allowed to deteriorate, while murals in whiter areas depicting less controversial messages stand in full color. That's not to say that non-Latinx artists shouldn't paint murals, but rather that we should make an effort to recognize the history of murals (including their whitewashing!) in LA as we celebrate their presence in our city.
ReplyDeleteI think murals as an art form have more freedom and agency. There is no gallery that the artists are aiming to get into and there isn't the same type of formal criticism or judgement to live up to (that I know of). To me, it doesn't seem like there's the same barrier regarding getting into street art as opposed to the "official" art world.
ReplyDeleteMurals highlight the difference between art for art's sake and art that's made to say something, art that's for the people. In a way, I think murals are sometimes more effective than essays/writings etc. because most anyone can appreciate them and people don't have to go out of their way to be exposed to the intended message.
In a more concrete (lol) sense, I think murals serve both a practical purpose of beautifying otherwise unattractive structures made of concrete or other gloomy looking materials and a more abstract purpose of taking ownership of one's community.
I think murals provide a uniquely accessible and potent means of communication, advocacy, and recognition for social justice. When I first read the prompt, I was reminded of an Audre Lorde piece about how poetry has historically been uniquely accessible to (and utilized by) low-income women of color because it was something that could be written in fragments during spare hours, and didn't require someone to dedicate all of their time to writing poetry. I think murals are similar, in that they can be completed over time, piece by piece, and develop into masterful artworks visible to an entire community. Furthermore, I think murals are less about the individual technique (like pointilism or whatever) and more about the big-picture design, concepts, and significance of the image. Thus, you don't need to be a professional artist or art-school trained painter to create a gorgeous mural with immense communal meaning. I think this makes murals a more accessible medium to people of all backgrounds; people without formal arts training or fine-art resources can control the narratives depicted in the murals, democratizing them.
ReplyDeleteAs an alternative, I thought about the other ways historical social justice information could be conveyed– books, films, commemorative buildings, and museum exhibits, for example. All of these forms of recognition require capital and connections in order to produce: publishing a book is immensely time-consuming, often requires finding a publisher and literary networking, and is potentially inaccessible to someone who is a student or working another full-time job. Film-making generally requires expensive equipment and distributive backing in order to have a wide reach, commemorative buildings need funding, and galleries might be hard to find or connect with for many low-income artists in areas without a ton of art museums. So, murals come to mind as a visible, accessible, and equally powerful medium for representing history, and, as many people pointed out in their posts, murals are easily seen by passerby who can then consider their meanings as they go about their day.
Ultimately, I think murals also convey that history itself is accessible; that it is not always locked behind a glass case in a museum or immortalized in expensive buildings or academic books, but is a constantly-evolving product of society that we interact with daily and can influence ourselves.