Mount Vernon fence sealed again
Artists and officials of the Maryland Institute College of Art resealed the controversial fence surrounding Mount Vernon Park, citing safety reasons.
Earlier this afternoon, artist Lee Freeman removed sections of the gold-painted gates, which made the fence less stable.
When strong winds threatened to knock down the fences, the sections were replaced.
The issue will be revisited tomorrow.
"Hopefully, opening this gate is shifting the conversation, rather than taking it away," Freeman said. "It's definitely important to keep the conversation open and keep it positive."
(Photo by Jed Kirschbaum/Sun Photographer)
Comments
So not only is this thing excluding people from using the park, and a visibility-decreasing eyesore to most who live in the community, but now it's deemed possibly unsafe?
Would someone in City government stand up and have this thing removed before someone gets injured or mugged?
Posted by: Drew | March 20, 2008 6:42 PM
Nice shot down St. Paul Street. Preston Gardens is just visible past Centre Street. Had this been done there, it might have had some benefit to the city.
Seriously, it would have been very "transgressive" (or whatever the art argot for "annoying to people who aren't me" is) and supportive of "conversation" to close the right-hand lane of the lower half of St. Paul Street adjacent to Preston Gardens to create an "impromptu promenade" between Centre and Saratoga.
Who knows: another artist may have come along and installed beautiful tiles in the Rt. 40 underpass, or glass blocks back-lit by high-efficiency LED lights that would've made the place seem less "oppressive" in the evenings. Yet another might have celebrated the vernal equinox by fencing in a plot of grass and weaving lines from poems ("Generations have trod, have trod, have trod ..." from Gerard Manley Hopkins "God's Grandeur" comes to mind ... again) into the fence. Still another could've riffed on Gertrude Stein and painted the asphalt with "Car is a car is a car is a car ... but not here!"
And so on.
Posted by: jamie hunt | March 21, 2008 9:25 AM
Take the stupid fence down and there is no safety issue. I guess everyone must suffer for one lunatic's "art".
Posted by: Urban Art is Waste | March 21, 2008 2:45 PM
NO MY CAPS ARE NOT AN ART STATEMENT OR SOME OTHER TAUGHT FORM OF RETARDATION FROM THE marylandasylumofart. MY EYES ARE NOT AS YOUNG AS THEY USED TO BE FROM WHEN I WAS A STUDENT AT THE INSTITUTE, ACTUALLY STUDYING ART, HISTORY AND LEARNING MY CRAFT. YOU KNOW: NOT STUFFING GOOD MONEY DOWN A DEAD-END HOLE. AT LEAST THE POSTING BY "jamie hunt" HAS LEGS OF CREATIVITY. AS FAR AS FREEMANS WORK GOES, PULLING DOWN MY PANTS, EXPOSING MY ASS IN THE MIDDLE OF CHARLES STREET MIGHT BE CONSIDERED ART BUT I DOUBT THAT I COULD MAJOR IN IT. CHILDREN OF EVERY GENERATION NEED TO LEARN WHAT ART HISTORICALLY IS FIRST BEFORE THEY CAN BECOME PIONEERS AND ANYBODY CAN GET ATTENTION. FIFTEEN MINUTES DOESN'T GO AS FAR AS IT USED TO! WE SPENT OUR SPARE TIME IN THE 60'S TRYING TO PROTECT OUR FREEDOM'S NOT SUPPORTING WAYS TO OBSTRUCT THEM OR ALLOWING OUR POLITICAL LEADERS TO UNDERMINE THEM. SO, PAINT YOUR PICTURES FOR A LIVING AND MAKE YOUR PROTESTS IN YOUR SPARE TIME. AND MAKE THEM COUNT!
Posted by: NEWTON | March 23, 2008 10:22 AM
The fallacy in Mr. Freeman's premise was his assumption that there was widespread disregard for the parks in Mt Vernon Square. In fact, they loom large in the consciousness of many Baltimoreans (including expatriates like myself) as the psychic and cultural center of the city. Thus, the focus of his project was bound to be the fences, and not the parks.
If Mr. Freeman's goal was to redress apathy, he should be pleased that the problem is not as dire as he thought it was.
It seems to me that there is, nevertherless, room for a project to heighten and broaden appreciation of the parks. However, I believe it would be more effective to take an approach that invites people in and highlights the experience of being in the environment.
Posted by: Andrew | March 23, 2008 2:13 PM
Hang in there, Freeman. Anytime a public access area is fenced in is not going to be popular-as reminds some of more freedoms infringed, more modern life style alienation, 1984, etc,etc. Your vision is bold and you deserve credit for the passion you show to keep at it. This is a tough lesson-the public will be mean to an artist-this will make you stronger in the future if you do not give up over the backlash on this. Stay "out there" in the world and don't retreat into the studio or solitude, as so many artists have as we're "so sensitive." Gottta be strong.
Posted by: Jeff Kiehne | March 23, 2008 4:17 PM
I applaud Lee Freeman's wish to express his art in a concrete manner and his strength in standing up to the criticism that followed. But he must remember the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes: "my right to swing my fist stops at your nose." Here, his right to express his ideas stops at
barring others from their right to experience the park. Though Mr. Freeman contacted government agencies, he failed to get the permission of the "owners" of the park...the local citizens. However, I certainly wish him well in future endeavors...
Posted by: EJ | March 23, 2008 4:42 PM
What might be the reaction from the Walters if he had put his fence so as to block access to the museum?
Or from the city if he blocked off 1 block of Pratt St?
This is not "art" it is transgression.
Posted by: Frank Sloat | March 23, 2008 4:49 PM