'Art' Review: Untitled Statue of Liberty 1969
Ed Fuentes
A mid-removal view of a wheat paste version of McNeilly's image on the Mayfair Hotel. The building also sports one of his supergraphic pieces.
Super-graphics manufacturer Michael McNeilly isn’t fooling anyone.
His images of the Statue of Liberty with 1969, now squatting on buildings around Los Angeles, have no connection to legitimate political art––other than that of exploiting it. His constant use of the monochromatic Lady Liberty is executed with no craftsmanship or clear message.
Not clear, that is, until you read the timely press releases from the SkyTag founder, who insists that he is constitutionally protected as an artist to be able to make a political statement wherever he pleases.
At best, McNeilly is a performance artist using the courts as a site-specific stage where he takes on the role of muralist; burdened by controversy that shadows him and prevents his art to be created.
He is not only high-jacking walls, but the legacy of murals on urban space.
Controversy from large-scale works took root in Los Angeles. David Alfaro Siqueiros’ 1932 La América Tropical at Olvera Street was a political message so strong it was censored––only to reappear from under its whitewash decades later.
Year by year, great works are lost to vandalism. In November, the owner of the Boyle Heights building housing Ernesto de la Loza’s 1991 “Resurrection of the Green Planet” was ordered to remove all graffiti from the work with 90 days or face a fine. Unable to find the money needed for a full restoration, the artist himself has spent weeks cleaning up the work.
As for McNeilly, his PR uses current discourse by stating 1969 was a "year of great accomplishments and change in America."
On the SkyTag website, however, 1969 is noted as the year the Mets won the World Series, man first walked on the moon, and "Midnight Cowboy" won Best Picture. It's also the year McNeilly created his first “mural."
His Lady Liberty with 1969 isn’t the advancement of the art of the mural. The continued branding of McNeilly's company that secures walls, not ideas.
benjamin on January 22, 2009, at 06:34PM – #1
this company's pratice makes me sick!!! how dare you try to hide behind "art" and make millions for your disgusting billboard business.
Greensmark on January 23, 2009, at 02:47PM – #2
Honestly, here we have another "wag" that does nothing but see how many BIG words he can put together in one sentence. When we seek to explain Art we total defeat it's purpose. It is, to coin the phase, in the eye of the beholder. That the issue of Art (or Murals) happen to be on the side of what is essentially an ugly building only makes it Monumental Art. Billboard is really something that intends to sell something. Right? Does the idea of using a "silk screened" version Miss Liberty the issue? Is it that SkyTag does make enough of the year 1969? (I, for one, can see the connection in using that particular year).
And don't get me started on the fact, that beautiful buildings are torn down all the time in this city, only to have some ugly, sanitized box rise in it's place.
If we are to believe Mr.Fuentes notion that Mr. McNeilly is not creating art, I guess that means he doesn't like Rauschenberg, Jasper Johns or even Warhol for that matter. All of which used some kind of iconoclastic images in their Art. Makes one wonder if Mr. Fuentes likes modern art at all? Bottomline: Unless the Planning Commission can come up with the funds to implement the "BILLBOARD POLICE" to fine and stop all of this, the whole thing is moot.
Grnsmrk
PS: Let me know when Mr. Fuentes will be reviewing the electronic billboards that are popping up. I can't wait!!
Maria R on January 24, 2009, at 02:25PM – #3
Poster two, I think you may be missing something. The advertising person put up a whole bunch of huge advertising billboards on buildings. He did this without any billboard permits so the city wanted to fine him. He then put up a bunch of Lady Liberty "murals" saying they were art. He wants the city to approve these "art murals" so he can then make the leap from freedom of personal speech to freedom of commercial speech. The advertising guy gets $100,000 per month per building billboard from the advertiser generally from Pepsi or movie advertising. In the meantime the advertiser is arguing that he should be allowed to keep those "billboards/murals/art" up there until the court decides about the new mural/billboard regulations. That's $100K a month for each one up there, except Lady Liberty. It's all about money. The advertiser is just whoring the image of Lady Liberty.
Norbie 7 on January 24, 2009, at 04:36PM – #4
Simple, the DWP should simply refuse to supply power to any digital billboard located outside of an approved district.
Simple, the city should simply leverage a real big fine against the property owner upon whose property an unlawfull billboard is located. And then confiscate the billboard and send out a squad car to arrest the major domo.
Now that I've simply got you laughing, all I can say is that is ain't so hard to see why they've always called it City Haul (@ 200 North Spring Street) in respect to outdoor advertising. Yessiree; one big load of cash it is and will remain.
Greensmark on January 25, 2009, at 12:38PM – #5
Thanx for the clarification, Maria R. This part of the story must have been deleted from my INBOX! Point taken.
To Norbie: I LAUGHED SO HARD MY STOMACH HURT!! Especially the City HAUL part!!
Grnsmark
Barry Blevins on February 02, 2009, at 03:49PM – #6
These murals look great. I don't care who or what they are promoting. If the artist/designer/businessman benefits, more power to him.
Thomas Jane on April 04, 2009, at 03:54PM – #7
You're all dumb if you like this art. Anybody can rip off Warhol, especially when all you need is iPhoto and it's default filters. If you knew how simple the reason behind the "1969" you'd want all these awful things pulled down.
Peggy Guggenheim on April 04, 2009, at 04:49PM – #8
I'd rather tear down all the Starbucks and Pershing Square as they are far more an eyesore to me than these large ad murals. Using Lady Liberty is a fantastic reminder of how much a farce the idea of "liberty" is to so many in the US.
1969 was a tremendous year.
Alex Brideau III on August 07, 2009, at 06:52PM – #9
Hmmmm. An advertiser who just happens to prominently use "1969" in his art-vertising. Interesting how Gap prominently uses 1969 on lots of its products and will be promoting its 40th anniversary this year. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
Alex Brideau III on August 07, 2009, at 06:54PM – #10
...and let's not forget The Gap's sizable ad budget. I wouldn't be surprised if these are already paid ads on the DL.
Erik Denning on August 09, 2009, at 11:27AM – #11
I've been waiting a long time for reveal of what upcoming patriotic action movie these were promoting. I don't see the connection between the statue of liberty and an entire year. I MUCH prefer the guerilla art of OBEY!
Okay. on August 09, 2009, at 11:55AM – #12
I've been viewing those monstrosities all over L.A. and Westwood for months now and had no idea it was political art. I honestly thought it was "edgy" albeit dated advertising for a new insurance company or bank, trying to ride the coattails of former ad campaigns of Apple and Nike.