Friday, February 10, 2012

STORYLINE Oak Park Now

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

1 of 4

< >

No high resolution image exists...

1 of 4

< >

Loading images

Shrouded in a bit of secrecy, it was started late last night at about 10pm. The guerrilla artists came in with little more than a flashlight, ladder and a can of blue spray paint. I contemplated approaching the duo to see what they were up to, but instead allowed them to continue working as it appeared time was of the essence. Rain was approaching and they appeared to be working very quickly. I watched them for a few minutes before leaving them to their work.

To my delight, I walked over this morning to discover the beautifully outlined beginnings of a large mural.

It appears to depict 4 figures total, 3 females and 1 male. One of the figure stands alone and appears to be spraying someone or something while the other three are closer to one another.

This is the positive change I hope to see in this neighborhood; Guerrilla Art, not gang tags. Thank you!

To see the progress, visit OakParkNow for mural updates.

Rate

Community

4 Votes up

4 Votes down

Flag

Your Tags

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.

Colleen Belcher

May 5, 2009 | 11:44 AM

This is great that you saw them in the act of creating the mural. Was it just a coincidence that you were walking by when it happened? Thanks for sharing the link for the mural updates! It'd be really cool to see photos of it progressing from start - the very beginning outlines - to finish.

1 1

Dustin L. Littrell

May 5, 2009 | 12:05 PM

Colleen - Yes, that's exactly how it happened. I'm always on the look out for suspicious behavior around my neighborhood and just so happened to be in that area while it was happening. I can't wait until they return and complete the piece. I'll keep it updated as new work is completed.

2 2

thsas

May 5, 2009 | 12:54 PM

Who owns the property that is being spray painted?

4 0

Dustin L. Littrell

May 5, 2009 | 2:59 PM

who knows...

0 4

Kingsley Chossington

May 5, 2009 | 5:51 PM

does it matter that spot get murdered by taggers a mural would be good for it

0 4

Rene/e

May 5, 2009 | 6:11 PM

Wonderful! I really hope they get to finish it!

2 4

The Parrhesiac

edited on May 5, 2009 | 7:58 PM

Great...vandalism on private property gets support...

and YES Kingsley it DOES matter!

So I guess since some call graffiti "art" its OK to violate laws and deface someones private property?

Moral relativity huh folks? Lets just obey the laws we feel like...in fact lets just throw them all out and get rid of private property too...geez only fascist capitalist want property anyway.

The Sac Press censors me...but promotes vandalism? Gee I wonder if an internet site posts stories about "Guerrilla Art" it will encourage people to do it more often...

Fight the power!

4 2

Geoff Samek

May 5, 2009 | 8:44 PM

The Sacramento Press enforces its terms of use, privacy policy and community contributor agreements. Mr. Galt if you feel that we are not enforcing those policies equally I would love to hear specific examples and attempt to mend them.

In this case reporting on something that may be a crime, whether the author (not a paid employee of The Sacramento Press) thinks this a good idea or not, is not a violation of any of our policies.

3 0

Dustin L. Littrell

May 5, 2009 | 11:44 PM

Geoff - Thank you for the above clarification. I apologize for blurring the line between news and personal opinion. I'll try and refrain from this type of post in the future if this is in fact not appropriate for Sacramento Press.

0 0

thsas

May 5, 2009 | 8:37 PM

Defacing a wall on property that is not yours is a violation of law, and a disrespect for the property owner.

5 0

sas

May 5, 2009 | 9:01 PM

I'm glad that the author is not my neighbor. I would like to believe that if one of my neighbors caught someone in the act of expressing themselves on my home or property. Had the police and property owner been notified it could have turned out fine. If the owner was as impressed by the art as the writer, they would have the option of dropping charges and allowing the artist to complete his masterpiece.

5 0

savemidtown

edited on May 5, 2009 | 10:48 PM

Absolutely Agree Sas - my neighbors & I are vigilant and we have stopped some stuff on our block. We don't stop them all and I have to remove tags on my property every few months. I get rid of them right away. Removing tags is a time and monetary drain for property owners. I'm stunned that anyone would think it is ok to deface and damage another persons property - art or not, it's not your call if it's not your property. My camera is with me at all times and my photos would include the artists faces and I would be uploading them to the SacPD web site ASAP.

4 0

Dustin L. Littrell

May 5, 2009 | 11:51 PM

sas - I complete see your point. It might have been poor judgement on my part at the time. I should have intervened and your right, if it was someone's home I would have likely done something but because it was a tired, vacant eyesore of a lot, I chose not to. Clearly a double standard.

1 0

The Parrhesiac

May 5, 2009 | 9:48 PM

I was just harassing you Geoff... Lol but I was serious about the vandalism thing...

I love urban art... I've known some great urban artists...they were respectful enough not to do it on private property...Sacramento used to have quite a few very talented young artists... still have some..

4 0

Dustin L. Littrell

May 5, 2009 | 11:30 PM

I appreciate reading all the feed back regarding my support of this presumably, illegal art. I don't have any details on the piece and for all we know it's been authorized by the property owner. I'm sorry if my support of this behavior is disturbing to some of you but I'm guessing most of you don't live in my neighborhood, maybe with one exception. Had I posted this piece as, "Neighborhood Mural Cheers Up Vacant Lot" I'm guessing some of you might have commented differently. Thanks for the feedback.

4 2

Geoff Samek

May 6, 2009 | 1:08 AM

On the contrary Dustin I think your piece is very interesting. I would love to see a follow up with some more facts about, who owns the property and who the artists, or potential vandals may be.

If you contact us via journalism@sacramentopress.com we can help provide resources for finding out this information.

2 0

Dale Kooyman

edited on May 6, 2009 | 1:28 PM

Great response, Geoff! You miss the point Dustin and if you continue to advocate for the "illegal art," you'll find fewer people wanting to live in your neighborhood. All cities have learned that fact.

There is a proper and LEGAL process. There is no need to do it illegally. If the property owner neglects painting his/her property and allows it to become an eyesore, then contact him/her to see if he/she would mind a mural being painted on it. He/she will probably give permission and may offer to pay for the paint. As it stands now, the city holds him/her responsible for the cost of removing the graffiti--art or not.

But then from what I have read in past comments on this topic, doing it legally takes all the thrill and excitement out of it. How artistic and mature is that?

1 0

Dustin L. Littrell

May 6, 2009 | 11:16 PM

Dale - I appreciate you're point of view but I disagree about people not wanting to move to the neighborhood because of my actions. I would love to hear about "all the cities" you made mention of in your comment, these may provide evidence that could lead to me to act differently next time and unless you've spent any length of time here in Oak Park, you can't possibly know how we think. I believe there are others like me that can see the value in what's occurring. Thanks for the feedback, it's always appreciated.

0 1

Casey Kirk

May 6, 2009 | 4:37 PM

Legal or not, I think this made for a great and interesting read. It will be interesting to see the finished wall and I think it's neat that you were able to capture the outlines before the mural is complete.

0 0