Hey, there! Log in / Register
Keep the telephone mural in Boston
By adamg on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 10:01am
So Verizon removed the telephone-history mural in its old Post Office Square building because the new owner is not a big fan of the working classes, or something. Jay Fitzgerald is outraged at the thought it might be sold to somebody in Rhode Island:
... It's a striking mural in the old WPA style. It depicts a major innovation developed in Boston. It should remain in Boston. ...
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Um, why aren't they being
Um, why aren't they being donated to the MFA or at least offered for sale to local art museums?
Not murals. Murals are
Not murals. Murals are paintings directly on walls. I thought murals were being white-washed or torn from the walls. They are paintings, and so far, no harm has been done. It would be nice to keep them in Boston, but no, it is not the equivelant of removing the stained glass windows from Trinity Church. More a case of the artsy-fartsys getting a case of the vapors.
That's right, those
That's right, those artsy-fartsy types like the average person who happens to appreciate art have been gittin' too big for their britches! Take the paintings away!
Hey average guy - you didn't
Hey average guy - you didn't know the paintings existed. So much for caring.
Depends on the material
Murals are paintings directly on walls. I thought murals were being white-washed or torn from the walls.
It depends on the painting technique and whether or not the mural was meant to be permanent. If the mural's painted in the fresco style, the paint is applied almost immediately to freshly-spread plaster and becomes a permanent part of the wall. Really can't be removed with any hope of saving it all (Diego Rivera's infamous Rockefeller Center fresco mural was demolished because of this; Abby Rockefeller actually wanted the mural to go to her new Museum of Modern Art, but they couldn't take down the mural without demolishing it.)
Other murals are painted on other material which has been attached to the wall in a certain fashion, and I presume that's deliberate with some actual forethought going on there. Who knows.
When new people come the
When new people come the first thing they want to do is change everything. Why couldn't the new owners figure out a way to keep the mural in the building? Maybe it was in the way but it could have been moved. Move the paintings to a new location in the building then have a big "re unveiling" by inviting local leaders and history folk and make a big speech about how while you are new to town history is important blabbily blab blab. There is still time, claim ignorance, put the paintings back up, design a plaque for it and have a party.
But ... but ...
The WPA was SOCIALIZZZMM!
If you really are into this kind of stuff, come down to 75 Federal St. There are some fantastic and well-restored 1920s era murals or frescos or whateveryacallem wrapping around the outside of the building.
I am into keeping a little
I am into keeping a little bit of the history of a building intact in the area if possible. Sending it off to Newport robs it of it's history and meaning.
Why do people keep bringing up the WPA?
Not just here, but also repeatedly in the Boston.com comments. This mural has nothing to do with FDR's Works Progress Administration. It was privately commissioned by New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. (predecessor of today's Verizon) in 1947 (long after the WPA dissolved).
See the above description
I was joking based on the description (even though I know that it wasn't a WPA mural because I know somebody who worked there when it went up). I also wanted to point out the awesome murals just down the street.
Joking and channeling bizarre teaparty "logic" requires a certain suspension of reality and facts, anyway.