As a longtime resident of San Jose, I was deeply upset to learn that the Mural de La Raza was painted over last week. Although it is currently unclear whether this was mere negligence on the part of the landlord or an intentional disregard for the rights of the artist, it is abundantly clear that this is a grave loss to the community.
Public art has a way of developing and fostering a sense of community. Artists depict their observations of the times and memorialize pivotal moments in history. Public art, such as artist Jose Mesa Velasquez’s piece, acknowledged a group. It validated my community. Growing up, I don’t recall having books available to read about Mexican American culture in elementary school. It was important to see reminders of my culture and heritage, such as this mural. I didn’t realize what an impact this art had on me until I learned what happened earlier this week.
We have a man in the White House who reached that position by vilifying our community. His administration effectively removed Spanish language content from the White House website. Similarly, other murals throughout the Eastside have gradually disappeared. In the age of alternative facts and historical revisionism at the extreme, I urge our leaders—especially local public servants—to stand against such conduct and proactively fight and preserve our history, our roots.
Mr. Velasquez and the other muralists involved with creating the mural have rights under the California Art Preservation Act and the Federal Visual Artists Rights Act. Under California law, the artists should have been notified before the mural was painted over. It does not appear they received advanced notice. But the legislature, in recognizing that there is a “public interest in preserving the integrity of cultural and artistic creations,” also permits someone acting in the public interest to step into the artist’s shoes and seek an order from the court to preserve the art.
I am disappointed that nobody stood up in the public interest to protect this mural. The risk of losing this mural was known before the sale of the property to A7 Story LLC was finalized last week. According to what I read in the press, it seems the wall was painted before the new deed was recorded with the Santa Clara County recorder’s office.
Is that correct? Why weren’t earlier cries of community activists responded to by the previous owner? Why didn’t community leaders and public servants do more to prevent this from happening? In a Facebook post, Vice Mayor Magdalena Carrasco expressed sentiment about the loss.
So, why wasn’t more done by her office? Why didn’t her office step in on behalf of the artist to get the court to issue an order to stop this from happening? Were attempts made to contact the previous owner or Suong Le, the new owner’s, A7 Story LLC, agent for service of process?
Mr. Velasquez and the other muralists will probably have their day in court. Damages may be awarded. And hopefully, a new mural can be resurrected to replace the one lost. But it is clear that as a community, we need to take preemptive measures to preserve the remaining art in San Jose, to respect the artists’ work and point of view. To ensure this does not happen again, especially when this loss was preventable in a swift legal process.
I am hopeful for one thing. The events that took place sparked an outrage in the community, outrage that I hope will lead to action. Art has a way of bringing people together and fostering dialogue. Let’s use this momentum to foster, grow, and preserve the strong heritage our local artists have worked to create.
Enedina Cardenas is a Cupertino-based attorney who spent most of her childhood in East San Jose. Opinions in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of San Jose Inside. Send op-ed pitches to
je*******@me*******.com
.
It wasn’t art, it was ugly crap. The owner can do whatever they wish with their building. It’s ridiculous to grant “rights” to an “artist” that he somehow establishes & maintains some claim to what happens to a building they do nothing to maintain. Our community is better for its removal. The ppl who contribute and fund this part of san jose didn’t like it and we’re glad it’s gone. It gave us pause before we purchased
our home. I’m glad it’s gone. Instead of wasting years over something ugly, stupid and divisive, everybody, Magdalena included, should be focused on attracting legitimate businesses, legal citizens as neighbors and homeowners and work to reduce all forms of graffiti, blight and rampant crime & homelessness.
Enough! Get over it!
I’m not glad is gone. It was wrong.
La Raza is a racist term, used by Hispanic Supremacists.
You say, “We have a man in the White House who reached that position by vilifying our community.”
The “illegal alien community” deserves vilification and deportation. Good-job President Trump!
Like you, I support public art but, solely on public buildings or on private buildings with the building’s owner(s) contractual consent.
But unlike you, if this was my building, I would not have wasted good money and good paint covering the mural. I would have reduced the building to rubble without the slightest measure of hesitation and or intestinal remorse.
I then would have leased the property to a greedy, depraved-heart developer for a high-end-high-density townhome complex (with retail on the bottom floor). Of course such a development would intentionally displace the lower, nondescript classes but, isn’t cordial gentrification of a District 5 ghetto preferred? Don’t you agree?
Your aforementioned opinion did have at least one unintended consequence. You have given all California law-school-students confidence that passing the Bar-exam is not as hard as one would think.
Keep-up the good fight to protect Public Art! And don’t blame President Trump for the destruction of a mural in “slum-José.”
David S. Wall
but then the day dreaming ended … and you realized you are still a loser hiding behind your computer.
The nature of street art is transitory. Think of it is as an opportunity to create a new mural with local artists that celebrates east side culture. and maybe this time, put it on a city owned building. that way you can ensure that the owners of the wall won’t paint over it.
> , , , and maybe this time, put it on a city owned building. that way you can ensure that the owners of the wall won’t paint over it.
. . . until the next wave of identity politics takes over local politics and decides that YOUR art was oppressive/supremacist/imperialistic/insensitive/ non-inclusive/whatever/whatever/whatever.
“The nature of street art is transitory.”
“The nature of street art is transitory.”
“The nature of street art is transitory.”
“The nature of street art is transitory.”
“The nature of street art is transitory.”
“Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”. — Ozymandias
>>. . . until the next wave of identity politics takes over local politics and decides that YOUR art was oppressive/supremacist/imperialistic/insensitive/ non-inclusive/whatever/whatever/whatever.<<
yeah, and then the city will have to take care of the outrage response when people are screaming that it is insensitive or whatever instead of throwing taxpayers/property owners under the bus.
This is a great article. Thank you!
True, the nature of street art is transitory, -meaning short lived. Activism also plays a huge role in public art. Often times murals are done illegally without the building owner’s consent. However, the fact that they are done by skilled artists with a social agenda and not just done as graffiti by gangs makes the unauthorized murals more publicly accepted. Many times street artists are charged with vandalism, but are never really arrested. Famed street artist Shepard Fairey was recently arrested for vandalism upon re-entering the country. One of his murals was unauthorized and done illegally. The owners of the building were angry that the mural was created without their authorization and filed charges for the vandalism done to the property. Bottom line, even if mural is socially appropriate and accepted by the community, the building owners have the legal right to control appearance of their real estate.