The community of Eau Gallie, Florida is experiencing a fascinating and on-going debate about art.  Centered around a mural created by artist Matt Gondek, the city has been struggling with complaints from its citizens that the artwork in question is too violent.  However, the design for the mural was approved by the city of Melbourne’s Historic and Architectural Review Board and was featured in an epic city-wide art event called the Anti-Gravity Project in 2017.

Gondek explains that he drew his inspiration for the mural from Picasso’s “Guernica” and followers of Gondek are quick to note his repeated use of animated and cartoon characters in his other works.  Those characters – in their original iterations – are often depicted in various states of “cartoon violence.”  With that in mind, one must ask why some members of the community are demanding that it be painted over.

The future of Gondek’s mural went before the City Council at the beginning of June of this year with City Council members hearing from citizens – both for and against the mural – and from the artist himself.  Ultimately, it was decided that the mural would stay.  As of July 6th, the mural had been vandalized with no one taken into custody.

I wrote an email to the City Council members supporting Matt Gondek and his mural.

Dear City Council Members,

Art is meant to challenge, to engage and to inspire discussion.  That is exactly what Mr. Gondek’s mural is doing at this very moment.  To paint over a challenging piece of art – one that was APPROVED by the Melbourne Historical and Architectural Review Board – suggests that it is easier to ignore and to erase difficult discussions rather than actually having them.  Do you think that is the kind of message you want to send your constituents or the tourists who travel through the area?  Painting over said mural suggests that if a discussion is too difficult to have, it should not be had at all.  This is a dangerous approach to any issue, let alone a work of art, especially in 2018. 

Painting over this mural also suggests that the city council members do not think that their constituents are capable of having respectful and informed discourse about challenging issues.  Do you think so little of your constituents? 

Some have suggested that the mural is “too violent.”  If the concern of the city council members is the use of exaggerated cartoon violence in a piece of public art, is that not a proper topic to discuss at this particular time in U.S. history?  Art plays a vital role in conveying complex ideas.  Is that not what Mr. Gondek’s mural is accomplishing?  This mural has generated difficult, but wildly important discussions on the pervasiveness of violence in our everyday lives.  From social media to the evening news, violence is everywhere.  This mural is actually making people acknowledge that fact and talk about it.  To paint over a piece of art that encourages that kind of dialogue would be reprehensible. 

Instead of debating whether or not to erase a piece of challenging artwork, perhaps the city council members should consider spending their time and city budgets on projects that limit and prevent crime in the area.  My suggestion would be through free art programs for the underserved in the community.  I recommend Mr. Gondek be made Chairperson of said program.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

–Concerned citizen, artist, art historian and voter