17Dec
Share Your Ideas
Chouteau’s Landing features a flood wall that has in recent years been the site of Paint Louis and other graffiti events. However, such events have led to unwanted graffitti cropping up in more abundance in other parts of the city. What other uses could the wall serve that would help beautify the area without compromising the structure’s integrity as a flood wall?
December 17th, 2007 at 9:25 am
First, I would like to see you prove a causal relationship between the graffiti wall and graffiti in other parts of the city.
But, I guess I’ll ignore that and answer the question: The idea of the graffiti wall is a good one but I think something more organized is needed. Chicago, specifically other parts of the city that are developing, tends to draw community art project. I think creating a mural– an actual mural would be great. Something that speaks to the ethos of Saint Louis.
I tend to believe that grit, graffiti, and rough edges are part of what make Saint Louis and that you can’t hide them with white wash.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I think a nice mural would be cool to see. Maybe images of the old buildings and landmarks that are no longer around.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Graffiti is great..but I believe it tends to draw all graffiti artist (those with and without permission) to come and tag the wall. I had the pleasure of meeting some of the artists working on the wall.
However, something more structured would probably keep renegade taggers from painting on the wall. Something the community would have a say so in ..thought process, implementation, etc. A community mural project chronicling St Louis’s history..from then to now would be ideal.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:13 am
How can you directly correlate The Flood walls graffiti with other defaced property around the St. Louis Area.
I think that the Flood wall current use is probably the best possible solution.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Also, on a side note– set up a language blacklist if you are concerned about certain words appearing on your blog.
Turn on Askimet to block spam and get rid of the comment moderation. You’ll ruin the conversation flow.
(also may want to add threaded comments)
December 17th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I have to agree…you can not blame the minor Graffiti problem that st. Louis has to this wall,
If anything it has given people who have the desire to Spray a place to create.
The Wall is in pretty bad shape due to some toys who do not know the legends and that have painted over some serious history in Urban Art. I know it’s a free for all…but I would think if you are going to paint over something you would drop something that is worthy..and not some 5 second tag…lame!
I think we need to Embrace this art form and to definably revitalize this space…
I believe if there were more legal walls around town
it would be less likely that private property would be hit.
I personally believe that all the billboard advertisements that flock our world are more of an eye soar than most graffiti.
Also, I am sad to say that My studio which is about a block away from this historic wall is now seeing the wrecking ball in January…that’s what development is all about.
I had many plans to revitalize this area…But I will be moving to Cherokee Street and hopefully will be able to grow the all ready developed artist district and to organize some public art in that community.
I want to thank Chivvis for the opportunity to work on the landing for the past few months and I hope they can see the importance of this wall and the arts community that would support it locally and nationally.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
the mural idea’s not bad, but it would most likely end up covered in graffiti. why not keep the graffiti, but lose the free-for-all. the wall could be wiped clean every year or every X months, and new artists could display their work for the next X months (via a contest or a sign-up sheet or some other type of selection process). perhaps the periodic wiping of the slate would discourage vandals? in any case the vandalism would not be permanent. it might also be neat to take panoramic images of each wall, and then after so many cycles make/sell a poster of them juxtaposed top-to-bottom.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I whole heartedly agree with Adam’s comments. This is the first solution that came to my head. Graffiti is a serious art form that should be held in the same regard as any piece held in the St. Louis Art museum. The defacing of other private property in the area cannot and should not be linked to the freedom of expression this wall represents. Many great artist known and otherwise have used this wall I would hate to see their art disappear without consideration.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Just So everyone knows…
I’m not Mad at cha Chivvas and I hope for the best in your future endeavors in revitalizing Chouteau’s Landing!
…but please don’t Hate on the Paint Louis Wall!
cause She’s not the cause of Graffiti in this town!
Thanks again for hooking me up with the Pump Shop…
He will be missed!…and if you ever need help in a rejuvenation of the wall…please give yer boy a call.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I feel that the floodwall is a staple to the city of st. louis. It is the one place in the city where artistic expression can be seen with a no-holds-barred attitude. To me, it is an incredible collage that is best unregulated. Anyone can freely participate in creating something that the public can see. There is a whole universe on that few mile stretch that can be studied and explored that would otherwise not exist.
Even with the ‘toys’ covering it today, their progress in discovering a new art form can be marked from time to time. It is like a public sketch book. Every day the wall is a new image. To regulate it or alter it into something more ‘positive’ would not only take away from the magic of having hundreds of enthusiastic participants painting together anonymously, but also take away its cathartic nature, most likely resulting in more graffiti in areas where it is not accepted.
I’ve grown up painting on the wall. Recently, following the minor news coverage of a graffiti ‘problem’ within the city, I was arrested and charged with felony destruction of property for painting on the wall. Though I was trying to follow the city rules by restricting work to the wall, it was in bad timing. Such action on others who are not so city oriented as myself would simply result in a large backlash.
To correlate the graffiti around the city with the flood wall is ridiculous. The big names that have gotten news attention lately have been Ed Boxx and Vamp, neither of which are found on the flood wall, despite one vamp tag.
Also, compared to other cities of similar sizes, there is absolutely no need for concern of the vandalism in and around the city–St. Louis is practically bare–it is an inevitable situation that must be addressed, but to say that it is a growing problem is absurd. St. Louis also has quite a unique breed of graffiti taggers. If one actually follows graffiti in the city, it is apparent that there is a sort of etiquette where, for the most part, graffiti remains in abandoned areas with little or no development. (Ed Boxx on the Orpheum is most likely a result of the Robert’s Brothers’ futile attempts to restore a historic building, and Tamm Avenue Bridge was simply a mistake.) Restricting graffiti I feel would destroy this etiquette.
Graffiti as an art form should be encouraged, not attacked. There is so much that a few punk kids who like writing their names in fancy letters and colors can offer to a city if channeled into a positive direction. While vandalism is not an acceptable act, the creativity and drive of these individuals should be utilized. I think the wall should be left alone, but a contest of sorts would definitely encourage growth and development, and lead to a more accepting and beautiful city.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Why are we worried about a wall that isn’t controlled or owned by Chivvis? Why tear down the Pump Shop? It is absolutely stupid!
Graffiti is all over the buildings along 4th Street. Why not focus your energies on renovating those buildings, intelligently, and focus on the wall at another time.
I’m not a fan of graffiti but the grafitti problem doesn’t start at the wall. You can’t stop these graffiti people but you can help them relocate. Hint: If your building gets spray painted, clean it off immediately! They will not come back if you take care of your buildings.
Demolishing buildings is not progress. I hope you reconsider that plan and keep Peat and his art friends down there.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Primary Point: The association between the flood wall and other vandalism is completely unsubstantiated. That is simply an improper premise to base a decision of such magnitude on.
I must say that I truly could not believe what i read when i received this email. Even entertaining such a plan could only have come from a ‘board room’ somewhere, completely out of touch with art. Or possibly this suggestion comes from ‘outside parties’ brought in who have no idea of STL’s artistic heritage.
I’m assuming this ‘discussion’ comes after a long, frustrating and unsuccessful attempt to remedy private property tagging. Then out of sheer desperation on the issue, the thought of destroying a vital part of STL’s artistic appeal arises. In my opinion, this idea, as an artist born in STL and proud of the city, would be INCREDIBLY DETRIMENTAL to the city’s art appeal. As so often is the case, ‘executive’ minds trying to create an arts district can result in decisions completely disjointed from the arts community/scene. This seems a perfect example of such instances. This wall is something to be revered and contains a lot of work (from national artists) that betters the bulk of what i have seen hanging in STL galleries. I have spoken with artists outside of STL and, for many, that flood wall was the point of reference and was what they remembered about STL. Keep the wall as it is, anything else would be a true step in undermining the credibility of STL’s art ’scene’.
In your hands you have a huge responsibility overseeing that wall. I hope (and pray) that it is used wisely for the sake of all STL artists.
One poor choice can ruin years of artistic evolution.
An email was sent to me inviting comments on this matter. These are mine. Thank you.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Expansion! In addition to all the community gardens we have in St. Louis, why not community graffiti walls? Of course, implementation and structure might be a little challenging, but the gardens seem to be functioning pretty well.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I say keep the graffiti wall but add an educational component to it. Celebrate it and promote it.
I LOVE the idea of community graffiti walls.
– Tony Renner
December 19th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
There should be a Law:
for every 9 Billboards…
One Public art wall!
December 20th, 2007 at 9:24 am
It’s funny. St. Louis wants to be a big city, but doesn’t want any of the problems that come with it. This “problem†is needed. Consider it practice. Practice in preparation for more people, more rebels, more activists, more artists, more change. All factors in what makes a great city. This is our goal. The city’s mentality and standards for art/beauty will rise, diversify, and flourish as we experience an abundance of what we are not satisfied with, thus causing a counter strike of sorts. The issue is how patient and how prepared are we?
STL is doing a great job at beautifying the city in terms of street signs, new buildings, pretty sidewalks etc. for what I’ve seen. As that view of “beauty†grows the alternative crowd i.e. street artists will show their views as well. With time we will learn to appreciate the growing quality of the work that comes from those who walk the streets and don’t have time, ability, or cash to stack bricks and install facades to see what they want when they want it.
There are two sides that we are dealing with. The Street Artists who need to step their game up or get more motivated to make a significant change and bring more attention to our city. And the rest of the city who should keep asking these types of questions and consider the potential of street art, as well as remain faithful and patient that the art scene in St. Louis will eventually benefit from this entire ruckus.
Hear me out.
I’m far from a traitor, I love my city, but I’ve spent more time in Chicago than I have in St. Louis in the past 3 years (due to school) and St. Louis is boring to walk around in unless you’re in these developing hotspots. There’s nothing new to see! If St. Louis is intolerant to street art, it’s only due to its narrow view of what graffiti/street art is. Chances are the savage vandals we fear so much aren’t interested in pushing the boundaries of art (beyond their internal progression). Their job is simply to be seen and to piss us off (and sometimes we deserve it). They are winning as I type. They are winning as we read. What we sometimes forget is that the more we become flustered with their actions the more we become motivated to make change. The face of the Streets, Street Art, Gallery Art and Art in general becomes amplified when there’s a fire to put out. You can’t force the fire and you can’t force the reaction to it. It’s a natural progression.
We have our graffiti golden boy, Pete, who’s gaining a lot of positive attention for the city and for street art. He’s a great ambassador for many causes. But even he gets hated on for a variety of reasons. There is no way for a street artist to win. It’s a fight the whole way. Pete is a prototype for what this art form can bring. And Pete himself is a product of what happens when one becomes motivated by other illegal arts. It’s a fire. You can’t plant it.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:28 am
What really strikes me about that picture in particular is under-utilized green space. It isn’t the wall that is an eyesore; it’s the surrounding you natural space that isn’t accounted for. In order to “beautify the area” and work towards sustainable development, why not put in a community garden and turn the location into a destination spot - one that incorporates the art on the wall into the aesthetic and builds a bridge between Development, Community, and Art? Celebrate the art by creating a safe, beautiful & green place to enjoy it!
December 20th, 2007 at 10:41 am
As a 60 year-old artist who lives not far from the Wall, I agree with the comments about the importance of keeping the everchanging spontaneous graffiti wall.
Celebrating and drawing attention to the wall maybe with a web camera and ability for veiwers to vote on-line for the best images would reinforce the quality images and document the changes over time.
Development doesn’t have to kill that which is unique to a city -like this wall. The Unique is what draws people to an area. Maybe a web presence and street signs directing people to the wall would make it an asset to the area and to the city.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:48 am
. I believe that this wall is a great monument for urban street art, and is necessary for the growth of St. Louis as an urban center. I understand the concerns about vandalism in other parts of the city, but we must look at it objectively and realize that taking out this open canvas for artists will not stop graffiti in other parts of the city. I think organizing programming around the wall could be beneficial to the landing and to the city in general. I don’t know if my opinion is what you’re looking for, but I would be happy to discuss this further if you are interested.
Thank you for your time,
December 21st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
well i do graffiti myself and i think the wall is great, but the thing is some writers dont like the fact that people from other citys come and do a big pice on there wall so they cap it (throw tags over it) but i love the place i was thinking of coming down and doing a pice or two. but i think it should stay for graffiti because its that much more graffiti that is not on the streets and walls of the city
December 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
There appears to be a passion growing in the urban art community.
A graffiti wall as an expression of public art is a tremendous idea and can be beneficial to the entire community, so long as vandalism to “non-participating” walls does not become an issue.
There have been previous comments about competition. Isn’t that a goal of graffiti artists, to be known for their art. Well, bring it above ground and actually give them their pub. Have an actual competition with a public judging, maybe even a “cash” prize to replentish their supplies. And, why limit this to “graffiti” artists? Maybe this grows into a regional, national, or international celebration.
I also like the idea of having new groups of artists express themselves. But, if you paint over the art, it is gone forever.
Therefore, as a community project, install panels on the flood walls and paint the panels. When ready to re-paint, replace the panels. The existing “art” could be sold, raffled, donated, stored, used at construction projects elsewhere. The options are endless. This could become St. Louis’ “Cows on Parade.”
December 29th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
here is a video on youtube of how Sydney, Australia chose to use graffiti in a positive way to support the artists and beautify the city –>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktIqA5RTnVY&feature=related
Something like this would definitely put St. Louis on the map as an established artistic city. We already have the largest graffiti wall in the world, we should use it.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Fans of mod and massive installation art, undoubtedly, would like the wall to take on a similar role the redevelopment of Gateway Mall seeks in the civic core of St. Louis: sculptures, projection walls, maybe a fountain or some greenery–all designed to entreat the lazy eye of commerce. These sterile and controlled exhibitions are fine in their own right, but are too formulaic to match the rugged canvas of Chouteau’s Landing.
But while these dignified and culturally a pro pro sculpture parks become more popular, they lack a connection to the lifeblood of the neighborhood, being mere interchangeable pieces you could plop down in any other American (or world) city. Opponents of graffiti~ or those against its proliferation across town to the aging mortar and terra cotta of other districts~ignore two very simple facts:
1. Graffiti has been around since the Andalusian cave paintings. They are instruments of social change and a barometer of society in general.
While the insta-grat. of on-demand diversion takes away the attention span of the up and coming gen XY, there are some that look to redirect bottled-up energy into pushing new planes of the visual experience. In St. Louis in particular there are some 5 000 souls per square mile; how visibly present is artwork for every hampered soul? It seems all socially ‘acceptable’ or ridiculously ‘tasteful’ art be relegated to specific spaces? But why do many of these upstart galleries fail? Graffiti breaks the imposed order of things in a city… which is part of the reason the city leaders and enforcers have such a problem with a ‘roguish’ art form as what freestyle graffitistos seek to portray on its buildings and walls. The order of sqaure blocks, brownstones and class segregation outmoded itself with the rise of humanism; how better to show Chouteau off as a cutting-edge community than to do away with gentrification? You cannot stop graffiti…you may as well embrace it in its finest forms.
2. Flood walls are designed to hold a 100-year deluge, not an installation.
And although I’m tickled about even thinking the wall could be used to shelter an outdoor garden or patio for some bistro, the logistics of either proposal would require too much cunning with little payoff for the riverfront area. The national park surrounding and highway interchanges swallowing the old industrial area thereabout provide to much of a physical and psychological barrier for such an enclave to survive. You’d be essentially creating a new spot for the neighborhood’s homeless to gather…not to say that’s such a bad thing in and of itself, but probably not what most generating ideas for the project had in mind…unless you’re talking about homeless artists looking for a canvas
January 9th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I understand that unwanted graffiti is frustrating for building owners, and that people who are unfamiliar with the art form see it as a sign of urban blight, but this is an out dated and prejudice outlook. Graffiti is a legitimate form of artistic/cultural expression, it attracts other participants and admirers. If you walk into any larger national book store these days you will find books of both Banksy and Shepard Fairy displayed at the front of the store, (FYI both are graffiti superstars, Fairy is now doing national design, some call him a sell out) Your local graffiti artists, while at first local kids, can and do become world renowned if they so choose. Instead of trying to stop this art form by force, which doesn’t work, allow graffiti artists to continue to change and evolve the wall in question, and if it is encouraging art in other places, give these artists walls and spray-paint friendly areas around town that are designated for graffiti. you will still end up with some art in unwanted places but that is going to happen anyway, and maybe by giving these artist more respect they will give undesignated areas more respect as well! It may not be understood by everyone, but this is art, let it live and grow! no city was ever hurt by a little more culture.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:25 am
yea i went here durring the day to paint….bad idea i did 2 throwies and the cops came.. told him i thought it was a legal spot and he left..phew..
March 18th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Y’all better save that wall! It’s a tourist attraction!
How about you just move it somewhere inside? Be kind!
March 20th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I agree, the wall is so close to the Arch and other national attractions, it should be designated as part of the parks service, lit, landscaped a bit, and promoted. Put in a walking path, some benches, some sculptures…etc. Put up a placard that tells of the walls hisotry and the importance of public places for expression. You could commission local artists to do themed, large art pieces that could be attached to the top of the wall, but not able to be easily reached by graffiti artist.
Lets hold a public meeting, walk the site and discuss potental improvements.
Michael
August 16th, 2011 at 2:24 am
Just wish to say your article is as astonishing. The clearness in your post is simply excellent and i could assume you are an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the gratifying work.
September 28th, 2011 at 6:47 am
Excellent blog! Do you have any helpful hints for aspiring writers? I’m planning to start my own blog soon but I’m a little lost on everything. Would you propose starting with a free platform like Wordpress or go for a paid option? There are so many options out there that I’m completely overwhelmed .. Any suggestions? Cheers!