The city of Chattanooga government is being absurd again. Last week it was $250,000 for baby college with their fun money, called our tax dollars. Now, Lindsay Street is defining the deeper meaning of art. A local bakery commissioned a beautiful flying donut theme on a building the bakery owns, which clearly expresses in art the love of baked goodies, or it could have a deeper meaning. Flying donuts is definitely abstract art. The building is privately owned, the city does not own the building.
The city has allowed murals all over downtown Chattanooga, with all kinds of themes driven by art non-profits that are government subsided. I guess bakery did not hire the “right people” bearing the correct seal of approval, so they are being harassed by the city for their mural.
The flying donuts are definitely art. Leave the bakery actually generating income alone, government triflers.
April Eidson
* * *
I agree with Ms Edison. We are constantly bombarded from every angle by all kinds of media. I much prefer an artistic painting covering an otherwise boring brick wall over just about any other ad.
Move along city, find something much more productive to do with your time and energy.
Ted Ladd
East Ridge
* * *
Cities create sign ordinances to make sure locals aren't overrun with clutter and advertisements the size of billboards. Every city has a sign ordinance. They aren't new. And yes, murals are art. But what happens when a mural is used as an advertisement - and who makes the judgement call. That's the question.
What if the building was owned by Hooters and they wanted a mural painted on the side of their building of a big chicken wing or a Hooter's waitress? Who gets to decide if it's art or advertisements or offensive? A group of representatives make those decisions, based on the desires of their constituents. In our case, we have a City Council. And the City Council made their decision decades ago. This city inspector is just doing his job by enforcing the rules we have in place right now.
I agree that the mural is artistic and should stay. Frankly, I like it and I think it brings value to the neighborhood and it's in a part of town that is pretty weird and full of art anyway, so why not? But for that to be legal, the City Council needs to change the code.
Contact your city councilperson if you think the sign ordinance should be changed to allow murals to always be art. But think very hard before you do, because that Hooters right next door to your home off Brainerd Road might be the next business to order up an "artistic" mural of their own. Imagine the uproar then.
Martin Knowles
* * *
Chattanooga seems proud of its art culture with creations of all flavors seemingly on every street. Much criticism has been aimed at the use of public funds to establish and sustain this culture. You would think that enhancing the art presence by the private sector would be welcomed by both the city and the public fund critics and not penalized. Citing the flying donuts mural is ridiculous, and looks like nothing more than a city inspector looking to get "good boy" pat on the head for going out and finding problems where none really exist.
All laws are subject to interpretation by sensible people, and it sounds like these sign ordinances are antiquated in relation to the new Chattanooga. All this controversy has done is to give Chattanooga detractors a reason to laugh at gig city progress.
What's wrong with a business bringing more art to to the city if they are paying for it and it's tasteful and colorful? Of course it should be related to their business that is supplying tax revenue to the city. I would love to see fly saucer pizzas on the side of Lupis and dancing ribs on Sugar's side wall.
A former councilman once stifled progress by saying that "Chattanooga hasn't come that far," and I might be mistaken, but I thought we had.
Dan Russell
Chattanooga