Editor’s note: This commentary is by Jen Berger and Mary Lacy, both community engaged artists from Burlington. Berger works in visual and performance-based mediums and is adjunct faculty at Community College of Vermont and former faculty at Burlington College; the views expressed are her own. Lacy primarily does murals, though recently completed a gallery show of smaller works. Her works in Burlington include the ruby throated hummingbird in the City Hall Park and the colorful silos on Pine Street. She recently completed a nine-city mural tour.
[I]n the midst of a growing national understanding that monuments that honor white supremacy are deeply painful, Burlington can’t ignore that, we too, are part of this problem.
The “Everyone Loves a Parade” mural, located off Church Street is problematic for a number of reasons. From the perspective of two community-engaged artists, who work in a variety of mediums and processes, we find that the process that was used to create this mural disregards the decades of work that went into creating responsible and accountable community art practices. The history of community-engaged practices is rich with methodology for multiple ways of inclusion, and pride over one’s community and work. The process described by the city of Burlington does not take into account these widely available practices. The hurt that this mural causes could have been avoidable if an accountable process had been engaged.
The muralist himself, Pierre Hardy, believes that taking down the mural would be a “sad outcome,” as published in a recent interview with VTDigger. Hardy goes on to argue that “The abundance of white faces on the mural is merely a reflection of Vermont’s demographics … If the mural is white so is 2010 Vermont, my friend.” That representation of Vermont now, or then, is not an accurate representation of who lives here. But Hardy’s argument, and his mural, continue to perpetuate the invisibility that people of color have endured for centuries. If we continue to only highlight and honor white people, then that is who “we” will continue to see. Burlington is rich in diversity, which is growing annually. We have lost community members of color due to continually saying “Vermont is white.” While we have a majority white population, we cannot continue to ignore our friends of color — their histories, their contributions, and how they say they experience the city of Burlington. We saw the mural itself as a “sad outcome” in 2010.
In an article from Seven Days on Aug. 24, 2011, Hardy is quoted as saying: “I already know more about Burlington than most Burlingtonians do.” First of all, this is incredibly arrogant. We support traveling public artists, but not ones without a sense of humility in their new surroundings. Second, who was Hardy talking to while he was here? Who was he getting to know? Who sat at the table? Did he reach out to those who weren’t?
We also think that it would be shameful to value the businesses stake in the mural over the people in our community. We say this because it is the right thing to do and also because Vermonters have emphatically denounced billboards for the last 50 years. Much of the mural’s timeline consists of branded advertising for those who contributed to the mural financially. I hope the businesses themselves, along with the city and general public, see the hypocrisy in this, in addition to joining the conversation about the effects of public art.
One way to begin to heal this, is to remove the mural and begin a new process that includes the voices of those who have been excluded. It would be disingenuous, presumptuous, and equally offensive to suggest a “fix” that isn’t guided by those very people.
