Discussion on Newstalk FM on Public Art. A few notes: We’re not protesting the bureaucracy of the planning system with our public art series, although that is one of the many issues. We’re addressing the exemption of “painting” within the Planning & Development Regulations. This exemption then goes on to state “except for the purposes of creating a mural”. We’re highlighting the lack of a definition for a “mural”. Further details in our previous post.
The purpose is to draw attention to the fact that the existing legislation, and its implementation by local authority, is not fit for purpose. It requires revision and amendment.
We don’t “paint things without asking any permission”, we just don’t ask the permission of Dublin City Council.
We have the permission of the owner. To the best of our knowledge there has only ever been two objections to any of our murals (in contrast to the substantial positive feedback). Did these objections even come from the neighbourhood?
A "quality test"? This is a whole different conversation. Define quality in the context of art. Decide who defines it. Good luck.
The “routes” referred to in the Planning & Development Act 2000 are the Planning Application Process and Section 4(1)(f). Neither of which are suitable. Are the required processes and procedures of Section 4(1)(f) or Part 8 implemented by Dublin City Council? We don’t think so.
“You have to go through the process”. A mural (with no definition in legislation) is currently considered a “material change of use” and in this interview it is compared to “building an extension”.
What relevance does "international reputation" have in the context of legislation and its implementation?
“If we get any objections we have to investigate them, we can’t ignore them”. Is this process and procedure always implemented the same way? We don’t think so.
Interesting question from the interviewer - “Does it ever happen that a mural is painted without permission but somehow it is allowed to remain there because the community voices their approval for it?”
“The city does use its discretion, like all government officials” - allow us to translate - “we have one set of rules for you and another set of rules for ourselves.” If there is no complaint is there still an investigation? Has the law still been broken? Will there be a prosecution? Who makes these decisions and how are the conclusions drawn?
The climate change mural that was referenced was painted on red brick.
Although the Ormond Quay hoarding may not be permanent (nor are a lot of murals) it has been in situ for almost five years. Does the scale, location and prominence of this mural have the same supposed impact as an “unauthorised mural" on a wall?
“Checking the facts on all sides…an attempt to get around things… I’ve seen beautiful street art… and in the corner the name of a company.” Check the corner of Ormond Quay.
To use their own words, the only people “trying to get around things” are Dublin City Council. We spent years dealing with legal proceedings only for them only to be vacated on a whim and struck out because they didn’t have “their ducks in a row”.