The parallels between this controversy and the one that arose over the Vietnam-era Corita Kent Boston Gas tank mural are uncanny. Both concern contemporary artworks painted on infrastructural eye-sores. Both were suspected by some detractors of surreptitiously depicting the current boogey man of the day -- this, a Muslim terrorist; the gas tank, communist Ho Chi Minh. Both also won the immediate affection of many and were considered instant icons.
The gas tank artwork survived its controversy to become a cherished city landmark. It had become so cherished that when the tank that wore the original mural was demolished in the 90s, the painting was painstakingly recreated on the adjacent remaining tank.
I like the new vent building mural. I don't think it's supposed to depict a terrorist, but that's really beside the point. I think it's big and bright and playful and inventive and a little strange. It grabs your attention and it's fun to look at and wonder about. In other words, I think it's interesting--the most interesting thing on the Greenway. The only interesting thing on the Greenway.
I hope the Powers That Be reconsider its temporary status and make it permanent (are they really going to power wash it off in a year to restore the wall to its former blank brilliance?). If it survives long enough maybe it too will become a cherished Boston landmark and they'll be painstakingly recreating it on whatever inevitably replaces that vent building somewhere down the line.
I first want to say after reading that and looking it up. I don't see the parallel. I never knew and I can bet that if I ask most people aware of tanks (so the people who drive pass it or have a view or etc) that all they see is a nicely painted rainbow gas tank. Even looking at it now with the picture, I can't recognize Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh is obviously intented to be very subtle.
The artwork of the gas tank survive to today is because of the aesthetics of it - the cleanliness, joyful energy, and color of the art rather than the subtle political point. Basically the first thought when people look at the art is its color and energy, thus why it is cherished.
----
Now the new mural, it is colorful and lively like the gas tank. But unlike the gas tank, I think one argue it looks much uglier. Part of the gas tank uncontroversial aesthetics is from pure simplicity and its very hard to for simpleness to look displeasing. The new mural is much more complicated and I have to argue the use of its color choice make it looks ugly.
The gas tank uses simple colors of red, yellow, blue, green, purple stripes. But the new mural uses yellow but as a skin color (the Simpsons choose yellow for their characters, but they choose yellow because it somehow looks aesthetically pleasing on the TV screen with the art style, the mural with the real world background, not so much. The disproportional body with the head, hands, and feet twisted up is creating an eerie feeling - kinda of reminds me of the uncanny valley theory though this one is not fall in that valley.
The other uses of the color for the mural - teal, orange-red, lime-green makes a mural definitely stand out - but not in a good way. It attracts attention by how the disharmonious the colors to each other rather than harmony (and thus attract attention by a pleasing quality instead). The colors are bright and cheery, but colors between each other are not very harmonious.
Thus I raise doubt that the parallel between the Ho Chi Minh Gas Tank Mural and this mural can be view in parallel and "uncanny." For the reasons that the Ho Chi Minh Gas Tank mural have the advantage of subtlety, simplicity, and colorful aesthetics. The gas tank survived aesthetics because people like the aesthetics of it while the political tones faded or unnoticeable.
While my understanding the artist intention was to just put a colorful t-shirt around a head with no political message. But until head wrappings no longer chains with Muslims and then think about how so many terrorist are Muslims, The first thought of the unacquainted view of the mural will be a discomforting political thought. Whether it is "its a mural of a terrorist" or "the headscaft reminds me of terrorist though I know better." The first thought of the unacquainted view of the Ho Chi Minh Mural is "colorful rainbow". That's a big difference. It discomforting - whether the discomfort is terrorist itself or a contradicting thought that no all headscarf (or t-shirt head wrapping) means terrorist.
Artworks can and should be discomforting sometimes. But I don't think the Greenway should be the place to show that type of art. As the objective of the art is to make the Greenway more inviting and pleasurable - not thought provoking through mental discomfort.
And between disharmonious colors, eerie body parts depiction, and the first invoking thought (I think our culture is we highly associate wrapping of the head with the Muslim religion, I think a large proportion does see that and immediately bring that thought up and just saying that just ignorance doesn't mean the discomfort goes away and I don't think the objective of he Greenway is to do that).