![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've mentioned the East Side Gallery before and back then I talked about the futile attempts to restore the artworks that were painted twenty years ago, a year after the fall of the wall.
Now they're trying again as reported by the BBC - and I don't think it's a particularly good idea. It's just not going to work. Street art is temporary. This is a public space. The only way to make sure that the restored artworks remain undisturbed would be to turn this stretch of the wall into a museum that is guarded day and night which would cost a lot of money.
How would you finance this? Corporate sponsorship? Charging admission? Private donations? Money from the state or the city?
It would change the whole atmosphere and it wouldn't be a public space anymore. Instead, we'd get a history theme park. Re-creating the past doesn't work.
I may not have the most thought-through arguments, but my gut tells me that I don't like it.
On the other hand, we try to preserve historic buildings, but this seems to be different.
What do you think?
Now they're trying again as reported by the BBC - and I don't think it's a particularly good idea. It's just not going to work. Street art is temporary. This is a public space. The only way to make sure that the restored artworks remain undisturbed would be to turn this stretch of the wall into a museum that is guarded day and night which would cost a lot of money.
How would you finance this? Corporate sponsorship? Charging admission? Private donations? Money from the state or the city?
It would change the whole atmosphere and it wouldn't be a public space anymore. Instead, we'd get a history theme park. Re-creating the past doesn't work.
I may not have the most thought-through arguments, but my gut tells me that I don't like it.
On the other hand, we try to preserve historic buildings, but this seems to be different.
What do you think?
