LETTERS
We welcome letters. Please include your full name, address and telephone number. We edit all letters. Send them to editor@illinoistimes.com.
THE ARTIST’S SIDE I am writing to state my point of view that was not included in your article by Bruce Rushton (“Mural interruptus,” Sept. 4). I cannot put into words my frustration in the piece and how little of the real story was included. What would you expect after a three-minute phone interview on a very complicated subject two hours before deadline? Amateur at best. His questions were leading to his own opinion and not very well written. Not to mention the murals have all been privately funded by groups I found. More than Downtown Springfield, Inc., could ever do. No TIF money was spent on my murals. I painted these at almost nothing to make the area beautiful and cultured. For a great man who resounds through the world. The real debate is who owns the rights to the work? The short answer is the artist.
These murals and concepts are not new to me yet new to this city. Public art belongs to everybody, but the final say and ownership belongs to the artist who creates the work. Painting two murals and being stopped so near completion was the building owners and DSI being greedy. I had not broken my contract with either party and was still within my own timeline. Weather is out of my control. I was not stopped by my own actions but by the building owners and DSI several times as a play to muscle me to surrender my rights to my work so DSI can make up for bad money management and poor leadership. Mr. Vala is merely a business bully and does not understand present laws concerning who owns the work. I own the work in both cases. I will not release those rights either.
I had first come to DSI with these ideas in 2007 to facilitate the movement to get the work moving. At that point, they took my concepts and tried to hire a team of sign painters from Minneapolis. (So much for supporting local business.) I have learned if you are not in the “clique” of downtown (I am not), you may as well expect your work is ignored, taken, and your name stepped on. The true problem with downtown Springfield is a select few people who seem to think they own every aspect of the area and if you should not agree? They will blackball and slander you in open forum while planning the tactics out in closeddoor meetings.
Did anybody ask Steve Myers why he stopped the project three times last year? Why was I stopped for several months by DSI when I had the time and the budget? And now I am expected to work for free while my daughter and I starve?
DSI is meant to be a facilitator of downtown growth. The contracts they tried to get me to sign AFTER the work was started were meant to take my own living and feed their own poorly managed incorporation. They overstepped their bounds and when they were called out for it, ran and hid behind their lawyers and the image of being a victim.
I have not seen such stupidity and high school behavior in a group of “professionals” in my entire career across the country.
These murals will be completed as soon as the rules of intellectual property are understood. It is a shame that these groups and individuals have little respect for the oldest form of public art and the time and energy it takes. There is so much more to the story than an artist being “late.” I suggest putting a better writer and more detail to the debate about these murals in another article. These murals were a gift from me and they were stolen by greedy, local people. Lincoln would not be proud. Michael J. Mayosky Springfield
LOVE U.S., HATE WAR I disagree with William Henry’s letter (“The War on War,” Sept. 4). He states that if you don’t have a family person in the military, you have no right to say anything about what the military does. As a taxpayer, I have every right. I am paying their salaries. They are public employees, the same as any employee supported by tax money. We also have something called Freedom of Speech, which guarantees my right to speak my mind. Mr. Henry also does not believe that an American can love their country, but not approve of everything our government does. I respectfully disagree with this also. I do love my country, but I do not have to love everything my government does. During the Vietnam war, many spoke out against that war. That war is now widely viewed by most Americans to have been a mistake. Those who spoke against it did not hate their country. This is a fallacy. Maybe Mr. Henry would feel more at home in North Korea where it is not allowed to criticize your country or the government. But this is the United States. We do have that right. Sherri Boner Springfield
