Parts one and two are here:
Here is an interesting 2010 story from the Washington Post about an art conflict in Arlington Virginia:
The owner of dog boarding facility called "Wag More Dogs" paid $4000 to have a mural containing images of dogs playing painted on the side of her building. The side of the building where the mural was painted happens to face a dog park. The dogs also happened to be very similar to the dogs that are contained in her logo.
From the story:
Lets not ignore the fact here that the zoning administrator (or someone in the government) came up with a creative idea! Adding text focusing the mural on the dog park was certainly a clever suggestion. I'll desist from adding my opinion as to the merit of that suggestion.
In any case, the situation continued to deteriorate. The article continues:
I think she is dead on here. Policy can not be crafted on intention. Nor (like the Richmond Camera case) can it be crafted on the character of the artist. To say "well, you MEANT for it to be a sign, therefore it is a sign" is absurd. Also, to say "Well, it was a student art project, so it is art", is equally absurd.
Here is a photo of the art in question. Image from the Washington Post:
|Mural on side of dog boarding facility. The mural faces a public dog park. Photo from Washington Post.|
From the Washing Post:
|Owner of Wag More Dogs painting over $4000 mural which she commissioned. Photo from Washington Post.|