This is a very important discussion as it will also affect the threshold/barrier to create new art at the square. If for example there is a culture established that finished art is without exception or distinction deemed “sacred” and/or permanent that would make at least me significantly more hesitant when it comes to supporting new initiatives without due process.
One clear example of this is how the spontaneous painting of the BL container by Mike and the girlfriend of Manju (Amelia?) during the September event build happened. They were allowed to do this (from my point of view) based on an assumed underlying principle of “easy come, easy go”.
As there wasn’t any clear process to it nor any preparatory work or other such kind of efforts.
“By all means go wild, we can always paint over it”
To me this differs fundamentally from the other side of the same container where the artist Johan was specifically and individually invited to do a planned piece. Then some expectation of longevity can certainly be allowed for IMO.
To be clear I personally regard the Beckman’s communal painting experiment a great thing as a creative process and I’m really happy that we can enable such things to happen with the square. I’m grateful to Jonas for making it a reality. In terms of actual aesthetical outcome though that’s a different discussion altogether. And to be perfectly honest me and my subjectivity find it pretty ugly…
But that’s also to be expected from a collective painting experiment involving many people without previous experience of spraycans, foregoing the use of masking tape on a corrugated surface etc. And I would like us to be able to continue taking risks and allowing for playfulness. By all means go wild…
Ideally I would like to see some kind of evolutionary process happening with FT, where things (from containers to colors and what not) gradually fall into their optimal spaces and some kind of “look” is established by iterative trial and error.