I read with great interest your editorial on the circumstances of the mural that has been painted for a business on Main Street. I don't think it's a question of art or signage as much as it is this:
The business owner went to the Design Committee with his idea in the first place, as I understand it. The committee advised against it. The business owner went ahead and had it painted anyway. Now the design committee is deciding whether it is art or a sign and should he remove it.
The question I have is: Does the business owner understand what Main Street has accomplished and has been awarded for, or is he opting off the team that created all this for everyone's benefit and going rogue as some sort of a gesture of non-cooperation?
An impressive accomplishment has been achieved by the setting up of a downtown association, restoration of storefronts, trees, sidewalks, seating, lighting and other decor. This business owner was drawn to put his business in the middle of this because of the success they have achieved through good design.
Now he chooses to go against advice and, in my opinion, has had painted an oversized, poorly composed and awkward pictorial representation of his own fantasy.
His signage is a sagging vinyl banner, where a beautiful sign could be, and where he would be better off spending his resources, in my opinion.
No mention has been made of who the building owner is. Would not he be a part of the downtown association?
Cooperation and mutual respect created our award-winning Main Street, and the Design Committee of the Downtown Foundation should get the respect it deserves.