By Amy Golod
Daily Bruin Contributor
Artist Mike McNeilly, who painted the Statue of Liberty on the
side of the Westwood Medical Plaza Building, goes to trial today
facing charges that he did not receive permission from the city to
paint the mural.
“I never expected to receive this reaction for painting
the Statue of Liberty overlooking the Veterans cemetery,”
McNeilly said.
The trial between McNeilly and the City of Los Angeles was
postponed from Nov. 1 and is scheduled to begin today in the Los
Angeles City Criminal Court.
City procedure requires that the artist of a mural receive
approval to be considered a candidate for the permit, but McNeilly
did not follow those steps.
The charges against McNeilly include failure to obtain a permit
for the artwork, failure to obey a lawful order and failure to have
a contractor’s license. If convicted, each charge could bring
six months in jail in addition to fines. The owners of the medical
building also face charges.
McNeilly did not go through the process required by the Los
Angeles Cultural Affairs Commission and did not follow the law,
said Gloria Dabbs-Mann, the prosecuting district attorney for the
city of Los Angeles.
“Our belief is that the First Amendment is not
unabridged,” Dabbs-Mann said.
Some members of the community like the artwork, but allowing a
sign to be painted without the city’s permission does anger
them.
“The sign does not bother me, but what does bother me is
that if it should not be there, then it should not be there,”
said Sandy Brown, co-president of Holmby-Westwood Property Owners
Association.
If the city has a rule, then it must enforce it, she added.
In response to the city’s reaction and interruption of his
work, McNeilly last month added a sign that reads
“˜censored’ across the mural.
“I thought a picture would be worth 1,000 words and
(Councilman Mike) Feuer would understand that he supported
government censorship,” McNeilly said.
Some members of the community received the message McNeilly
tried to send.
“The new “˜censored’ sign speaks to
McNeilly’s direct challenge and says that he is bold enough
to stand up for his First Amendment rights,” said Albert
Boime, a UCLA art history professor.
McNeilly said that the application procedure is unconstitutional
since an artist does not have complete freedom to apply for a
permit. An artist must be selected to be an applicant.
He decided against going through with the application procedure
before beginning his work, he said.
“The government has no business in the permit process to
have that power,” he said.
Based on past statements from Feuer, McNeilly said that applying
for the permit would be futile.
Feuer and his representatives declined to comment for this
story.
Eight hours after working on the mural, four LAPD and four
university officers ordered McNeilly to stop painting or face a
jail sentence. After hearing the ultimatum, McNeilly later added a
tear to the Statue of Liberty’s cheek.
On April 3, McNeilly met with Feuer, hoping to explain his
viewpoint and make reconciliations, he said.
Feuer only spoke about McNeilly’s failure to apply for
a
permit not about freedom of expression, he added.
McNeilly added the “˜censored’ sign the following
weekend.
Bob Ross, McNeilly’s attorney, plans to use the city
municipal code 91.6205.1 in defense of his client. The code states
that temporary signs that contain political, ideological,
non-commercial messages do not require the artists to obtain a
permit, Ross said.
“Feuer does not have the constitutional right to restrain
free speech and the ordinance itself says that a permit is not
needed,” Ross said.
Other murals by McNeilly have been non-permanent and used to
spread public service messages, he said.
Ross said that had Feuer waited a certain period of time, such
as 90 days, he could have shown that the mural may not have been
temporary.
“Feuer has made a mistake to impose his will on the
people. The government is supposed to act on the will of the
people,” he added.
In addition to the city council, the Board of Cultural Affairs,
the Department of Building and Safety, LAPD and UCPD are some of
the groups who support the prosecution, McNeilly said.
While some members of the community may appreciate the mural,
others are less supportive.
“There should be freedom of speech, but there are limits
and guidelines,” said Dr. Bradley Baum, who works in the
medical building.
Many tenants do not feel that a mural on the building is
appropriate, especially when they cannot influence its image, Baum
said.
“The artist is fabulous and the issue is the building
owner,” he added.
More than a year ago, an advertisement for the film, “The
Rock,” did not evoke the same community response, he
said.
“I find it curious that the artist and the owner would put
up a Statue of Liberty,” he said.
Some agree that the city must have some influence over public
artwork.
“McNeilly sees bureaucratic hurdles as interfering with an
artist’s rights,” Boime said.
There have to be some sort of regulatory mechanisms, he
added.