Going To The Olympics, 1984 Analysis

The mural "Going to the Olympics,1984" by Frank Romero was created along the Hollywood downtown in conjunction with the 1984 Olympics. In his work, we notice the vibrant colors he utilizes to express the Latino and Chicano culture. We also observe the palm trees that are a very popular representation of L.A. The hearts above the car not only reveal the adoration people have for their cars but for the status it gives them. On the horizon there appeared to be five images them being the flying iron, two men wrestling, "A Good Year" blimp, a horse, and lastly a stamp. Each magnifying Los Angles history with the Olympic Games. Such as the flying iron is from Dr. Zarkov, a fictional character from the movie Flash Gordon. The character symbolized the Olympic gold medalist Buster Crabbe who played Flash Gordon. Through his art not only did he display the Olympics he revealed a culture, in a way that is intriguing.

Based off, his mural Romero reveals that throughout decades, car designs and
styles have evolved. By the way the cars are aligned, one after the other we notice the changes between them, we see how the sizes differentiate. Not only this the colors and shapes create a lively mood. Inferring that Los Angeles is full of life and energy. We can also observe this through the vibrant colors each car is. We can assume Romero is aware of the soaring car culture in the city, making it a key component in his work.

We all know art is valuable not only to the artist but also to the people who praised it. In this case, it's discovered that Romero's mural was painted over due to graffiti. Romero would not stand for all his hard work to go waste and for the residents of L.A it was a heartache to see the art they once were pleased to see every once in a while now completely covered. Romero soon sought to sue Caltrans. Culture Monster's mentions,"Romero, who could not be reached Friday, is seeking a court order to have the mural restored and then maintained at the transportation department's expense. If restoration is not possible, he wants the mural removed to another, presumably safer spot." Soon "Going to the Olympics, 1984," one of the murals commissioned for the Olympic Arts Festival to commemorate L.A.'s hosting the Games was restored.

As known Romero's mural was removed in 2007. This situation created a debate between the art community when Romero took the decision to stand up for himself and other artists who have experienced this tragedy. Romero's had every right to respond to the destruction of his artwork by suing. In the article "Muralist Frank Romero sued Caltrans for painting over freeway work," by Culture Monster. The author states, "The episode took place, the suit says, without Romero having been given the advance notice required under a 1980 state law protecting artists' "moral rights." The notice provides 90 days for the artist to save or relocate works of public art before a building's owner can have them removed." this being said Romero's rights were not being respected. Who would stand for this? Someone's hard work being destroyed without out, at least, be alarmed, put yourself in Romero's place. After creating such a piece to it only being covered like it served no value. It's not only unfair to the artist but to the community. I in Romero's place would have taken the same action.

Regarding the city's point of view, it was the right action to cover the mural when it was being significantly harmed by taggers. However, the city did stand accountable to have made sure Romero was formally aware of their plans before taking action. Considering it was their job under the 1980 state law. Yet the city did what was most beneficial for them, not taking the artist or the residents wished in consideration. The Caltrans agency decided to take this action due to money. Although the state set aside one point five billion dollars for restoration of tagged artwork. In the article "End is near for some LA freeway murals due to graffiti," by Adolfo Guzman-Lopez conservator Donna Williams said, "Caltrans is partly to blame for their deterioration because the agency didn't set aside enough money to maintain them." Exposing that the agency didn't hold much interest in maintaining public art. If the city did not plan to help maintain the art, why allow it in the first place? Making me doubt their commitment to their community.

One of the main reasons taggers do graffiti on other artists work is because they're not given a chance to properly display they're own work.
The murals should, of course, be allowed to be placed and displaced but so do other's work including taggers. While people may argue taggers work is not art, it is maybe not in they're eyes but to others including the taggers themselves it is.Their work should be taken into consideration. The City who is responsible for the restorations wouldn't be making such huge expenses dealing with restorations if they perceived the whole situation. How do they expect low expenses if they don't deal with the real issue? The issue is not if the murals are worth protecting and restoring, the issue is what caused the problem in the first place. The best way to save and continue inspiring others with the city's artwork is to contribute to all type of artwork. Meaning, all artist and art should be considered valuable. Giving a place to be safely displayed and
done.