We heard about a great ghost sign in North Avondale, but when we got there yesterday, it was too late.
So, Mr Sullivan(?), your artwork is covered.
What did it look like? The answer is here.
On the south side of the building on Reading, near Paddock, the Lenox Motors sign is just barely visible.
But, now that Artworks knows about it, they'll probably try to cover it too.
I like the theory behind Artworks: breathe new life into neighborhoods with vibrant color. But, do they have to keep destroying history to do it?
Oh, sure, it's often the building owners who want what they consider an eyesore covered up, and they volunteer their walls for the art project. But what if we applied that same strategy to buildings themselves? Over-the-Rhine, with all its Italianate architecture, would have been razed years ago, and plain, boring, cost-effective structures erected in its place.
Every now and then, there's a huge outcry over a building that's left to deteriorate, and/or scheduled for demolition. Where's the outrage over the destruction of ghost signs? They give as much, if not more, flavor to a neighborhood than do modern murals. And they're cheaper to keep, or restore.
I've been stewing over this for a while, and where last year I was merely annoyed, now I'm angry.
What is considered an eyesore today, is often heralded as beauty tomorrow. Ghost signs lend character to a community. They hint at history. And we, as a culture, are doing worse than taking all that for granted; we're actively destroying it.
Please, share this message with your friends. And if anyone has pull with Artworks, please make the case for saving the ghost signs.