'Wall Huggers' Fend Off Artists In Annapolis
Building Can Tell City's Story Better Than Photos, Preservationists Say

By William Wan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 9, 2007

To the arts community, it seemed like a simple plan: Celebrate Annapolis's 300th anniversary by hanging huge pieces of history-themed art in public places around town. Public art, history, featured in one of the nation's most historic cities -- perfect.

Then the plan hit the wall.

Specifically, the parking lot's wall.

Preservationists called its scarred surface -- full of cracks, graffiti and mismatched layers of faded brick -- a rich tapestry of history. Artists, looking to cover it with photos, had been calling it something completely different: ugly.

Now the proposal to install art in the parking lot and five other sites has split the city's cultural elite, pitting the art community against historic preservationists. The controversy, both sides say, has prompted questions about the town's very purpose: whether it exists to preserve or to create.

Art advocates say their ambitious proposal to temporarily install 9-by-12-foot reproductions of original paintings and historic photos on the sides of buildings would enhance the town's anniversary. After working for more than a year, they have won a $70,000 grant, secured support among city officials and gotten four local artists to start painting.

The jewel of their project is to be a gallery of enlarged photos in an alcove parking lot sandwiched between an Irish pub and a copy shop near Church Circle. The pictures, of people and scenes from Annapolis's bygone years, would bring new life to the parking lot's run-down walls, the art people said.

But the walls already have a life of their own, preservationists said.

"I can read a whole lot of history in the wall," said William E. Schmickle, head of the Historic Preservation Commission, which is project's last hurdle for approval.

The black lines scrawled along the top of the walls might be markings from the tar roof of a no-longer-existing building next door, the commission said. The mismatched patterns of faded brick are clues to when each section of the surrounding buildings was added.

Those and other objections from the Historic Preservation Commission now threaten to sink the art proposal.

The commission is feared and obeyed throughout Annapolis. Its strict reign is the reason Annapolis has preserved its Colonial-era charm and become a flourishing tourist attraction. Its complete authority, however, is also the reason some around town whisper, cringe or ask not to be quoted when talking about the commission.

Its seven volunteer members, appointed by the mayor, control all external changes to property in the historic district -- from the type of signs allowed to the material and style of glass a resident must use to replace a broken window. The commission answers to no one, and its rulings can be appealed only to circuit court.

Schmickle, a retired political scientist on Soviet matters-turned-Annapolis inn owner, has literally written the book on historic preservation ("The Politics of Historic Districts").

He explained the commission's duties this way: "It's not that people on this board are trying to make people do what they want. Over decades, you take out one thing that could have been saved and put in another that's inappropriate -- that adds up to death by a thousand cuts."

Four of the art project's six sites are within the commission's jurisdiction.

The artists say they chose those sites for their visibility and symbolic meaning: a painting near the bridge to Eastport to honor the working-class people who lived there; a folk-art rendition of Annapolis to hang at the City Dock; and one piece partly painted by inner-city children to hang facing Clay Street, a historically black neighborhood.

The photos intended for the parking lot were taken by renowned photographer Marion E. Warren, a fixture at the Irish pub next door until his death last year.

Some commissioners, however, fear the art could create precedent for other large-scale displays in town. Others want changes to the content, preferring, for instance, photos of buildings and landscapes rather than people.

An architectural adviser raised another concern: that people distracted by the parking lot's photos could lose "awareness from the need for safety around the moving vehicles."

When asked about details of the debate, organizers of the nonprofit project, titled Artwalk, spoke cautiously and in hushed tones.

"You have to understand, we're walking on eggshells here," said Charles Walsh, a retired lawyer spearheading the campaign.

"We've tried to incorporate their suggestions and change our thinking," said painter Sally Wern Comport, the project's curator.

At the core of the debate, preservationists fear the loss of something valuable through change, she said, while artists require bold moves in their quest to create something valuable. "Those are philosophical differences we're trying to bridge," Comport said.

The one thing the both sides want to avoid is another "flower basket" debacle.

Eight years ago, a fight -- this time between preservationists and business owners -- raged so fiercely that afterward a local nonprofit group arranged a series of formal talks to repair damaged relationships.

Business owners had wanted to hang flowers from the town's lampposts, but preservationists said, among other things, that the lamppost were replicas from 1826 and there was no evidence that flowers hung from them then.

Even now, "flower baskets" is whispered as shorthand around town, meaning the worst-case scenario when facing the commission.

"Annapolis, you see, is still very much a small town," said Gregory Stiverson, former president of the Historic Annapolis Foundation. "Any issue that comes along, large or small, chances are you'll have warring camps forming overnight."

For now, Artwalk's organizers are urging their artists to keep working so they can meet the 2008 anniversary deadline.

The commission had planned to settle the matter for good with a vote at a meeting tonight. But yesterday the board said it was postponing the vote so it could deal with the two sides' latest disagreement: whether art organizers had correctly posted notices for the meeting.