Comments on: Lucy Kemp-Welch At The Royal Exchange

By: Paul Ridgway

Paul Ridgway — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:28:17 +0000

Am sure there are / were murals by others in the Royal Exchange.
One that comes to mind is:

Blocking of Zeebrugge Waterway, St George’s Day, 23 April 1918 by William Lionel Wyllie
Is it still there?

By: Chris Ashby

Chris Ashby — Tue, 15 Nov 2016 23:04:16 +0000

Just seen this post and have objected to this trivial proposal

By: Joanna Biddolph

Joanna Biddolph — Sat, 12 Nov 2016 22:31:58 +0000

Have you thought of starting a petition (on change.org, for example) against this proposed vandalism? Your arguments would be very persuasive and if you blogged about the petition, more of your readers might act not only to sign it but to comment on the planning application.

By: Phil maxwell

Phil maxwell — Fri, 11 Nov 2016 18:39:13 +0000

The proposal is a disgrace & an insult to veterans. Shame on the City of London if they allow this vandalism to go through.

By: Lynne Perrella

Lynne Perrella — Fri, 11 Nov 2016 13:55:40 +0000

It was so evident, from your previous post about “The Garden of Hope”, that murals continue to have meaning, value, significance, and relevance. Surely if newly-created murals are seen as valuable, there should be a more sensible and sensitive awareness of the traditions of mural painting in the UK. The proposed idea to bisect the murals is wrong-headed, disrespectful, and a cynical form of “recycling” at its worst.

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:32:16 +0000

It is depressing to think that artworks of such historic and cultural importance can be treated with contempt by those who should be their guardians in the public interest. The entire plan is built on the premise that the murals will be visible through the windows of the retail units. This is complete hogwash. This only works as long as the retail units are empty. As soon as each unit has window displays and interior displays the murals are lost from view. I find it sickening that Historic England are supporting this risible and damaging scheme on the grounds that the public benefits (whatever they may be is not made clear) outweigh the minor harm that results from the proposals. Indeed, they claim that the “modest harm” caused by the excessive protrusion of the balconies is actually an enhancement. They also “assume” that the murals will not be damaged by the mezzanine floor coming into physical contact with the surface of the murals. It is quite unbelievable. There is also mention of the murals being glazed which would mitigate actual damage to the painted surface but no mention is made of how the glazing will be carried out. I think it would be next to impossible to fit a sheet of glass over the paintings as they exist because of they are sited within elaborate arched niches with a cornice and dado on each pilaster leaving no room for any kind of frame for the glass. The fate of these immensely important paintings is in the hands of the barbarians and philistines whose only care is for money.

By: Valerie-Jael

Valerie-Jael — Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:17:32 +0000

For me, this would be criminal damage. Valerie

By: Shawdian

Shawdian — Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:08:00 +0000

Wonderful, Thank you & A Good Morning Too You