Fark headline: "Transsexual Cambodian spotaneously mixes androgynous forms to create controversial self-portrait mural on Philadelphia building. Submitter has been waiting years to write this headline" links to Philadelphia Inquirer story "A mural is up against a wall." The mural in question is The Death of Venus, to the right (Eric Mencher / Inquirer Staff Photographer).
When i first clicked on the link, I thought that some people were objecting to a new mural with questionable content. However, the article says the mural has been up for four years subject to an "interim approval" procedure. In that time, there has been little public opposition to the mural, according to the article, and the City's Mural Arts Program has added the mural to its tour guide.
However, in a recent decision at the end of the four year "interim approval" procedure, the city's Historical Commission decided that it should be painted over. Although supporters of the mural claimed that the mural has taken on historical significance, the Chairman of the Commission dismissed those arguments and said, "4 1/2 years is not history." Although the Chairman of the Historical Commission might have more experience in determining whether something is historical, I must disagree in this case. I believe that events and art that have an impact can become historical within seconds. Of course, I'm being somewhat facetious because the Chairman meant history in context of the historic architecture of the neighborhood, but nevertheless destroying a work of "art" that is generally unopposed and is a tourist draw sounds like a bad idea.
The tragic irony is that the artist, Dee Chhin - a transexual Cambodian immigrant (originally Wesley Chhin) - watched as her own uncle, also an artist, was decapitated by the Khmer Rouge, and now her work of art will (pending appeal) be painted over in a coat of red paint.
