Commercialisation of George Town Street Art
I was passing through the inner city of George Town today, when I saw tables being set up by the roadside in Cannon Street, Armenian Street and Chew Jetty. The vendors are selling souvenir items depicting the murals by Ernest Zacharevic. Ever since they were painted in conjunction with the 2012 George Town Festival, the murals have become the most popular attraction in George Town - eclipsing the heritage sites themselves.
As of now, items up for sale include notebooks, notepads, autograph books and post cards. They show the various Zacharevic murals. I do not know whether the artist sanctioned the production of these items, which open forth a new debate: should they be allowed? The last I heard was that the people at George Town Festivals were none too pleased, and announced that creation of souvenir items depicting the murals should receive their approval.
Mural art for sale: who is the beneficiary? (14 November 2012)
In every tourist destination, there would surely be stalls selling souvenir items. In Angkor, you'd find busts of Jayavarman VII, in Paris, you'd find Eiffel Tower keychains.
When the goose lays a golden egg, to whom does the egg belong - the farmer or the goose itself?
Similarly, the question being raised in George Town now is, to whom do the murals belong? Is it to Ernest Zacharevic, or to 2012 George Town Festival, or to the owners of the walls, or to the people of Penang itself? Apparently everybody seems to claim ownership.
Remember the collective anguish when some of these murals were defaced? Suddenly these are works that belong not only to an artist or an organisation, the people of Penang has adopted them as their own. The continuous stream of visitors paying homage to these murals testify that they have risen above paint on walls to become something that the people cherish.
The collective anguish expressed when Little Boy with Pet Dinosaur was defaced reflects the level of ownership the people of Penang has adopted over them. (30 June 2012)
Now next question to ask is, should people be allowed to commercialise the murals. As we ponder this question, I have to ask, shouldn't these murals benefit the people, particularly those living within the inner city of George Town? I see old ladies putting up tables to sell those souvenirs from their front door, and it dawned on me that those murals has introduced a new stream of income for the people of the inner city.
Does the proceeds of the sale trickle back to the artist? I do not know, but it would be fair that the artist earns royalty from his artwork. But just as with pirated items, there would be back-door souvenirs that were created outside the knowledge of the artist. Personally, I would not support or endorse the use of the murals unless it is approved by the artist himself. Those who make copies of the murals for their selfish gain may say that they are promoting George Town; if their intention is genuine, they should also generously support the artist who created them in the first place, enabling them to now benefit.
Penang Street Art Main Page
Copyright © 2003-2025 Timothy Tye. All Rights Reserved.
Go Back
I was passing through the inner city of George Town today, when I saw tables being set up by the roadside in Cannon Street, Armenian Street and Chew Jetty. The vendors are selling souvenir items depicting the murals by Ernest Zacharevic. Ever since they were painted in conjunction with the 2012 George Town Festival, the murals have become the most popular attraction in George Town - eclipsing the heritage sites themselves.
As of now, items up for sale include notebooks, notepads, autograph books and post cards. They show the various Zacharevic murals. I do not know whether the artist sanctioned the production of these items, which open forth a new debate: should they be allowed? The last I heard was that the people at George Town Festivals were none too pleased, and announced that creation of souvenir items depicting the murals should receive their approval.
Mural art for sale: who is the beneficiary? (14 November 2012)
In every tourist destination, there would surely be stalls selling souvenir items. In Angkor, you'd find busts of Jayavarman VII, in Paris, you'd find Eiffel Tower keychains. When the goose lays a golden egg, to whom does the egg belong - the farmer or the goose itself?
Similarly, the question being raised in George Town now is, to whom do the murals belong? Is it to Ernest Zacharevic, or to 2012 George Town Festival, or to the owners of the walls, or to the people of Penang itself? Apparently everybody seems to claim ownership.
Remember the collective anguish when some of these murals were defaced? Suddenly these are works that belong not only to an artist or an organisation, the people of Penang has adopted them as their own. The continuous stream of visitors paying homage to these murals testify that they have risen above paint on walls to become something that the people cherish.
The collective anguish expressed when Little Boy with Pet Dinosaur was defaced reflects the level of ownership the people of Penang has adopted over them. (30 June 2012)
Now next question to ask is, should people be allowed to commercialise the murals. As we ponder this question, I have to ask, shouldn't these murals benefit the people, particularly those living within the inner city of George Town? I see old ladies putting up tables to sell those souvenirs from their front door, and it dawned on me that those murals has introduced a new stream of income for the people of the inner city.
Does the proceeds of the sale trickle back to the artist? I do not know, but it would be fair that the artist earns royalty from his artwork. But just as with pirated items, there would be back-door souvenirs that were created outside the knowledge of the artist. Personally, I would not support or endorse the use of the murals unless it is approved by the artist himself. Those who make copies of the murals for their selfish gain may say that they are promoting George Town; if their intention is genuine, they should also generously support the artist who created them in the first place, enabling them to now benefit.
As of now, items up for sale include notebooks, notepads, autograph books and post cards. They show the various Zacharevic murals. I do not know whether the artist sanctioned the production of these items, which open forth a new debate: should they be allowed? The last I heard was that the people at George Town Festivals were none too pleased, and announced that creation of souvenir items depicting the murals should receive their approval.
Mural art for sale: who is the beneficiary? (14 November 2012)In every tourist destination, there would surely be stalls selling souvenir items. In Angkor, you'd find busts of Jayavarman VII, in Paris, you'd find Eiffel Tower keychains. When the goose lays a golden egg, to whom does the egg belong - the farmer or the goose itself?
Similarly, the question being raised in George Town now is, to whom do the murals belong? Is it to Ernest Zacharevic, or to 2012 George Town Festival, or to the owners of the walls, or to the people of Penang itself? Apparently everybody seems to claim ownership.
Remember the collective anguish when some of these murals were defaced? Suddenly these are works that belong not only to an artist or an organisation, the people of Penang has adopted them as their own. The continuous stream of visitors paying homage to these murals testify that they have risen above paint on walls to become something that the people cherish.
The collective anguish expressed when Little Boy with Pet Dinosaur was defaced reflects the level of ownership the people of Penang has adopted over them. (30 June 2012)Now next question to ask is, should people be allowed to commercialise the murals. As we ponder this question, I have to ask, shouldn't these murals benefit the people, particularly those living within the inner city of George Town? I see old ladies putting up tables to sell those souvenirs from their front door, and it dawned on me that those murals has introduced a new stream of income for the people of the inner city.
Does the proceeds of the sale trickle back to the artist? I do not know, but it would be fair that the artist earns royalty from his artwork. But just as with pirated items, there would be back-door souvenirs that were created outside the knowledge of the artist. Personally, I would not support or endorse the use of the murals unless it is approved by the artist himself. Those who make copies of the murals for their selfish gain may say that they are promoting George Town; if their intention is genuine, they should also generously support the artist who created them in the first place, enabling them to now benefit.
Penang Street Art Main Page
Copyright © 2003-2025 Timothy Tye. All Rights Reserved.