I notice the wall on the side of Superdrug facing onto North Cross Road has been painted white. Is this in preparation for a mural?

(Also notice the banners have been taken down for the Christmas lights, and in Lordship Lane as well)

It's a new Graffiti Wall

As several local residents have already referred to it as such.

Yes, it’s going to be a mural and will take about three days to complete
(If anyone can lend them a cherry picker they’ll be able to go up to the top of the wall. Otherwise, they’re limited by the height of the scaffolding.)

Ooh, exciting. Who's doing it, EPB? Always thought that wall was ripe for some art.

Great! I love (most of) our ED murals.

Except the one on the side of what is now The Lordship ......

Completely agree, Sue

I hope they don't make the same mistake as did those who produced the mural on the side of what is now the Lordship Pub and Kitchen - they used a really big cherry-picker that was so heavy it seriously damaged the pavement - must have been fairly costly to repair...

Not loving the colour choice. Looks like interior of a nursery.

Bony Fido,

The mistake with the mural on the Lordship pub that Sue commented on has nothing to do with a Cherry Picker, I think that it might be about the artist's reputation from past works!?
Nice to see a mural that not pompously based on classical paintings in Dulwich Picture Gallery - be good to have something referencing 20th Century art for a change.

R. Mutt.

i*Rate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bony Fido,
>
> The mistake with the mural on the Lordship pub
> that Sue commented on has nothing to do with a
> Cherry Picker, I think that it might be about the
> artist's reputation from past works!?
> Nice to see a mural that not pompously based on
> classical paintings in Dulwich Picture Gallery -
> be good to have something referencing 20th Century
> art for a change.
>
> R. Mutt.


I don't know anything about that artist's reputation or past works, I just really dislike that mural. I think the unlamented and short-lived Patch might have commissioned it?

Surely the whole point of many of the local murals are that they are based on pictures from Dulwich Picture Gallery? Because - we are in Dulwich! I think that was a brilliant idea. They are so varied, too.

I don't see why you would describe them as "pompous"?

i*Rate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bony Fido,
>
> The mistake with the mural on the Lordship pub
> that Sue commented on has nothing to do with a
> Cherry Picker, I think that it might be about the
> artist's reputation from past works!?
> Nice to see a mural that not pompously based on
> classical paintings in Dulwich Picture Gallery -
> be good to have something referencing 20th Century
> art for a change.
>
> R. Mutt.

I have no claim to being an art critic!! The mistake to which I was referring has nothing to do with the actual mural - it was about the fact that the pavement was damaged by the weight of the cherrypicker.

Sue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great! I love (most of) our ED murals.
>
> Except the one on the side of what is now The
> Lordship ......

But NOT that ‘love is a prison’ one by The Artless Dodger

Please tell me he’s gone on to work in an estate agent, or something.

His work is absolute cark.

Which one is that?

If I could, I'd buy The Lordship just so I could paint over that horrible mural

Lynne,

Good for you- well said, you are obviously someone that keeps up with what's going on it London! And good luck to The Artful Dodger, he's local and has been producing street art for many years!

As for Dulwich Picture Gallery and all it's works, well it's a great place, but that's Dulwich Village not East Dulwich; we are supposed to have our own identity here. We still have the local historical mural on Goose Green about William Blake, though, more like these maybe?

I rest my case.

the historical mural partly painted over by Southwark Council.....

i*Rate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lynne,
>
> Good for you- well said, you are obviously someone
> that keeps up with what's going on it London! And
> good luck to The Artful Dodger, he's local and has
> been producing street art for many years!
>
> As for Dulwich Picture Gallery and all it's works,
> well it's a great place, but that's Dulwich
> Village not East Dulwich; we are supposed to have
> our own identity here. We still have the local
> historical mural on Goose Green about William
> Blake, though, more like these maybe?
>
> I rest my case.


Sadly, it's not a very good case

Could anyone clarify why mural by lordship is horrible. I had thought I liked it.

alice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could anyone clarify why mural by lordship is
> horrible. I had thought I liked it.


It's a matter of personal taste.

I don't think anybody is saying the mural is objectively horrible (which would be an odd thing to say). They are just saying that they personally don't like it.

If you thought you liked it, you probably still do. Don't be swayed by what other people think about it!

Garish, out of keeping with the locality, pseudo simplistic. I could go on.

Lynne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Garish, out of keeping with the locality, pseudo
> simplistic. I could go on.


Oh, go on go on go on!!!

Is it done by the same people who did the sign near the rail station? Who's idea was it and who is funding it? I think it will attract graffiti. Sorry to be so negative but I really don't like what I've seen so far.

alice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could anyone clarify why mural by lordship is
> horrible. I had thought I liked it.

Let me explain - as clearly you lack the required 'eye' to appraise this catastrophic occurrence.

Previously we had a large, featureless wall - composed with unpleasant beige bricks which were fired sixty years too late to be in keeping with 90% of the houses in the area - exuding all the charm of a soviet era social housing block.

This wall was clearly a much-loved asset to the community.

That someone could have the SHEER CHEEK to apply paint OF ANY SORT to this icon of mid-century design is BEYOND BELIEF.

I haven't seen it yet, but personally I hope it's a giant cock and balls - which would definitely be in keeping with at least some portions of the locality.

Lemming Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alice Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Could anyone clarify why mural by lordship is
> > horrible. I had thought I liked it.
>
> Let me explain - as clearly you lack the required
> 'eye' to appraise this catastrophic occurrence.
>
> Previously we had a large, featureless wall -
> composed with unpleasant beige bricks which were
> fired sixty years too late to be in keeping with
> 90% of the houses in the area - exuding all the
> charm of a soviet era social housing block.
>
> This wall was clearly a much-loved asset to the
> community.
>
> That someone could have the SHEER CHEEK to apply
> paint OF ANY SORT to this icon of mid-century
> design is BEYOND BELIEF.
>
> I haven't seen it yet, but personally I hope it's
> a giant cock and balls - which would definitely be
> in keeping with at least some portions of the
> locality.


I think you are confusing two murals ....

The one on the side of The Lordship has been there for some years.

Sue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think you are confusing two murals ....
>
> The one on the side of The Lordship has been there
> for some years.


You're absolutely right! I blame red wine - and hereby withdraw my comment about cocks and balls.

Just had a peek on google streetview - you get a view of that wall from 2012 through to no and can see the plain wall as The Mag, before becoming The Patch and that's when it arrived (as Sue already correctly noted)

So anyone know when the new 'mural' is going up?

Lynne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Garish, out of keeping with the locality, pseudo
> simplistic. I could go on.


+1

Personally, I love it!

Whilst taking pictures of the Mural in its early stages I was confronted by a couple
of local people one of which I know, saying what an eyesore they thought it was.

I thought I would reserve my judgement until it was finished.

Speaking to a Resident of Nutfield Road who thought the Mural was dreadful.
That person had made enquiries as to how much it was costing the local council.
They were told Southwark Council were paying £10,000 for the commission.

DulwichFox