OCA preloader logo
I love u will u marry me - The Open College of the Arts

To find out more details about the transfer to The Open University see A New Chapter for OCA.

I love u will u marry me thumb

I love u will u marry me

Sheffielders love or loathe it, but Council workers must have a sentimental streak, since some dramatic graffiti has remained in place (for years) on a link bridge at a precarious height on Sheffield’s iconic example of brutalist 60’s architecture, Park Hills Flats, which sits resplendent above the city’s railway station. In fact recently the graffiti, which says ‘I love u, will u marry me’ in celebration of the 50 controversial years of this social housing project, has been converted into a neon light display. Urban Splash is the development company responsible for a massive refurbishment of the flats is responsible for this … display?? art? They say the aim of the neon is to celebrate the heritage and romance attached to the message. A BBC Radio 4 documentary last week tracked down the graffiti artist and the family of his beloved (now dead). When does something become art?

Photo by Greg McMullin (find him on Flickr)
Photo by Greg McMullin (find him on Flickr)

The graffiti now has artistic status, endowed on it by Urban Splash. The original concept belongs to a man, slightly bewildered by the magnitude the work has achieved.
There is some great street art/graffiti in the area around the new Olympic site. The Guardian recently asked whether this work will survive in the run up to the games, or whether the exhibitions planned by Hirst and Hockney will take its place.
Also in the news is Banksy, making a swipe at Murdoch and News International with his latest street art ‘somewhere near Wapping’. It seems Graffiti art is not only alive and well, but is animated, political and boldly confronts us in a way that art in our galleries often does not.


Posted by author: Jane Parry

21 thoughts on “I love u will u marry me

  • I listened to the radio programme because I regularly went past Park Hill flats in Sheffield when I lived there. I thought it was odd that, in their neon light display, they chose to miss out the important words ‘Claire Middleton’ because that was the name of the girl and the reason why it was there in the first place. If the development company really wanted to celebrate the heritage and romance etc,etc, surely they should have put her name in lights as well. Instead they’re trying to turn it into a universal symbol of love.
    From the way Jason (the young man) was talking he had no concept of being a graffiti artist, just that he wanted to cheer up his girlfriend who was having problems with social services. I’m waiting for the film to come out now or at least a TV drama and there’s also the book of course!

    • ‘Instead they’re trying to turn it into a universal symbol of love.’
      I wish I agreed with you Catherine, but I am afraid all I see is a cynical attempt to sell flats. The way in which Urban Splash has used the graffiti is a classic example of trying to invest a product or service with hipness by appropriating street culture. This is both a well tried and risky strategy. A good example of getting it wrong is Sony.
      Where I do agree with you is that Jason clearly doesn’t see himself as a graffiti artist. He comes across as a nice guy despite earlier problems who is rather bemused by the fuss.
      The Banksy case is different I think because it points to how a successful career in the arts requires marketing. There are now many interesting and successful artists combining traditional art practice and street art, particularly in the United States. Two of my favourites are Swoon and the oddly named Elbow Toe whose recent work strikes me as resonant of Paula Rego

      • But equally I don’t think we should be too cynical; convincing a client to at least make some investment in design/art values can only make our world a bit more interesting than it otherwise would be.
        You could say that designing the iPhone was a cynical attempt to sell expensive mobile phones but, while not being an Apple fanboi myself, people do enjoy its design values and it drives markets to consider those values, providing employment for creatives.

        • Good point Clive. For the Park Hill Estate to flourish it does need occupants who value their surroundings – if making it hip is what is needed, it might be a price worth paying

    • I listened to the radio 4 programme and the most striking part was that the family of Claire Middleton expressed the strong view that they wished that the graffiti had been cleaned up many years ago as it only brings back sad memories of Claire who died four years ago. In fact the relationship which the message refers to also founded shortly after the graffiti was made partly because Claire was unhappy having her name placed in a public place. It is pretty clear that the developers have ignored the underlying reality behind the original graffiti and have not respected the views of the family involved – this seems like exploitation to me!

      • Yes. These ‘streets in the sky’ were originally council housing – maybe that’s why the words weren’t cleaned off in the first place. Interesting that they’re now being renovated and partly privatised into upmarket housing which must make them worth millions. I agree the points about the neon lighting etc probably being a marketing ploy. The other thing that interests me is that people will probably be clamouring to buy them because they’re ‘upmarket’ whereas, previously, people’s hearts probably sank if they thought they were going to be allocated council housing there. Is ‘brutalist’ architecture more appealing than concrete blocks of flats?

  • I am finding it increasingly difficult to decide what I think about this sign. I find Clive’s position – which I would summarise as ‘it’s an investment in design, and therefore should be welcomed’ line convincing. But I also this Keith and Catherine are raising serious doubts. Here is some more grist to the mill:
    Q1: Is it a good thing?
    Here is Tom Bloxham, the Chairman of Urban Splash, at the switch on in June 2011:
    “As Park Hill turns 50, a new chapter is beginning and it is fitting to mark this point with the unveiling of the next modern twist at Park Hill – the neon I Love You Will U Marry Me sign.
    “The declaration is not only an iconic piece of graffiti but is also our invitation to the city. We want people to love Park Hill once again and it is exciting to see the development taking shape.”
    Of course they want people to love Park Hill, it is in their commercial interest, but actually I want people generally to love where they live. Surely part of being happy is loving where you live, and being happy isn’t a bad thing, is it?
    Q2: Is it art?
    Hm, less sure on this one. It is clearly an investment in design as it serves no functional purpose, but Tracy Emin has been working in Neon for quite a while now and this sign of hers from Margate is worth a look.
    Thoughts welcome

    • Q1 can be interpreted as should visual creativity serve Mammon?
      Well its always been patronised by it in the past and in the process produced lasting contributions to cultures.
      Civilisations and societies since the dawn of humankind have recognised the power that visual representation has to influence and transform; working in the service of capitalism, communism, fascism and religion. Its function as public psychotherapy for individual creatives is only a relatively recent subset of the practice.
      Q2, in many ways this is a redundant question, a red herring that only seems to be asked by those living in fear of being duped; also I don’t believe it’s a helpful question for a creative to ask themselves in making work.
      A more interesting question for me, as a member of the audience is, ‘Is it culturally active for me and if so how?’
      As a maker of work I couldn’t give a brass farthing whether people think it’s art or not. If it works for me, at that time, then its satisfied my criteria.

  • There is another precedent, evidenced by the Mario Merz exhibition currently at Leeds City Art Gallery: the Italian “Arte Povere” movement in the 1960’s used neon, among other things, to capture populist slogans: there are some in the exhibition. On the other hand, the Merz was conscious “art-making”, so maybe it all depends on the intention?

  • Whatever the reason the grafitti was done in the beginning,its become a landmark in the area, that’s evidenced by all the local stories that have sprung up about it as detailed in the radio program. I can see why the orginal author/artist would prefer the full statement to be kept but when you put your artwork out into the world its going to be understood or appropriated in different ways by different people. If you only want it to be understood in the one way you meant it – its probably best to keep it hidden!
    The developer’s have the job of developing and I can see why they would use the assets they have rather than a completely new, out of nowhere re-branding, why not use the subculture of the place and the mythologies about it and celebrate it. Judging from the radio program it would have been missed by many if they’d cleaned it off.

  • I don’t really know where I stand on this issue. I can’t get beyond the neo-Marxist anger I have that a bold, idealistic attempt to supply modern and desirable accommodation to the working people of Sheffield to replace the crumbling damp and insanitary slum conditions so many of them were condemned to live in prior to the second world war, was allowed to deteriorate, even in the People’s Republic of South Yorkshire, to a sink estate only rescuable by the dread hand of neo-liberal, market economics for the benefit of those that can afford it. Are we surprised that we have riots? The cynical use of a piece of ten year old graffiti is the least of the problems of the people of Sheffield.
    …on the other hand I think it looks great! (and I almost hate myself for thinking so!)

    • I can’t have taken all that in at the time Peter. I’ve always thought that the flats were built during the post-war social housing experiment to build homes as cheaply and in as space saving manner as possible. The idea that high-rise was ideal soon foundered. I moved away from Sheffield in the 1960s and, even at that time, the flats were viewed as uncomfortable to live in and likely to foster crime etc because of the layout. The flats are on a fairly steep hill, which was certainly a challenge to changing gear in icy conditions, and one can imagine the wind whistling through the walkways! On the whole people don’t thrive well in that kind of environment – well at least in my experience.
      Going back to the artistic theme. This has got me thinking about the psychological effect of artistic labels. Will I feel different knowing I’m living in a stylish, brutalist architectural building which is listed, as opposed to living in a high-rise flat, cheek by jowl with my neighbours?

  • “the post-war social housing experiment to build homes as cheaply and in as space saving manner as possible.” is something of a revisionist view of the situation in light of the inability/unwillingness of councils to maintain the blocks that were built in the spirit of post war idealism and the gradual abandonment of that idealism in the 60s due to the housing crisis and the financial constraints of the time.
    “The idea that high-rise was ideal soon foundered.” the residents of the Alton estate in Roehampton, Trellik Tower North Kensington,or High Point 1 in Highgate to name but three, would not agree. It is social police and niggardly housing budgets that are to blame not architecture. The problem is not living on the 15th floor but the difference between a 15th floor, penthouse falt in a well maintained, tower with concierge etc, and a 15th floor flat whose heating is not controllable, windows leak and lift has broken down… again and so is used as a toilet.
    I knew so many people who were re-housed from damp crumbling houses with outside or shared toilets to new centrally heated flat with good kitchens and bathrooms who thought they had died and gone to heaven.

  • Hi all
    Going back to investment in art…
    Last year I visited South Korea to see a friend. There has been a huge amount of building going on in Soeul and every new building has a sculpture outside. I asked about this and it turns out it’s a requirement of planning. So on the one hand you get a huge amount of investment in art and on the other hand you are swamped by a rather mixed bag of sculptures to meet planning regs. I think on the whole its good to be exposed to too much than none at all and it certainly made for a more interesting environment.

  • Moving from the sign and the politics of housing policy to the architecture itself; October Magazine (a MIT journal on art; theory, criticism and politics) is devoted to The New Brutalism which is the parent movement of the Park Hill development. Anyone with access to a reasonably good arts library could do worse than look this edition up, it has only just fallen through my letterbox so I have only scanned the index but it might help a better understanding of the movement developed in 1950s London by the architects Alison and Peter Smithson the artists Eduardo Paulozzi and Nigel Henderson within the Independent Group that spawned British Pop. In his article in October Hal Foster quotes the Smithsons thoughts from a 1980s retrospective’
    “In a society that had nothing. You reached for what there was, previously unthought of things…We were concerned with the seeing of materials for what they were: the woodness of wood, the sandiness of sand. With this cams a distaste of the simulated”
    Surprisingly, this Modernist sounding movement spelled the end of Modernism in Britain.

    • “We were concerned with the seeing of materials for what they were: the woodness of wood, the sandiness of sand. With this came a distaste of the simulated”. I like that sentence but, if that’s what they thought, why the use of so much concrete and the hard and unnatural look of the buildings? Is that why it was called, ‘Brutalism’?

  • Brutalism comes from the French for raw concrete,’béton brut’ and the use of concrete fits perfectly with the aesthetic in that it is a structural material and obviates the use of structural methods form history like post and beam or structural stone or brickwork. It allows for cleaner and more flexible structures and paved the way for more exciting forms than the rectangular structures from pre-20thC. In reality concrete is no less natural than brick and so on and no building looks natural, just more common.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to blog listings