Armrest was mistaken for sex organ in mural, artist says

An artist says it was an armrest - not a male sex organ - that was protruding from a man's lap in a downtown mural that touched off a firestorm of controversy.

Some people saw it differently and city commissioners voted 4-1 Monday to essentially ban new outdoor paintings from historic downtown.

Commissioner Mike Sparkman, who advocated the law, said he was alarmed over the recent mural that appeared to show a male sex organ that was painted on a wall on an antique store near the Greater Plant City Chamber of Commerce. The mural, a rendition similar to the Norman Rockwell "April Fools" piece, has since been altered and the artist maintains critics were wrong about its content.

Sparkman presented a photo of the un-retouched mural to fellow Commissioner Bill Dodson, when Dodson expressed reservations about the proposal at Monday's city commission meeting. Dodson said he didn't need to look at the photo and later cast the lone dissenting vote. Dodson said he was looking for a more thought out and complete ordinance over an immediate and outright ban.

Sparkman said the ban was needed to be in place.

"I am not sure Commissioner Dodson is cognizant of actions that surrounded this ordinance coming in place," Sparkman said prior to the vote.

"We have an obligation to protect our kids, or citizens, and this community from things that are not of our character, and things we do not want in our community. To think we could allow this kind of trash is ludicrous," Sparkman said, holding a picture of the mural toward Dodson, "We have to stop it and we have to stop it now."

But Blake Emory, who helped create the mural, couldn't understand the fuss over the mural that includes a depiction of an old man and woman sitting at a table. He said he was surprised an armrest was apparently mistaken for a sex organ, and the painting was touched up immediately when folks started saying it was offensive.

"The city has been up in arms over the Plant City mural from the first time it was presented to them," Emory said. "We went through the proper channels and did everything we were supposed to do. The offending area in the mural was part of an arm chair, nothing more. But when it was pointed out to me I had it painted over immediately. As far as the rest of the mural is concerned I will be glad to talk to anyone about its content. But no one from the city has asked."

Under the new law, murals presently being painted - there is at least one in town - would be allowed. Other than that, no more murals can be painted in the downtown historic district unless the property owner can prove that there was a mural on the building before the city established the district in 1994.

On Tuesday, Edward Haynes, the owner of Hannas Antiques, who paid for the offending mural, was aggravated by the turmoil created by what he called an artists mistake.

"If I thought there was anything indecent or immoral in the mural I would have painted over it myself," Haynes said. "I didn't notice anything wrong and the artist painted over the part thought to be indecent without an argument. If the city was so interested in the moral character of the city why don't they do something about the prostitutes soliciting on the city streets, or the bums sleeping in vacant lots at night? I'm all for decency. I have a family too. But let's not get so upset and misplace our energy when it is needed elsewhere."