The exterior of Clem’s nightclub in St Clement’s is being repainted after an agreement between the owner of the nightclub and Oxford City Council. The graffiti-like design is to be replaced with a different frontage.
The nightclub has already undergone a change to its paint scheme since the large letters spelling the establishment’s name that were originally on show were deemed to require advertising consent by the Council. A report from the Council’s press office stated that the lettering “exceeded the maximum height of 0.75 metres.”
However, the report claims that the second design, featuring cartoon characters which replaced the lettering, “is not in keeping with the surrounding area.”
The manager of Clem’s, Mr Bruno Garcia, is cited on the BBC website as stating, “We had to do what we had to do – we just want to make sure everyone is happy.” He told Cherwell that the new plans are to have an all-blue frontage, although added that “It won’t attract as many customers as before.”
The City Council report notes that the new plans will require neither planning permission nor advertising consent.
Michael Crofton Briggs, Head of City Development at Oxford City Council, said in the report, “Officers organised a lot of meetings with the owner to discuss the changes to the outside of the building.”
“I am really pleased that our hard work has meant that the owner has shown us the colour scheme that he intends to use and that we have agreed it instead of tackling him through the enforcement process. This is a much more effective process for the Council. The work is currently underway.”
Graham Jones, ward councillor for St Clement’s, told Cherwell, “It was pretty obvious that the design, while ingenious and interesting in itself, was out of character with the formal and mannered, mainly Georgian architecture of the buildings around The Plain.”
He added that he began to receive complaints from members of the public on the same day that the painting appeared.
He said “I must stress that I like urban graffiti very much in surroundings which work for it and vice versa. There’s a great example at the rear of Clem’s in York Place. Another is on the first floor of shops on Cowley Road opposite Manzil Way. Take also the polemical mural on a house in Union Street. The frontage on The Plain wasn’t the right setting.”
He also suggested the idea of a “Neighbourhood Plan, devised locally and put to the people living in the area in a referendum.” He continued, “One thing we could do is to insist that all new building meets more rigorous environmental and sustainability standards than currently demanded by the city. Another is to give Conservation Area rules precedence over Advertising Regulations.”
“That would allow businesses to know in advance if their plans for redesigned shopfronts were likely to be refused for the reasons that led to Clem’s having to remove its graffiti and think again.”
Oxford-based historian and art critic Estelle Lovatt has reportedly defended the artwork in the past, but was unavailable for comment when contacted by Cherwell.
Student responses to the constraint on the artwork included some angry reactions. Timna Fibert of St Anne’s said, “I think it’s ridiculous that personal aesthetic taste is dictated to by the Council. I mean, I think it was pretty ugly but why should my opinion, or even the opinion of a majority, stop people from expressing themselves and what they stand for?”
The constant change was greeted with confusion by students living in the nearby vicinity. Ben Whitman, from St Hilda’s and a resident of the flats above Clem’s, said, “‘it’s really stupid how they changed it and then changed it again. It’s just a waste of money in times of austerity.”
Another second year at St Hilda’s said, “The scrapping of the graffiti is an absolute outrage. The dreaming spires are all very well and good but it’s a shame the city is so dismissive of contemporary art.”
He added, “Who knows – we might have just got rid of the next Banksy.”
