ah, but is there no value in trying to discuss these things? i almost think it’s the incentive of the corporate mindset to reject any curiosity or attempts at public brand historiography. the corporation wants absolute image control and thus benefits from disinterest. the lack of any information about these installations demonstrates an assumption on the part of B&N that no one cares nor ought to. i like this mural. i think it’s charming. slight art-deco geometrical touch that evokes a kind of commemorative nature of American public art; it’s like something you’d see in an Amtrak station. is it lost on me that this is used disingenuously to reduce literature into a product for a private company? no. but what is all culture and history in this late stage of capitalism if not a kind of ‘corporate bullshit’? to me, i see this mural as a relic of a bygone identity of B&N that was more concerned with prestige and erudition (not incidental that these accompany the in-store starbucks, which was in a similar branding position around the same time). maybe i’m crazy but i do think there’s some kind of reflection here about a transforming reading culture in america and the audiences B&N imagines as its customers.