6 ms·

Like most interesting stories, I find myself without a clear opinion as to which side is correct. It would be annoying to be a judge. Losing art sucks, but it

Like most interesting stories, I find myself without a clear opinion as to which side is correct. It would be annoying to be a judge. Losing art sucks, but it doesn't sound like the owner acted in bad faith. I know the real question the judge must answer is whether or not a law was broken, but I assume since they're humans they often act from a sense of personal justice and then rationalize backwards to a sensible legal argument.

alistairSH 9y ago
Totally agree. It's an interesting case - I never would have expected to see laws interpreted to protect public art such as this. Why should any public artist have an expectation of their art being preserved? Just because a property owner grants permission, I would assume that property owner reserves the right to change their mind at any time, no? If it was a sculpture in the parking lot, would we feel the same way? Can the property owner demolish that without the 90 day heads-up? Can previous artists at that site turn around and sue the last wave of artists for doing the exact same thing?
- menacingly 9y ago
  It actually robs some of the ephemeral mystique of graffiti. It's really gutsy to put effort into art you know someone can destroy the next day. I consider it one of the unique constraints of the form. Of course, in this instance, there was an inviting space for it. As laws go, 90 days to come and preserve the art is pretty reasonable to the property owner, but I can also see that given the unique form, he assumed it could be destroyed.
  - alistairSH 9y ago
    Yeah, how do you preserve art that's painted on a wall owned by another party? Can the artist force the reconstruction of the wall? If so, that's completely bonkers. I'm with you... the ephemeral quality of graffiti is a defining attribute. Without that, it's not graffiti any more. Not sure that invalidates the legal argument - it could still be art. Thinking locally... there's a ton of redevelopment in my area (Reston, VA). If I were a NIMBY, could I doodle on a few walls, throw paper at the courthouse, and bring it all to a stop?
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Yeah, how do you preserve art that's painted on a wall owned by another party? Well, you could make arrangements with the owner to cut the section of the wall. I think some Banksi works have already been sold like that.
    - ChoGGi 9y ago
      Yeah, how do you preserve art that's painted on a wall owned by another party? Assuming you want to keep art on both side of the wall: attach some sort of steel support to one side of the wall, then cut out the section with a concrete saw, I've seen blade diameters go up to four feet. You'd just need to have the blade on rails.
chimeracoder 9y ago
> Losing art sucks, but it doesn't sound like the owner acted in bad faith. The owner rented out the interior of the building to tenants as studio space and the exterior to 5Pointz as gallery space while claiming the building was empty and writing it off for tax purposes. He wanted to sell the land to a developer to demolish it and put up a high-rise. When there were murmurings that the building might get declared a protected landmark, thereby preventing him from demolishing it, he hired people overnight and in secret to whitewash the exterior and destroy the graffiti art. That way, there's be nothing left to protect. If that's not bad faith, I don't know what is.
- mc32 9y ago
  However, the artists would paint over previous works, so it's not like they were permanent installations, they lasted from days to on occasion a year. There was impermanence about the art. So, i think it's mostly about not wanting to lose their "canvass" than to preserve the art. Given that the canvass was a building owned by someone else, I don't see much of a case.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > However, the artists would paint over previous works, so it's not like they were permanent installations, they lasted from days to on occasion a year. That's not true. Some of the works were permanent installations, including tribute and memorial works from artists who have died. Only some spaces were designated for temporary installation. > There was impermanence about the art. So, i think it's mostly about not wanting to lose their "canvass" than to preserve the art. There's no need to put "canvas" in scare quotes. There's plenty of case law that helps define what an installation is, in the context of art. This isn't a novel concept. > Given that the canvass was a building owned by someone else, I don't see much of a case. The owner agreed to let them use the space (and even charged them for it, along with double-dipping into tax write-offs for the building). Legally, that gives them a pretty strong claim to the space.
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
juicy-fruit 9y ago
Basquiat, who's paintings are some of the most valuable, started off as a graffiti artist. One of my favourite artists, Kaws, started off as a graffiti artist. In fact a lot of companies liked Kaws' vandalism of their ads. One of my fraternity brothers has an album full of pictures of all the places he travelled in the world and did some graffiti. It is so cool. I'd be lying if I said I didn't like graffiti, but I also think we should "enforce" the law so that not every part of the city gets plastered in graffiti. I think the appeal of seeing graffiti in grungy, underground places is a lot more authentic.

alistairSH 9y ago

Totally agree. It's an interesting case - I never would have expected to see laws interpreted to protect public art such as this. Why should any public artist have an expectation of their art being preserved? Just because a property owner grants permission, I would assume that property owner reserves the right to change their mind at any time, no? If it was a sculpture in the parking lot, would we feel the same way? Can the property owner demolish that without the 90 day heads-up? Can previous artists at that site turn around and sue the last wave of artists for doing the exact same thing?

menacingly 9y ago
It actually robs some of the ephemeral mystique of graffiti. It's really gutsy to put effort into art you know someone can destroy the next day. I consider it one of the unique constraints of the form. Of course, in this instance, there was an inviting space for it. As laws go, 90 days to come and preserve the art is pretty reasonable to the property owner, but I can also see that given the unique form, he assumed it could be destroyed.
- alistairSH 9y ago
  Yeah, how do you preserve art that's painted on a wall owned by another party? Can the artist force the reconstruction of the wall? If so, that's completely bonkers. I'm with you... the ephemeral quality of graffiti is a defining attribute. Without that, it's not graffiti any more. Not sure that invalidates the legal argument - it could still be art. Thinking locally... there's a ton of redevelopment in my area (Reston, VA). If I were a NIMBY, could I doodle on a few walls, throw paper at the courthouse, and bring it all to a stop?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Yeah, how do you preserve art that's painted on a wall owned by another party? Well, you could make arrangements with the owner to cut the section of the wall. I think some Banksi works have already been sold like that.
  - ChoGGi 9y ago
    Yeah, how do you preserve art that's painted on a wall owned by another party? Assuming you want to keep art on both side of the wall: attach some sort of steel support to one side of the wall, then cut out the section with a concrete saw, I've seen blade diameters go up to four feet. You'd just need to have the blade on rails.

chimeracoder 9y ago

> Losing art sucks, but it doesn't sound like the owner acted in bad faith. The owner rented out the interior of the building to tenants as studio space and the exterior to 5Pointz as gallery space while claiming the building was empty and writing it off for tax purposes. He wanted to sell the land to a developer to demolish it and put up a high-rise. When there were murmurings that the building might get declared a protected landmark, thereby preventing him from demolishing it, he hired people overnight and in secret to whitewash the exterior and destroy the graffiti art. That way, there's be nothing left to protect. If that's not bad faith, I don't know what is.

mc32 9y ago
However, the artists would paint over previous works, so it's not like they were permanent installations, they lasted from days to on occasion a year. There was impermanence about the art. So, i think it's mostly about not wanting to lose their "canvass" than to preserve the art. Given that the canvass was a building owned by someone else, I don't see much of a case.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > However, the artists would paint over previous works, so it's not like they were permanent installations, they lasted from days to on occasion a year. That's not true. Some of the works were permanent installations, including tribute and memorial works from artists who have died. Only some spaces were designated for temporary installation. > There was impermanence about the art. So, i think it's mostly about not wanting to lose their "canvass" than to preserve the art. There's no need to put "canvas" in scare quotes. There's plenty of case law that helps define what an installation is, in the context of art. This isn't a novel concept. > Given that the canvass was a building owned by someone else, I don't see much of a case. The owner agreed to let them use the space (and even charged them for it, along with double-dipping into tax write-offs for the building). Legally, that gives them a pretty strong claim to the space.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago

juicy-fruit 9y ago

Basquiat, who's paintings are some of the most valuable, started off as a graffiti artist. One of my favourite artists, Kaws, started off as a graffiti artist. In fact a lot of companies liked Kaws' vandalism of their ads. One of my fraternity brothers has an album full of pictures of all the places he travelled in the world and did some graffiti. It is so cool. I'd be lying if I said I didn't like graffiti, but I also think we should "enforce" the law so that not every part of the city gets plastered in graffiti. I think the appeal of seeing graffiti in grungy, underground places is a lot more authentic.