3 ms·

> 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 th

> 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
    Still, its a traditionally impermanent art form - so the injury to the artists is not the same as, for instance, destroying a statue or slashing a painting.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > Still, its a traditionally impermanent art form The entire point of 5Pointz and their argument is that it's not an inherently impermanent art form, any more than other installation art (which is already established legally not to be impermanent).
      - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
        yet, graffiti is always an installation art form, and the vast majority is inevitably destroyed over time. So I argue its traditionally impermanent.
        mc32 9y ago
        Agreed. Even in the heyday of the 70s and 80s, people sprayed over each others paint, be they the owners or other rival taggers. So, historically, it has been impermanent.
        posterboy 9y ago
        Historically, the contested real estate would be taken back if the crossing writer was a toy who lacked respect for the art and understanding for the intention for the piece to stay up. It shouldn't be hard to find ten year old pieces, in New York surely older.
        goliatone 9y ago
        The graffiti community is very diverse and organic, lacking formal definitions or standards- ha! Also, things from the inside can/are perceived differently than from the outside. I have friends that make a distinction, broadly, between graffiti writers and graffiti artists. The ones I call orthodox think it’s only graffiti if you do it on a train, everything else is “street art”- and that being a derogatory term. Train, as a medium, is accepted to be pretty ephemeral. Then you have the bomber mindset, which focuses on difficulty of placement and quantity, also understood to be ephemeral. Then there’s walls and graffiti artists, which do legal walls more often and do expect more permanent installations... the only spot where I’ve seen different kind of writers converge were Walls of Fame, which always felt more organized and with more explicit rules around them and more permanent. 5pointz was both a legal wall and a sorts of Wall of Fame, known to the graffiti community- at large- around the world. Regarding 5pointz, the only part that I find interesting is the debate around the owner benefiting from tax breaks. As I understand the situation; the owner was claiming the building was art to get tax cuts, then decided to sell and argued the building was not art. I feel graffiti is irrelevant here.
koolba 9y ago
I don't consider any of that to be bad faith. The alternative view is that the owner allowed graffiti artists many years of free usage of the space and they're trying to penalize him for it by preventing him from rescinding that offer. The tax status of the building isn't relevant. Every graffiti artist that tagged that building knew it could come down at any time. They knew they could be either replaced or entirely removed. To claim some ownership to the exterior now that he wants to tear it down is ludicrous. If anything, I see this type of litigation to have a chilling effect on landlords allowing public usage of their property. I wouldn't want to open myself up to future litigation just because I allowed some artists to paint a mural.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > the owner allowed graffiti artists many years of free usage of the space It wasn't free > they're trying to penalize him for it by preventing him from rescinding that offer. No, they're suing because he destroyed installed art. > The tax status of the building isn't relevant. It is, because it does imply he was acting in bad faith, especially given the broader context. > Every graffiti artist that tagged that building knew it could come down at any time. They knew they could be either replaced or entirely removed. This is not the legal standard that installation art is held to.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    > Every graffiti artist that tagged that building knew it could come down at any time. They knew they could be either replaced or entirely removed. > This is not the legal standard that installation art is held to. It is not unreasonable that it should be, absent any agreement to the contrary. At least, it is not unreasonable that the standard could be reexamined.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > It is not unreasonable that it should be It actually is, and if you're interested in understanding why, I'd invite you to read up on installation art and the copious case law surrounding it, both in New York City (where a lot of that precedent was initially set, incidentally) and across the country (since this is a federal lawsuit). > At least, it is not unreasonable that the standard could be reexamined. That's not how common law works. When there's a clear legal precedent (which there is, in this case), it's not the responsibility of the judge to legislate from the bench and overturn existing standards (either codified standards - like this one is - or standards set by case law). The question in this suit is whether the legal standard applies; the jury determined that it did.

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
  Still, its a traditionally impermanent art form - so the injury to the artists is not the same as, for instance, destroying a statue or slashing a painting.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > Still, its a traditionally impermanent art form The entire point of 5Pointz and their argument is that it's not an inherently impermanent art form, any more than other installation art (which is already established legally not to be impermanent).
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      yet, graffiti is always an installation art form, and the vast majority is inevitably destroyed over time. So I argue its traditionally impermanent.
      - mc32 9y ago
        Agreed. Even in the heyday of the 70s and 80s, people sprayed over each others paint, be they the owners or other rival taggers. So, historically, it has been impermanent.
        posterboy 9y ago
        Historically, the contested real estate would be taken back if the crossing writer was a toy who lacked respect for the art and understanding for the intention for the piece to stay up. It shouldn't be hard to find ten year old pieces, in New York surely older.
      - goliatone 9y ago
        The graffiti community is very diverse and organic, lacking formal definitions or standards- ha! Also, things from the inside can/are perceived differently than from the outside. I have friends that make a distinction, broadly, between graffiti writers and graffiti artists. The ones I call orthodox think it’s only graffiti if you do it on a train, everything else is “street art”- and that being a derogatory term. Train, as a medium, is accepted to be pretty ephemeral. Then you have the bomber mindset, which focuses on difficulty of placement and quantity, also understood to be ephemeral. Then there’s walls and graffiti artists, which do legal walls more often and do expect more permanent installations... the only spot where I’ve seen different kind of writers converge were Walls of Fame, which always felt more organized and with more explicit rules around them and more permanent. 5pointz was both a legal wall and a sorts of Wall of Fame, known to the graffiti community- at large- around the world. Regarding 5pointz, the only part that I find interesting is the debate around the owner benefiting from tax breaks. As I understand the situation; the owner was claiming the building was art to get tax cuts, then decided to sell and argued the building was not art. I feel graffiti is irrelevant here.

koolba 9y ago

I don't consider any of that to be bad faith. The alternative view is that the owner allowed graffiti artists many years of free usage of the space and they're trying to penalize him for it by preventing him from rescinding that offer. The tax status of the building isn't relevant. Every graffiti artist that tagged that building knew it could come down at any time. They knew they could be either replaced or entirely removed. To claim some ownership to the exterior now that he wants to tear it down is ludicrous. If anything, I see this type of litigation to have a chilling effect on landlords allowing public usage of their property. I wouldn't want to open myself up to future litigation just because I allowed some artists to paint a mural.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> the owner allowed graffiti artists many years of free usage of the space It wasn't free > they're trying to penalize him for it by preventing him from rescinding that offer. No, they're suing because he destroyed installed art. > The tax status of the building isn't relevant. It is, because it does imply he was acting in bad faith, especially given the broader context. > Every graffiti artist that tagged that building knew it could come down at any time. They knew they could be either replaced or entirely removed. This is not the legal standard that installation art is held to.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  > Every graffiti artist that tagged that building knew it could come down at any time. They knew they could be either replaced or entirely removed. > This is not the legal standard that installation art is held to. It is not unreasonable that it should be, absent any agreement to the contrary. At least, it is not unreasonable that the standard could be reexamined.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > It is not unreasonable that it should be It actually is, and if you're interested in understanding why, I'd invite you to read up on installation art and the copious case law surrounding it, both in New York City (where a lot of that precedent was initially set, incidentally) and across the country (since this is a federal lawsuit). > At least, it is not unreasonable that the standard could be reexamined. That's not how common law works. When there's a clear legal precedent (which there is, in this case), it's not the responsibility of the judge to legislate from the bench and overturn existing standards (either codified standards - like this one is - or standards set by case law). The question in this suit is whether the legal standard applies; the jury determined that it did.