jury sides with graffiti artists over building owner

stellarborg

Green Belt
@Green
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
A jury has ruled that a real estate developer broke the law by destroying graffiti art in New York City, in a verdict that could provide legal protections for street artists across the US.

The federal jury made its decision after a group of artists sued Jerry Wolkoff, who painted over their work at the 5Pointz building in Queens, New York City, in November 2013.

On Wednesday the jury decided that the artists’ work was legally protected under the Visual Artists Rights Act (Vara), and that meant that Wolkoff had broken the law. It was the first time graffiti, or “aerosol art” had been given that protection under federal law, potentially meaning thousands of graffiti murals across the country could now be preserved.

“It confirms that aerosol art is the same as any other fine artist,” said Eric Baum, the lawyer who represented the 21 artists who sued Wolkoff.

“And that the artist deserves dignity and respect.”

The owner of the building originally permitted graffiti artists to decorate his building with graffiti, but then changed his mind when he decided to convert his factory into an apartment complex.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/nov/09/new-york-graffiti-artist-win-lawsuit-5-pointz

Say what you will but public jury is a great equalizer against business interests
 
The owner claims he always was going to eventually demo it -- hopefully the judge comes to his senses
 
Fuck graffiti "artists". You don't own your medium, you don't get to vandalize it
 
Fuck graffiti "artists". You don't own your medium, you don't get to vandalize it

this wasn't some random street crap. this was an entire building complex with huge masterpieces & elaborate artwork projects always going up outside for decades, where there where hundreds of art studios inside. it was actually pretty cool & contributed to an awesome scenic subway commute to & from work.
 
No chance of any building owner allowing this to happen seeing this is a potential end result.
 
this wasn't some random street crap. this was an entire building complex with huge masterpieces & elaborate artwork projects always going up outside for decades, where there where hundreds of art studios inside. it was actually pretty cool & contributed to an awesome scenic subway commute to & from work.
Sounds pretty cool. But did the artists own the building?
 
Sounds pretty cool. But did the artists own the building?

nah, that one guy Jerry Wolkoff did who I believe was a huge fan of street art/ graffiti etc.
 
this wasn't some random street crap. this was an entire building complex with huge masterpieces & elaborate artwork projects always going up outside for decades, where there where hundreds of art studios inside. it was actually pretty cool & contributed to an awesome scenic subway commute to & from work.

They should've of pooled their money, formed a co-op and bought the building.

Owner said he was always going to demo it.
 
They should've of pooled their money, formed a co-op and bought the building.

Owner said he was always going to demo it.


he didn't give them formal notice supposedly, hence why he lost.
 
he didn't give them formal notice supposedly, hence why he lost.

Didn't lose -- judge hasn't ruled. And was there a contract? He let them paint his building -- but it's his building.

Street artist should learn to invest in their own real estate
 
The end result is no property owner will now let anyone "decorate" their building.
 
Didn't lose -- judge hasn't ruled. And was there a contract? He let them paint his building -- but it's his building.

Street artist should learn to invest in their own real estate

whoops missed that part.

anyways, I don't understand your train of thought here.

I'm not defending the artists nor am I arguing against them. all I did was share that this wasn't a typical & trashy graffiti thing, & that it has history here in Queens.

telling me artists should own such & such is irrelevant to any point I've made.
 
whoops missed that part.

anyways, I don't understand your train of thought here.

I'm not defending the artists nor am I arguing against them. all I did was share that this wasn't a typical & trashy graffiti thing, & that it has history here in Queens.

telling me artists should own such & such is irrelevant to any point I've made.

Cool that it wasn't trashy -- and cool if that was the extent of your point.

But on the topic at hand, and the one you addressed bald1 on, the aesthetics don't really mean much.
 
Cool that it wasn't trashy -- and cool if that was the extent of your point.

But on the topic at hand, and the one you addressed bald1 on, the aesthetics don't really mean much.
<{vega}>

I was replying @HockeyBjj 's post, & how this isn't a case with typical & trashy vandalizing styled graffiti.
 
<{vega}>

I was replying @HockeyBjj 's post, & how this isn't a case with typical & trashy vandalizing styled graffiti.

Sorry, noticed how you replied to bald on the follow up.

And again, im just reiterating that the skill level of the art isn't a factor. To some people, all graffiti is trashy -- due to the illicity of it
 
Sorry, noticed how you replied to bald on the follow up.

And again, im just reiterating that the skill level of the art isn't a factor. To some people, all graffiti is trashy -- due to the illicity of it


all good, but your second point is irrelevant because it wasn't all graffiti, although most of it was. they always had elaborate murals etc. & other art style pieces. hence why this entire thing is holding water in court.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,036
Messages
55,462,941
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw
Back
Top