Calzone
Gear Whore #1
6.7 Million was awarded to artists who's work was destroyed due to redevelopment.
Article described Long Island City where I lived as a "crime ridden area." LOL.
Glad I documented this area just down the block where I lived.
Cal
Article described Long Island City where I lived as a "crime ridden area." LOL.
Glad I documented this area just down the block where I lived.
Cal
Timmyjoe
Veteran
When I lived in NYC (1990's) I worked at a Model Shop in LIC. I didn't find it crime ridden, I just got frustrated with the street system. It wasn't like Manhattan. You couldn't go to 46th and 11th, cause you had to know, was it 46th Ave or 46th Rd. Whoever came up with that should have been shot.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
Beemermark
Veteran
Interesting. I can see were this is going. For example railroads had better stop washing/cleaning/painting their railroad cars for fear of being sued by graffiti "artists".
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Tim,
LIC use to have Crips and Bloods fighting turf wars in Queens Plaza Pre-Guilani and a bit Post-Guiliani. The sex trade when cleaned out of 42d Street in Madhattan prostitution migrated to LIC and Queens Plaza.
I lived in a run down historic row house on 23rd Street near 44th Road. Pretty much the Citigroup skyscrapper bordered my backyard, and because the Citigroup building is a terrorist target, Citigroup had 24 hour foot patrols, and in the winter if it snowed Citigroup would shovel my sidewalk for their foot patrols.
The journalist conflated the crime. About 25-30 years ago it was bad. My neighbor, Jimmy, told me that street walkers use to patrol right in front of our house. Truck drivers use to come, park and get their pipes cleaned.
Cal
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I was there during daylight hours, must have been 1993, didn't seem bad to me then. Maybe it was much worse at night.
Also worked in Brooklyn that year, by the Navy Yards, that was kind of dodgy. I remember walking to work on a winter day, past deep snow piles plowed from the streets, and on the way home that night, the cops were pulling a murdered body out of one of the snow piles. And one of the bodegas got shot up, a block from our shop. Otherwise, it seemed pretty safe.
Best,
-Tim
Also worked in Brooklyn that year, by the Navy Yards, that was kind of dodgy. I remember walking to work on a winter day, past deep snow piles plowed from the streets, and on the way home that night, the cops were pulling a murdered body out of one of the snow piles. And one of the bodegas got shot up, a block from our shop. Otherwise, it seemed pretty safe.
Best,
-Tim
Huss
Veteran
Is there a link to an article that I am missing?
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Huss,
Just do a search for 5-pointz and a slew of articles about the 6.7 million dollar award will come up.
For graffiti artists this was a holy place. This was a center for urban culture and it was desicreted by a greedy developer.
Cal
jszokoli
Well-known
That's not what happened here. The owner offered up the building as a 'canvas' for artists, then the building and their art was destroyed. I'm mixed on this as it seems to me that the owner was a good samaritan to the arts, and is being punished for it. But I really don't know the facts of the case.
Joe
Hogarth Ferguson
Well-known
Quite different, in fact. It was a well regulated area for graffiti, unlike other legal walls, here you would be assigned space and so forth.
The issue here, though, was that the developer did not wait for permits to tear down the building. And, when confronted with that in court, he became more of an ass, holier than though.
As someone who has been involved in the graffiti world for a very long time, I'm quite torn on this one. Part of graffiti is knowing that your work does not stand the test of time, it can, quite literally last mere hours. Even at five points, your work would regularly be rolled over by someone else and another piece put there.
This has to do with how the work was destroyed by a developer, not that it was actually destroyed/whitewashed
Huss,
here is one
https://ny.curbed.com/2017/11/7/16617490/5-pointz-long-island-city-trial-verdict
Yes, you're exactly right. There is no difference between legal graffiti/art and vandalism.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Joe,
One owner supported the arts. The next owner who was a developer took a hostile stand and literally whitewashed over the art to purposely damage and deface the art. About a year later demolition started. The whitewashing was a F-U and was just an act of power and meaness. This developer tried to devalue any litigation and prove who owned the property by this whitewashing.
At that time litigation was under way, no negociation, nor possibility of preservation. Pretty much unilaterally this developer took it upon himself to move his project forward.
I for one am glad that he was sued sucessfully. I'm glad he lost 6.7 million dollars. To me 5 Pointz was a monument to urban culture, it was important, and the city did nothing to stop the destruction.
Cal
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
If the law says the new owner needs to preserve due to droit moral then does he have the obligation as a private entity to do so or the city would have had to buy the property and turn it into a park? If any artist can paint anywhere and then hold that piece of property hostage then where is the democracy in city planning? I’ll wait for the appeals court to decide. I actually wrote a paper on this very topic 25 years so am quite excited academically at the outcome.
Beemermark
Veteran
Being "old school" I'm confused when graffiti becomes art.
jszokoli
Well-known
Cal,
As I said I'm not 100% up to date on the story, (onlyjust now just read the NYT article) but I don't think this is a good thing for the arts. It will make any property owner think twice before allowing an artist to do work that becomes part of the property. Whoever the owner is he/she will see this decision and say no to anything that seems to encumber the property.
Capitalism sucks, but you just can't strip someones property rights cause they are 'rich'.
On the other hand, if you take a look at the building that's going up on the site 6.7 million is a slap on the wrist. If you really want to stop that kind of behavior the remedy would need to be even greater.
Joe
As I said I'm not 100% up to date on the story, (onlyjust now just read the NYT article) but I don't think this is a good thing for the arts. It will make any property owner think twice before allowing an artist to do work that becomes part of the property. Whoever the owner is he/she will see this decision and say no to anything that seems to encumber the property.
Capitalism sucks, but you just can't strip someones property rights cause they are 'rich'.
On the other hand, if you take a look at the building that's going up on the site 6.7 million is a slap on the wrist. If you really want to stop that kind of behavior the remedy would need to be even greater.
Joe
Hogarth Ferguson
Well-known
Then use the term art. Graffiti can be done with a brush just the same as art can be done with an aerosol can.
How would you designate this "graffiti" and not art
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I've met perhaps 100s of developers over the years. I've liked one. Most are not very nice people even if the stunts they pull are deemed legal. Ethical and legal too often don't coincide. In my experience, its more than art. I watched extremely beautiful, historic, and unique architechtural gems gleefully destroyed (actual glee in the a** hole's eyes) to make way for yet another mini-mall. Some of these buildings were considered major "city treasures" and nobody thought they'd *ever* be callously destroyed -- thus nobody pursued official historic designation for those buildings. So. Legal, but ethical?
lynnb
Veteran
Do graffiti artists in the US have any legal right to paint private property? It seems strange that a property owner can be prosecuted for removing paint that was unlawfully applied, if that's the case. Much as I find developers somewhat akin to Vikings.
jbharrill1
Established
It was all legal. I myself am a graffiti writer and can tell you first hand...no it is not legal in anyway to damage private property.
jbharrill1
Established
I’m sorry but this is just not quite true. It was more of a tourist attraction for yuppies interested in “graffiti/street art” but too scared to go in the other areas where they will see real graffiti. In the old days 5 points had a little more legitimacy, but in the past few years it became more of a joke to the graffiti writers who are actually out painting both real mural style work, and illegal work. In fact I know quite a few of NYC graffiti writers said good riddance when it was to be demolished but they may be a little bit on the bitter side of things. Like I mentioned in the above comment, I myself am a graffiti artist and really couldn’t care less about 5 points, BUT I am very happy see that some justification has been brought to the issue and that the artists will be compensated. In a way it sort of feels like a win in a war against gentrification but obviously it isn’t, seeing as there will be condos or something like that there in a matter of years. I will say this though, it was a shame to see the KID and PK pieces get buffed.
Brooklynguy
Established
no comment
They owned this building for 20 years and then had an immediate change of attitude in how the property was being used? That's a little weird... The owner decided that he owned the property and could do what he wanted in an antagonistic manner. Does anyone know why? In hindsight, I'm sure he wishes he could rethink that stance. It seems if he had just informed them and waited awhile, he wouldn't be paying.
And to those who think it was vandalism, the owners knew this was happening for a long time and allowed it.
And to those who think it was vandalism, the owners knew this was happening for a long time and allowed it.