5 Pontz-6.7 million Law Suit Award

rfaspen said:
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?
Click to expand...

While I understand your point, the counterargument is that "preservationists" waste resources, impede real progress, make it too expensive to do business (thereby hurting society but helping their niche cause), trample on property rights in this country, etc. I too have my own personal experiences and have found questionably ethical people (what does that mean anyway) on both sides of the equation.

Maybe it's beautiful and historic, or maybe it is an obsolete, ugly, outdated, abandoned warehouse (or both). Maybe the Empire State Building/Space Needle/Eiffel Tower/etc. should not have been erected, since whatever existed there had to be removed/razed to make way for the new. Who is to say that what was originally there was not historic or beautiful in its own way. The irony will be that someone in the future will claim that the despised mini-mall was an icon of the late 20th century and therefore they should be preserved. If bell bottoms and platform shoes can become fashionable again as they did, people can be convinced of anything.
 
If I white-washed over the graffiti, would that be art as well? After all, so many modern artists show essentially white canvases as "art". Okay, I'll sprinkle some colored paints and call it a Pollack. Then I'll knock it all down, and call it deconstructionist. Or installation art--I'll make sure to stick a toilet bowl atop the heap. It's my intent, after all.
 
Hogarth Ferguson said:
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

street-art-murals-11.jpg
Click to expand...

The question is about permission and intent. Done to the side of your house/car/property without your consent, you might not be too pleased.
 
Was the building private property?
Did the owner who invited the art have an agreement with the artists never to sell or deface the art?
Was it sold to a new owner?
Was the new owner obligated to the artists?
When does the owner of a building lose the right to do with his property as he sees fit?
The Constitution of the US knows these answers.
 
Brooklynguy said:
The question is about permission and intent. Done to the side of your house/car/property without your consent, you might not be too pleased.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and that is a fun argument to make, really original. The issue here, though, is that graffiti isnt always illegal and art isn't always legal.

The discussion I was having with someone was his contention that "graffiti was not art", I posted legal graffiti.

Your argument, to my comment, has no merit.

Also, how are none of you reading the article.


Building was bought to be developed and destroyed, the developer did not get the required permits to destroy the graffiti/building until 10 months after it was done. Then, his "screw you, i'll do what I want" attitude in the court landed him this huge fine.
 
rfaspen said:
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?
Click to expand...


"He's worse than a drug dealer, he's a developer"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKk1eoYALlM
 
Sounds like the developer was belligerent in court and the judge handed out a harsh verdict. Well that’s what appellate courts are for, to separate emotion from law and facts. I doubt the artists had an expectation the canvas would be permanent.
 
Hogarth Ferguson said:
Yeah, and that is a fun argument to make, really original. The issue here, though, is that graffiti isnt always illegal and art isn't always legal.

The discussion I was having with someone was his contention that "graffiti was not art", I posted legal graffiti.

Your argument, to my comment, has no merit.

Also, how are none of you reading the article.


Building was bought to be developed and destroyed, the developer did not get the required permits to destroy the graffiti/building until 10 months after it was done. Then, his "screw you, i'll do what I want" attitude in the court landed him this huge fine.
Click to expand...

Relax--no need to get snarky or get your panties in a wad. Your unfriendly response demonstrates why people roll their eyes at the arrogance and dismissive of the art community.

BTW, the case is not complicated, as this stuff has been debated ad naseum--"artists" vs. owners--big whoopie doo!

I used to see the buildings on a daily commute, went from being an ugly graffiti eyesore in the late 70's/early 80's to creative and entertaining in the 90's.
 
Rayt said:
Sounds like the developer was belligerent in court and the judge handed out a harsh verdict. Well that’s what appellate courts are for, to separate emotion from law and facts. I doubt the artists had an expectation the canvas would be permanent.
Click to expand...

If you've ever had to deal with the incredible red tape and bureaucracy that is NYC government, you'd also be belligerent. I have too many stories, but as an example, I'm on my 3rd inspection to obtain final approval on my solar panels on my little house, and one inspector has contradicted the other, making us go around in circles. On the other hand, you can smoke pot and piss openly in the street, and jump the subway turnstyles, and nothing will be done.
 
For all the derelict property developers/owners out there looking to beautify their holdings, it would seem prudent to sign a contract with the artist(s) doing the beautification, clearly outlining the impermanent nature of the artwork and the owner's right to modify the work as deemed appropriate by the owner.

Of course this is a separate thing from obtaining the required permits to make structural changes to the property...

From the Curbed article linked earlier: "The Wolkoffs have owned the site for 20 years, and had entered into an informal agreement with the artists to allow them to tag the site."

Make it a formal agreement with clearly defined terms and conditions.
 
This (the fine amount) will be appealed.

An appeal means the developer will be spending more on legal bills. I have nothing against developers per se, but Hogarth Ferguson's comment indicates it's possible this particular developer made a significant mistake by ignoring the permit process. There can be consequences. It's also possible there's more to the story and the developer wasn't treated fairly.

I have no idea about the legal merits of this particular case. The rule of law is inherently unemotional. Eventually ambiguities and, or unfairness are resolved by the appeal process.

Building permit bureaucracies are annoying regardless of geographic location. I am familiar with numerous bureaucratic failures about building inspection and occupancy permits that frustrated my reality clients in the St. Louis area. I am also aware of numerous deaths and serious injuries in adjacent municipalities with less bureaucracy, and minimal permit or inspection requirements.
 
willie_901 said:
Building permit bureaucracies are annoying regardless of geographic location. I am familiar with numerous bureaucratic failures about building inspection and occupancy permits that frustrated my reality clients in the St. Louis area. I am also aware of numerous deaths and serious injuries in adjacent municipalities with less bureaucracy, and minimal permit or inspection requirements.
Click to expand...

Willie,

When I lived in Long Island City, the rundown house I lived in that was deemed "historic" had serious electrical problems. I would have to reset blown breakers constantly. The house was built in the 1800's and had lead paint. There was also an illegal bypass on the water main that basically stole water from the utility.

Pretty much I felt like I was living in a fire trap and lived in danger. Pretty much was a news story ready to happen.

In Greenpoint the home owner did the plumbing, and one time I came home to find the basement of his row house flooded with a foot of water because he made a bad solder joint or did not clean the copper pipe enough.

Also much of the new construction I would say cuts corners and might not be built for the long term.

Cal
 
People keep referring to new ownership or being bought to rebuild... but according to wiki...

Jerry Wolkoff, a developer, bought the property in 1971 or 1972. He originally planned to develop the building, but instead leased the space to companies. Wolkoff started leasing the space as artists' studios in the 1990s. The building's exterior was graffitied over with a myriad of street art, and it became renowned worldwide for the street art. The factory building gained the name "5 Pointz" name in 2002 when graffiti artist Jonathan Cohen started using the moniker as a reference to the five boroughs of New York City. The murals were exhibited mainly on the exterior walls of the building, while the interior was occupied by about 200 artists' studios.

In 2013, Wolkoff made the controversial decision to demolish 5 Pointz and replace it with a condominium complex. The announcement resulted in protests and a lawsuit filed by the works' artists against Wolkoff. The 5 Pointz building was demolished completely in 2014. Construction on the new building complex started in 2015, with expected completion by 2017.
 
jsrockit said:
People keep referring to new ownership or being bought to rebuild... but according to wiki...

Jerry Wolkoff, a developer, bought the property in 1971 or 1972. He originally planned to develop the building, but instead leased the space to companies. Wolkoff started leasing the space as artists' studios in the 1990s. The building's exterior was graffitied over with a myriad of street art, and it became renowned worldwide for the street art. The factory building gained the name "5 Pointz" name in 2002 when graffiti artist Jonathan Cohen started using the moniker as a reference to the five boroughs of New York City. The murals were exhibited mainly on the exterior walls of the building, while the interior was occupied by about 200 artists' studios.

In 2013, Wolkoff made the controversial decision to demolish 5 Pointz and replace it with a condominium complex. The announcement resulted in protests and a lawsuit filed by the works' artists against Wolkoff. The 5 Pointz building was demolished completely in 2014. Construction on the new building complex started in 2015, with expected completion by 2017.
Click to expand...

John,

Thanks for the clarity. Kind of interesting how this owner flipped the switch: first supporting the arts; and then the opposite.

For a guy who has been around gentrifying neighborhoods for decades, I feel I am partially responsible for the redevelopment that makes NYC a great city. The land lords, the developers, and the banks all made tons of money over the decades, and pretty much I just got used/hosed.

In the late 70's I was building out a loft in SoHo on Broome Street. For a summer I actually lived there. I lived in Greenpoint, Williamsburg, and LIC before these neighborhoods were conquered by hipsters. Now I'm in SpaHa.

First I get drawn in, and then I get pushed out. The banks, the real estate, the landlords all forget who did the rough work and heavy lifting.

Cal
 
This sounds to me like a story of changing times. The developer bought the place when it was abandoned, and leased out space to make some money while trying to figure out what to do with the place. Many years go by, suddenly it makes sense to put up some new condos in the area, so now it's time to start all over.

But the artists revolt, claiming ownership of the art makes them owners of the property, which then really p's off the actual owner who tears the place down without waiting for permits to stop any legal action by the artists. Which then lands him in court for the permit violation.

He's not getting fined for destroying the art, but for demolishing the buildings without a permit, no? LIC will get the money, not the artists.

Am I right?

PF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom