It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

5 Pointz artists awarded $6.7 million for whitewashed graffiti

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   
So, another crazy lawsuit, another crazy verdict in a legal grey area.





A federal judge awarded 21 artists a whopping $6.7 million Monday for a developer’s decision to destroy revered works at the famed 5 Pointz art mecca in Queens.


Long story kind of short...

The building owner at some point allowed all of the graffiti, and actually encouraged it with a lot of people living in the building that worked on it. The building was in great disrepair, however, and most of the site was condemned by the city as uninhabitable in 2009. These studios, in terms of New York City at least, were dirt cheap to rent as well because of the state of the buildings. Initially, in the 90s, the owner purchased the buildings with intentions of flattening the area and redeveloping, and the artists knew all along this might happen. After approval for redevelopment, he painted over everything an knocked it down only a month or two later.

The conflict lies with some law saying an artist is entitled to their work, regardless of it being on someone else's property. So the award went because the developer showed "no remorse" about destroying it...



Wolkoff's attorneys unsuccessfully argued that the artists knew for years their “canvas” would be torn down, but did nothing to preserve their creations. Two high-rise towers of rental apartments are now where 5 Pointz once stood.

Daily News



The judge said he would not have assessed so much in damages if the owner had awaited his permits and demolished the art 10 months later than he did. The same judge had presided over proceedings in 2013 when he had warned that artists that he had to follow the law regarding private property and said: “The building, unfortunately, is going to have to come down.”

Guardian

I honestly do not know where I stand on this one. I have been to 5 Pointz before it was torn down (it kind of became a tourist spot), and while having some really, really good artwork....it had a whole lot of your basic gang sign style Graffiti as well that, eh, I see enough of it everywhere. Should they have had more time to remove it? Maybe. But almost 7 million dollars in damages? Nope. Another lawsuit reward that far outweighs an actual deserved outcome...




posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   
That would have fed a lot of Antifa.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: CalibratedZeus
The conflict lies with some law saying an artist is entitled to their work, regardless of it being on someone else's property. So the award went because the developer showed "no remorse" about destroying it...


The local news is reporting that he was supposed to give them 10 months to remove the art but disregarded that and went with immediate demolition so by that token, and allowing them to put it up in the first place, he kinda shot himself in the foot.




edit on 13-2-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
So much for starving artists.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Stupid totally stupid .
the dude bought the building with intents of tearing it down .
Besides what you call art I call vandalism .



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Next venue will think twice about inviting in the trash.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 12:49 AM
link   
How were they supposed to remove it?? That makes no sense ok if they gave them 10 months to remove it what we're they going to use to transfer it to something else?? Or would they have to have taken the wall with them? Makes no sense and I'm sure this will get overturned on appeal.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 01:37 AM
link   
this makes no sense. so if I own a building and i ask a guy or allow him (either way) to paint a mural on one side and then a few years later decide to go in a different direction with my building and repaint it....I get sued for destroying someone else's art?

so if I own a house and i let a guy I'm renting it out to add his own touch landscaping wise adding a few plants or a tree here and there and then after he moves out and I'm renovating the place and i remove his planting additions I can get sued for millions for removing his "art"?

America is a backwards twisted place. no wonder the places is screwed.

so if I get a tattoo from a tattoo artist and a few years later have another guy rework it or removed it all together I can get sued by the original tattoo artist for destroying his art.

if i pay good money to purchase some dudes modern art and then once I own it destroy it the artist can sue me?

edit on 14-2-2018 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
How were they supposed to remove it?? That makes no sense ok if they gave them 10 months to remove it what we're they going to use to transfer it to something else?? Or would they have to have taken the wall with them? Makes no sense and I'm sure this will get overturned on appeal.


Some were not on the masonry and could be removed, others that were are covered under a preservation guideline and could have been documented photographically and preserved in that manner. When he whitewashed them overnight without warning he knew that he was violating that clause which is why I don't think it will be overturned. The owner stated he whitewashed it intentionally so they wouldn't have to deal with the discomfort of watching the artwork go down with the structure.




top topics



 
3

log in

join