Judge awards graffiti artists $6.7M after works destroyed
"A judge awarded $6.7 million Monday to graffiti artists who sued after dozens of spray paintings were destroyed on the walls of dilapidated warehouse buildings torn down to make room for high-rise luxury residences."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...m-after-works-destroyed/ar-BBJ3gZC?li=BBnbfcL
So, you can spray paint the sides of buildings you don't own and then when the owner destroys the buildings in order to construct another, bigger, better building, you can sue him?
Absurd...
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Unlucky 13 likes this.
-
It's insanity. If a person paints on something that doesn't belong to him, he has to right to what happens to it.
And unless a building has been officially deemed a landmark, then the owner can tear it down if they want.aesop likes this. -
The owner had the opportunity to give the artist time to be able to retrieve his art from the building. -
-
Steve-Mo, Claymore95, Two Tacos and 1 other person like this.
-
By reading DM's response, if I didn't know better I'd think he's talking about a bunch of street hoodlums running around tastelessly graffitiing up buildings while one of 'em watches out for the police or something.
Two Tacos likes this. -
The characterization in the initial post does not correspond with article. This wasn't vandalism. This was an agreed upon collaboration that created something of value for both parties. The art had value and was salvageable and the owner of the building saw their value increase substantially (I don't know how much of an increase, but the article said the value of the property soared to over $200 million). And it seems there was a specific law governing such collaborations that required notice that the owner failed to provide.
-
Yeah, reading of the article clearly points out the paintings were not vandalism. They were agreed upon by the painters and building owner. The art even increased the value of the property that the owner cashed in on. They are owed the money.
I hope some people who freaked out about this will change their tune now. -
-
I admit I skimmed the article and missed this part:
"Jerry Wolkoff, who owned the buildings, had conceded he allowed the spray-paint artists to use the buildings as a canvas for decades..."
He also said: "...but said they always knew they would be torn down someday."
The property "soared" in value not because of the spray paintings, but because the entire crime riddled neighborhood had started to turn around and become prosperous.
Bottom line. Even if he gave these guys permission to paint there, he shouldn't be punished when he decides to do with HIS property what he wants. The 1990 law, IMO, pertains to things like Picasso paintings or Michelangelo sculptures. Not spray 20 year old spray paintings. "On August 21, 2013, the New York City Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve plans to build condos on the property, while the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission rejected a landmark status nomination by artists because the art was less than 30 years old at the time."
Here is this art: lol
aesop likes this. -
-
-
He's actually a pretty big philanthropist and gives a lot to the community he lives in and around. And actually, he has promised to purposely build large, empty walls for the graffiti artists to come back and paint a again.
Here's a pretty good article:
https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/5pointz-unvarnished-the-developers-side/
According to the Wolkoffs, the new 5Pointz will function more as “community” than a traditional residential building, with 50,000 square feet of retail, 12,000 square feet of artist studios, graffiti space on the concrete walls, tennis and basketball courts, a swimming pool, a gym, media and party rooms, a 250-space parking garage and a new public park.
While the project is still in the planning stages, the Wolkoffs said that the vast majority of the units will be studios and one bedrooms, with some two and three bedroom units. Apartments at the project, which is scheduled for completion in 2016, will range in size from 500 to 1,200 square feet. Rents have not yet been set.
And area brokers, even those who are graffiti art collectors, are on board.aesop likes this. -
-
In development deals of this size delays can run into the 1,000's or even hundreds of 1,000's of lost money each day. This guy seems to be pretty business savvy. I'm sure he'll end up ahead when it's all said and done. And the artists get a free place to paint...again.
-
His investors surely would not have appreciated the project standing still for months because of artwork. Regardless if it was well done.Last edited: Mar 9, 2020eltos_lightfoot and danmarino like this. -
-
If I buy the Mona Lisa and there are no clauses or contract.. Who has the right to tell me I can't take a dump on it and set it on fire? These people benefited from having their paintings displayed. If you come to paint my living room I'm not calling you to inform you I decided on new wallpaper.
danmarino and eltos_lightfoot like this. -
It was not the Guggenheim. Where exactly would these monstrosities be able to be relocated to? And at what cost?eltos_lightfoot likes this. -
If you are going to act ridiculous you should expect ridiculous responses.
That is not your concern. -
eltos_lightfoot likes this.
-
Did you not read? -
eltos_lightfoot likes this.
-
danmarino likes this.
-
-
Why don't you complain about stuff that actually matters and stop worrying about stuff that doesn't concern you in the slightest. move on with your life and actually do something instead of complaining about some guy breaking the law and getting caught and having to pay out. -
-
-
If I asked to display the Mona Lisa in your house, and you say yes, you aren't then allowed to tear down your house with my painting still in it....unless there's a contract. Without a contract, the court will find in favor of the party that lost property. The simple fact of the matter, is that the guy can appeal too. This is another example of the system working as intended.
You're basing your stance entirely on the fact you don't like the art form.
Page 1 of 2