Art of the matter
EVERYONE’S a critic, but only eight Brooklyn federal jurors will get the job of deciding if graffiti sprayed on a Queens building complex was protected art.
Jury selection starts Monday in a case where more than 20 artists argue a developer wrongly whitewashed and destroyed a graffiti paradise at the Long Island City spot known as 5Pointz to put up rental towers.
For years, 5Pointz was a destination for street artists looking to show how well they could wield an aerosol can. The one-time water meter factory was splashed with eye-popping like “Green Mother “Angry Orchard.”
It all happened with the blessings of developer Jerry Wolkoff, who owned the buildings. He said he had some easy rules for the talented taggers: no politics, no obscenities, no religious content — and that the artists would have to back off when he was ready to develop the site.
Tourists and aficionados flocked to 5Pointz. New Yorkers would get an eyeful of the everchanging canvas while riding on the 7 train. That all changed in the fall of 2013.
The artists sued in October of works Earth” and that year to prevent the destruction of their works. Wolkoff had the buildings whitewashed overnight that November. He did it just days after Brooklyn Federal Judge Frederic Block lifted a temporary restraining order blocking Wolkoff from going forward with his plans.
The two rental towers being built give some love to their graffiti ancestry. The insides are designed to include an “engraved graffiti logo” in the lobby and there is some graffiti artwork, according to Curbed.
While the site was being redeveloped, artists continued the suit, which is finally making its way to trial four years later. They’re suing over the destruction of 51 pieces.
Wolkoff's lawyers say their client was “extraordinarily generous” with his property and the case is a meritless money grab by people who allegedly knew as early as 2010 that the buildings were going to be coming down.
The case isn’t only a big deal for the artists and Wolkoff. It’s also getting a lot of attention from people working in the arts, copyrights and real estate, according to Barry Werbin, an expert in art and copyright law. The suit is a first of its kind, he said.
The artists are suing under the federal Visual Artists Rights Act, a 1990 law seeking to preserve existing visual art and make people pay when art in the scope of the law gets destroyed.
The protected art has to be of a “recognized stature.” But the law’s wording doesn’t define what “recognized stature” actually means.
As far as Werbin can tell, there’s never been a jury trial on artwork under the Visual Artists Rights Act.
Artists have previously sued — over works like walk-through sculptures, wildflower gardens and a backyard swan sculpture — and seen their cases dismissed or settled. But no courtroom’s been turned into Art Theory 101 with jurors making the last call on what’s protected art in the eyes of the law.