REWARDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS with instant citizenship, as several U.S. presidents (both parties) have done is pretty much Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
Now, the New York Times1 reports that a civil jury for the Federal District Court in Brooklyn decided that Jerry Wolkoff, a real estate developer who owned 5Pointz, broke the law when he whitewashed dozens of swirling murals at the complex, obliterating what a lawyer for the artists had called “the world’s largest open-air aerosol museum.”
Some graffiti can be truly artistic.
But…
Perhaps beauty is in the eye of the beholder – apparently the folks of California-East thought defacing private property was beautiful – but obviously the owner of the defaced buildings disagreed.
The Times, under a heading reading Graffiti Artists Awarded $6.7 Million for Destroyed 5Pointz Murals, reports that graffiti — a typically transient form of art — was of sufficient stature to be protected by the law, a federal judge in Brooklyn awarded a judgment of $6.7 million on Monday to 21 graffiti artists whose works were destroyed in 2013 at the 5Pointz complex in Long Island City, Queens.
In November, a landmark trial came to a close in Federal District Court in Brooklyn when a civil jury decided that Jerry Wolkoff, a real estate developer who owned 5Pointz, broke the law when he whitewashed dozens of swirling murals at the complex, obliterating what a lawyer for the artists had called “the world’s largest open-air aerosol museum.”
Though Mr. Wolkoff’s lawyers had argued that the buildings were his to treat as he pleased, the jury found he violated the Visual Artists Rights Act, or V.A.R.A., which has been used to protect public art of “recognized stature” created on someone’s else property.
The “operative words” apparently are “recognized stature.” The question is: Who is the authority to determine when graffiti – or any other “art” – is of “recognized stature.”
I could understand if this blatant miscarriage of justice occurred in San Francisco or even LA, but Brooklyn?
Apparently a jury of art connoisseurs felt that spray paint Michelangelos and Picassos had more right to the sides of the private property than the owner of the property.
Given the mentality of Brooklynites, the owner’s property taxes are likely to jump substantially because the buildings now are “objects d’ art.”
Eric Baum, a lawyer for the artists, hailed the judgment, calling it “a victory not only for the artists in this case, but for artists all around the country.”
“The clear message is that art protected by federal law must be cherished and not destroyed,” Mr. Baum said. “With this win, the spirit of 5Pointz becomes a legacy for generations of artists to come.”
Much as I like soup, I don’t think I would pay nearly US$12 million for something little more than graffiti. At least Warhol did his work on canvass, not someone’s private property.
I wonder how a federal court would rule if the “artists” used a federal monument – truly public property – as a “canvass” for their “art.” Maybe a portrait of Alfred E. Neuman on the Washington Monument or perhaps Not the Baby (Dinosours’ tv show, c 1992) on the White House. How about the Road Runner on the side of Air Force 1. Why not, at least these “canvasses” are public property.
It seems that in Brooklyn, the inmates have taken over the asylum.
Sources
1. http://tinyurl.com/ydehcgsj
PLAGIARISM” is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment