Wolkoff To Pay $150kto each 5Pointz Artist
February 17, 2018 9:21 AM   Subscribe

Gerald Wolkoff Pays for Destroying 45 Works Of Art Judge Federico Bloc orders Gerald Wolkoff to pay maximum damages to the artists whose graffiti art he whitewashed over in 2013.
posted by Yellow (23 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite
 
Graffiti is an inherently ephemeral art form that is not created with any financial value (or possibility of being sold by the artist) in mind. I think that this ruling is ridiculous
posted by knoyers at 10:08 AM on February 17, 2018 [17 favorites]


I have no interest in graffiti and have quite an interest in property rights, so I was curious what the Visual Artists Rights Act requires. The law's requirements are pretty lax - it merely requires 90 days notice to the last known address of the artist for the artist (themselves) to pay for the removal of the work. For a landlord that's going to wait a year (in this case) to demolish the work, that doesn't seem particularly onerous.

I do acknowledge that the chances of the artists actually removing the work was precisely zero, so I do think the award was excessively high. That said, I'm not sure I have much sympathy here for the landlord.
posted by saeculorum at 10:10 AM on February 17, 2018 [7 favorites]


Reading a bit further, works that cannot be safely removed require an "explicit waiver" from the artist to remove.

I suspect the landlord did this because it was cheaper to pay for a violation of VARA than to buy such a waiver from the artist.

Moral of the story: never allow anyone to put up art on your property without a VARA waiver.
posted by saeculorum at 10:14 AM on February 17, 2018 [8 favorites]


That said, I'm not sure I have much sympathy here for the landlord.

I mean, even with this, he still cleared something like $390 million by turning this into luxury condos, so I don't really think anyone should have any sympathy for him on this at all. He still won, he just won by 1.5% less than he would have otherwise.
posted by Copronymus at 10:16 AM on February 17, 2018 [39 favorites]


"Graffiti is an inherently ephemeral art form that is not created with any financial value (or possibility of being sold by the artist) in mind. I think that this ruling is ridiculous"

He did a shitty halfhearted job to destroy the art while he court was waiting to decide on the matter. He essentially thumbed his nose at the authority of the court in destroying the art. Judges *really* don't like that.
posted by el io at 10:48 AM on February 17, 2018 [74 favorites]


Think of them as “murals” if it helps.
posted by Artw at 10:49 AM on February 17, 2018 [18 favorites]


Damages for losses that are not financial in nature are not unheard of.
posted by xyzzy at 10:53 AM on February 17, 2018 [3 favorites]


"Rather than wait for the court’s opinion, Wolkoff destroyed almost all of the plaintiffs' paintings by whitewashing them during that eight-day interim," Block said. "The sloppy, half-hearted nature of the whitewashing left the works easily visible under thin layers of cheap, white paint, reminding the plaintiffs on a daily basis what had happened," he added.

From the FPP article, and here's yer article from when it happened.

He did a shitty halfhearted job to destroy the art while he court was waiting to decide on the matter. He essentially thumbed his nose at the authority of the court in destroying the art.

That is exactly what he did, and I think, in cases like this, the damages should have been a percentage of the sale price, say 20%, with most of that going to a municipal fund to support artists.

Seriously, worst possible way the developers could have handled this.
posted by saysthis at 10:54 AM on February 17, 2018 [10 favorites]


Not just any murals. This was an actively curated community project that was allowed for many, many years, and was a part of the community development that lead to his property's value increasing.

He wasn't tasked with maintaining the works. He just needed to *not destroy them*, and it wasn't even delaying a sale or construction. He was just being shitty.
posted by explosion at 10:56 AM on February 17, 2018 [44 favorites]


From the ruling [PDF], regarding how Wolkoff let artist Jonathan Cohen manage the site:
What became 5Pointz originated as Phun Phactory in the early 1990s. The warehouses were largely dilapidated and the neighborhood was crime infested. There was no control over the artists who painted on the walls of the buildings or the quality of their work, which was largely viewed by the public as nothing more than graffiti. This started to change in 2002 when Wolkoff put Cohen in charge. Cohen and several other artists also rented studio space in the warehouse buildings. Collectively, they worked to improve conditions. As Cohen explained:
We took it upon ourselves to clean the loading dock. . . . The dumpsters were overflowing. We took it upon ourselves, we hired his employees, we paid for the lighting. We put motion sensors up so that when you came to the loading dock it was inviting. It actually drew you in as opposed to scaring you away. Id. at 1448:20-1449:3.
Wolkoff recognized the merit of the art. As he acknowledged: “I liked it and they did more and more and I thought it was terrific. They were expressing themselves.” Id. at 2082:4-5. And he approved of the job Cohen did in curating the art: “I have no feelings even today against Jonathan Cohen. I thought he was terrific handling my building. . . . Anything to do with art I left up to Jonathan. He had good taste in the artists that came there.” Id. at 2086:13-17.
I found the ruling quite readable; it also includes photos of the 49 pieces that were the subject of the lawsuit.
posted by metaquarry at 11:08 AM on February 17, 2018 [15 favorites]


Graffiti is an inherently ephemeral art form that is not created with any financial value (or possibility of being sold by the artist) in mind. I think that this ruling is ridiculous

The Keith Haring Foundation would like a word with you.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:08 PM on February 17, 2018 [19 favorites]


Legal judgement are certainly emotionally satisfying but is there any mention about the artists actually managing to collect?
posted by sammyo at 12:09 PM on February 17, 2018 [1 favorite]


5Pointz was special. I lean on the side of the property owner having the final say on what happens on his property but the way this went down was some bullshit.

There's a similar awkward thing that happened in Berlin at the East Side Gallery, a famous chunk of the Berlin wall that was painted right after reunification. Those paintings were put up by invitation, it was a big thing. But then they sat there unmaintained for 15+ years even as it slowly turned into a permanent exhibition and tourist attraction. The city wanted to go and restore the works but not all the original artists gave their permission and it got complicated. Doubly so since a few works were removed to make work for apartment buildings. I think it was never really resolved to the satisfaction of everyone involved, but the gallery still looks pretty good today. Meanwhile Berlin street art has moved on to semi-official venues like RAW-Gelände. Also the brand new and awesome Urban Nation, a proper museum.
posted by Nelson at 1:11 PM on February 17, 2018


I'd be cautious before cheering against the landlord here. The ruling in favor of the artists basically signals that letting anyone put art on your buildings is dangerous and a vast potential liability. Best to stomp it out and paint it over immediately; make it clear that it's graffiti and not art. Because the last thing anyone is going to want is having "art" appear on their buildings.

The artists are getting a one-time payout, but it's at the expense of ever having anything like 5Pointz exist again. I'm not really sure that's a win for artists generally.

I thought everyone involved basically understood that 5Pointz (and spraypaint public art in general) was a temporary thing, and the buildings were very likely to come down eventually. What else was the endgame ever going to be? There's no good way to remove spraypaint art from a building, so the lifespan of the piece is always limited to the lifespan of the underlying structure.

Also, the amount of the ruling seems high enough that it will generate an appeal. I wonder if the artists are ever going to receive that money anyway.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:28 PM on February 17, 2018 [12 favorites]


If shitty landlords who are going to exploit artists and the gentrification they bring only to totally screw them over don't even begin, I am not certain artists are really worse off in the long run.
posted by dame at 6:23 PM on February 17, 2018 [1 favorite]


shitty landlords who are going to exploit artists and the gentrification they bring

If by shitty landlord, you mean someone who offered space to artists for approximately half of market rate and offered the exterior for the building as free to artists, I'm really curious what you think constitutes a good landlord.
posted by saeculorum at 7:29 PM on February 17, 2018 [4 favorites]


The fact that Wolkoff was ordered by a court to pay $6.7 million suggests some shittiness on the part of the landlord.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 8:27 PM on February 17, 2018 [1 favorite]


If by shitty landlord, you mean …

Some folks think it works like this.
posted by smammy at 8:32 PM on February 17, 2018 [4 favorites]


By "shitty landlord," I often mean things like:

The city’s Buildings Department ordered the largest of the buildings that make up the studios closed and issued a host of violations including unsafe conditions and putting up partitions to create the studios without a proper permit.

You can keep things half of market rate if you don't maintain the buildings to code.
posted by praemunire at 8:55 PM on February 17, 2018 [2 favorites]


"I thought everyone involved basically understood that 5Pointz (and spraypaint public art in general) was a temporary thing, and the buildings were very likely to come down eventually. What else was the endgame ever going to be? There's no good way to remove spraypaint art from a building, so the lifespan of the piece is always limited to the lifespan of the underlying structure."

Those sounds like pretty reasonable arguments to bring up in court, possibly compelling ones. Unfortunately, he didn't want to present his arguments in court, he wanted to tell the court to fuck off. And while it may be a pretty safe strategy to tell some graffiti artists to go fuck themselves, it's a pretty foolhardy move to tell a court that you have business with (and are under their jurisdiction for the matter you are before them for) to fuck off.

Will the artists get their money? It's hard for me to imagine an appeals court to override this judge, given the circumstances. And the man has enough assets where the court could seize them if he decides not to pay, so I'd guess they'll get paid.

Seriously, never, ever, ever piss off a judge. Don't even mildly annoy one, or give them an inkling that you don't respect their authority, especially if you don't respect their authority.

I am seriously not a lawyer, and you are a fool if you start thinking the legal analysis of random folks on the internet should be taken as any sort of legal advice. Hell, I wouldn't trust a lawyer outside an area of their expertise with their legal opinion.
posted by el io at 12:47 AM on February 18, 2018 [2 favorites]


from saeculorum's link: “...Every single one of these artists are terrific. I adore every single one” Mr. Wolkoff said.

Must be a change of preference then?
posted by Laotic at 6:39 AM on February 18, 2018


The ruling in favor of the artists basically signals that letting anyone put art on your buildings is dangerous and a vast potential liability. Best to stomp it out and paint it over immediately; make it clear that it's graffiti and not art. Because the last thing anyone is going to want is having "art" appear on their buildings.

It sometimes seems like, whenever there is any challenge to the tendency of rich people to piss all over the law, due process, decency (stuff like that), there are always voices telling us that it's a bad idea because it will make them treat us even worse.

If being forced to comply with their legal obligations is too much for our rulers, then showing them our bellies in the hope that somehow if we're sufficiently supine and submissive they'll let us have a few crumbs from their table is a pointless exercise in self-abasement. We aren't going to get a better world by letting these fuckers do whatever they want.
posted by howfar at 3:23 PM on February 18, 2018 [10 favorites]


I had keys to 5 Pointz through a barter arrangement with an artist of kinetic sculpture who in turn shared a tiny studio there. I mostly worked in the hallway or outside the freight elevator. When the aviation forecast was good I'd go over there around 5:00 AM, go onto the top-floor fire escape, and climb this crazy long narrow steel fire ladder up to the roof. Up on the roof there was another weird concrete structure which was (technically if not safely) climbable. Anyhow from up there I had these crazy cool views of the city. I would launch handmade tissue-paper fire balloons covered with relief prints of people I'd met in Spain, and watch them float across the skyline as it turned pink with dawn with the blue-green Citicorp building glowing in the foreground and the elevated 7 train rumbling by in the shadows below. It was a different altogether looser time then and while the graffiti was visible and very cool it was just one part of a much larger artistic/creative ecosystem that's been completely screwed by the mayor(s) and the developers and the landlords and the surveillance society and the new economy blah blah blah.
At least Wolkoff let people paint on his building and provided relatively affordable workspace to actual working artists and artisans. He also spent six months warning everybody that he was selling the building and he painted over the murals because he was sick of the hassle of dealing with the fallout from the sale. Of course everyone knew their work would get painted over eventually - that's the nature of graffiti - and the vast majority of the pieces that went up on and around that particular building were never in any sense official anyhow no matter what you read in the papers. I'm happy to see artists get paid but it's only a tiny fraction of the people affected and it's silly to pretend Wolkoff is any more of a villain than, say, NYU. I would agree that this will make building owners even less willing to let artists paint on their walls but that ship has mostly sailed here in newly-sterile NYC.
posted by jcrcarter at 10:34 AM on February 19, 2018 [1 favorite]


« Older Farid Ayaz & Abu Muhammad   |   Don't call it a comeback: Dabrye finishes his x/3... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments