Losing art sucks, but it doesn't sound like the owner acted in bad faith.
I know the real question the judge must answer is whether or not a law was broken, but I assume since they're humans they often act from a sense of personal justice and then rationalize backwards to a sensible legal argument.
The owner rented out the interior of the building to tenants as studio space and the exterior to 5Pointz as gallery space while claiming the building was empty and writing it off for tax purposes.
He wanted to sell the land to a developer to demolish it and put up a high-rise. When there were murmurings that the building might get declared a protected landmark, thereby preventing him from demolishing it, he hired people overnight and in secret to whitewash the exterior and destroy the graffiti art. That way, there's be nothing left to protect.
If that's not bad faith, I don't know what is.
The alternative view is that the owner allowed graffiti artists many years of free usage of the space and they're trying to penalize him for it by preventing him from rescinding that offer. The tax status of the building isn't relevant. Every graffiti artist that tagged that building knew it could come down at any time. They knew they could be either replaced or entirely removed. To claim some ownership to the exterior now that he wants to tear it down is ludicrous.
If anything, I see this type of litigation to have a chilling effect on landlords allowing public usage of their property. I wouldn't want to open myself up to future litigation just because I allowed some artists to paint a mural.
It wasn't free
> they're trying to penalize him for it by preventing him from rescinding that offer.
No, they're suing because he destroyed installed art.
> The tax status of the building isn't relevant.
It is, because it does imply he was acting in bad faith, especially given the broader context.
> Every graffiti artist that tagged that building knew it could come down at any time. They knew they could be either replaced or entirely removed.
This is not the legal standard that installation art is held to.
> This is not the legal standard that installation art is held to.
It is not unreasonable that it should be, absent any agreement to the contrary. At least, it is not unreasonable that the standard could be reexamined.
It actually is, and if you're interested in understanding why, I'd invite you to read up on installation art and the copious case law surrounding it, both in New York City (where a lot of that precedent was initially set, incidentally) and across the country (since this is a federal lawsuit).
> At least, it is not unreasonable that the standard could be reexamined.
That's not how common law works. When there's a clear legal precedent (which there is, in this case), it's not the responsibility of the judge to legislate from the bench and overturn existing standards (either codified standards - like this one is - or standards set by case law).
The question in this suit is whether the legal standard applies; the jury determined that it did.
That's a pretty great distance to move the goalposts. The original comment questions legal matters (whether the owner acted in bad faith, whether the law was broken, and which side the judge [should] decide to be correct). Hence why we're discussing the legal standards.
If you want to discuss ethical issues, I'd suggest a new comment thread, because that hasn't come up at all in this one.
There was impermanence about the art. So, i think it's mostly about not wanting to lose their "canvass" than to preserve the art. Given that the canvass was a building owned by someone else, I don't see much of a case.
That's not true. Some of the works were permanent installations, including tribute and memorial works from artists who have died. Only some spaces were designated for temporary installation.
> There was impermanence about the art. So, i think it's mostly about not wanting to lose their "canvass" than to preserve the art.
There's no need to put "canvas" in scare quotes. There's plenty of case law that helps define what an installation is, in the context of art. This isn't a novel concept.
> Given that the canvass was a building owned by someone else, I don't see much of a case.
The owner agreed to let them use the space (and even charged them for it, along with double-dipping into tax write-offs for the building). Legally, that gives them a pretty strong claim to the space.
The entire point of 5Pointz and their argument is that it's not an inherently impermanent art form, any more than other installation art (which is already established legally not to be impermanent).
Regarding 5pointz, the only part that I find interesting is the debate around the owner benefiting from tax breaks.
As I understand the situation; the owner was claiming the building was art to get tax cuts, then decided to sell and argued the building was not art. I feel graffiti is irrelevant here.
Why should any public artist have an expectation of their art being preserved? Just because a property owner grants permission, I would assume that property owner reserves the right to change their mind at any time, no?
If it was a sculpture in the parking lot, would we feel the same way? Can the property owner demolish that without the 90 day heads-up?
Can previous artists at that site turn around and sue the last wave of artists for doing the exact same thing?
I consider it one of the unique constraints of the form.
Of course, in this instance, there was an inviting space for it. As laws go, 90 days to come and preserve the art is pretty reasonable to the property owner, but I can also see that given the unique form, he assumed it could be destroyed.
I'm with you... the ephemeral quality of graffiti is a defining attribute. Without that, it's not graffiti any more. Not sure that invalidates the legal argument - it could still be art.
Thinking locally... there's a ton of redevelopment in my area (Reston, VA). If I were a NIMBY, could I doodle on a few walls, throw paper at the courthouse, and bring it all to a stop?
Well, you could make arrangements with the owner to cut the section of the wall. I think some Banksi works have already been sold like that.
Assuming you want to keep art on both side of the wall: attach some sort of steel support to one side of the wall, then cut out the section with a concrete saw, I've seen blade diameters go up to four feet. You'd just need to have the blade on rails.
One of my fraternity brothers has an album full of pictures of all the places he travelled in the world and did some graffiti. It is so cool.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't like graffiti, but I also think we should "enforce" the law so that not every part of the city gets plastered in graffiti. I think the appeal of seeing graffiti in grungy, underground places is a lot more authentic.