Info requested on Gratiot and Mitchell property

[archfan]

When someone puts paint on a building, it is paint, and should have no legal rights separate from the building and its owner.

The ruling is in line with interpretations of the Visual Rights Act, a 1990 federal law.

Don't worry, the owner's property appreciated to over $200M while he was allowing the dilapidated building to be a canvas, so he probably won't miss any meals. I wouldn't be surprised if painting over the art/graffiti was a deliberate strategy to short circuit any lawsuits that would tie up a property sale.

[bust]

The ruling is in line with interpretations of the Visual Rights Act, a 1990 federal law.

Don't worry, the owner's property appreciated to over $200M while he was allowing the dilapidated building to be a canvas, so he probably won't miss any meals. I wouldn't be surprised if painting over the art/graffiti was a deliberate strategy to short circuit any lawsuits that would tie up a property sale.

Exactly.

And besides, inviting graffiti artists to paint his building was almost certainly a strategy to increase his property value by turning it, and the surrounding neighborhood, into a popular, if unconventional, tourist destination. First and foremost was PS1. But arguably next after that, 5Pointz significantly contributed to drawing attention, and visitors, and eventually art studios and ever more young people to the live, work, and play nearby. It's not long after then that the money pours in.

Landlord Gentrification Strategies 101.

Kids today; ok yesterday:

PS1 after party @ #5pointz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Gsm0cV9Vc

5 Pointz Documentary Featuring Meres
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXguu7eiPII

[1953]

That law prohibits destruction only for artists of recognized stature, as I read it. Nobody who painted a mural on a building in Detroit, short of Banksy and that dude who did the Obama poster, would qualify in my book.

1953

[bust]

That law prohibits destruction only for artists of recognized stature, as I read it. Nobody who painted a mural on a building in Detroit, short of Banksy and that dude who did the Obama poster, would qualify in my book.

Getting back to the original topic [[sort of), it's notable the artist who painted the mural on the Gratiot and Mitchell property doesn't qualify in your book.

My guess is if you encountered some of work in modern and contemporary galleries in the street instead of a museum, it wouldn't qualify as art in your book either. I don't like some of it myself. But I humbly suggest one person's art isn't another's, and we should respect different opinions.

There is no good resolution that I know of to the "what qualifies as art" debate.

That said, just because someone painted a building shouldn't mean it shouldn't ever be changed.

My knowledge of the 5Pointz situation is very incomplete, but I think some of the graffiti artists were upset because they weren't given a chance to remove or even document their work before it was destroyed. It was whitewashed without warning. Maybe the property owner should have the right to demolish the artwork so long as they've entered no contract that they wouldn't, and they provide a reasonable chance to the artists to whom they provided a canvas to preserve their work, if possible.

Have no doubt: When the property owner opened 5Pointz up to graffiti artists and PS1 after parties they were not unselfish gestures.