Gothamist: Graffiti Irony

guest

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:43:02 -0500

This is a legal issue, not a moral/normative one. Failure to recognize such a basic distinction is what makes this particular public sphere so redundant.

guest

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:01:29 -0500

The New York Times article is very sad. Some apparently well-meaning guy spends years documenting graffiti that mostly will disappear. Then he has a book published by U. Mississippi Press ("Tattooed Walls"), which surely would have made little or no money. However, it will get some of the art shown. Clearly this is a labor of love on the part of the photographer. Then he gets sued and the book gets yanked. Very unfortunate for those artists who did not sue and who had work shown in the book. Their brief chance for having their work publicized is now gone and they were probably not consulted by the other graffiti artists who have now affected their ability to get publicity by killing the book. Obviously if the photographer was able to get permission, he should have tried to do so within reason. But, contrary to the Times article, it ain't always easy to do so. Many pieces are unsigned, without urls or phone numbers, and not done by "world renowned" graffiti artists who can by readily identified by their style. Many artists want to remain anonymous. And a freelance photographer is not a well-financed film crew. Often he shoots quickly and on the run, with little time and ability for research. I have seen many previous pictures of graffiti serving as backdrops in the New York Times and other papers and magazines and although the photographer is credited, the artist is almost never mentioned unless the article is about the artist. Most bizarre is the comment by one of the artists that they want to be able to select which of their pieces they prefer to appear in the book and how they should look. This seems to violate the artistic freedom of the photographer and author of the book, who should be free to choose how his photos look and what is in his book. Instead of being sued and criticized, this guy should be praised. Even though I have great respect for some of the artists mentioned in the Time article, this looks like a bogus lawsuit that is more about money and short-term publicity than the art.

guest

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:18:59 -0500

Let me get this straight. "Tats Cru" makes money by essentially putting up advertising from Hummer and the like in the public space. They capitalize on the "edgy" image of graffiti to sell their work, but really what they're doing is no different from putting up a billboard. So how is this book different from any other book that documents outdoor advertising? Outdoor advertising in the public space = bullshit sellout graffiti = more bullshit book about sellout graffiti? Who the hell cares?

guest

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:42:07 -0500

The author may not have known about the copyright issues, but the publisher should have, even if it is an university press. It's their business to know, isn't it?

guest

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:32:37 -0500

Gabe, the graf artists in question had permission from the buildings' owners, so you kinda miss the point of the article. It's complicated and well-debated question of the extent of the fair use doctrine. This issue is reminiscent of the copyright issue about taking pictures of the "Bean" in Chicago's Millennium Park (shout out to Chicagoist's coverage: http://www.chicagoist.com/2005/02/17/millennium_park_photography_the_official_scoop.php). For a good read, check out Lawrence Lessig's book, the Future of Ideas. The first chapter (if I remember) almost speaks directly about capturing other people's copyrighted works on film. Second, Gabe, no offense but before you preach about the "true understanding of the importance of street art and its history" and "spirit ... of graffiti," I suggest you read the article. Nicer, Bio, BG183, and especially Pink are old school graf artists whose understanding of the art form and commitment to its spirit have never been challenged. Although I appreciate your comments, I am skeptical about your qualifications to give advice about this area.

Jake Dobkin

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:36:59 -0500

there's a discussion of this going on at Streetsy too: check it out here.

guest

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:10:49 -0500

um, since when do we need to be signed in to comment?

Tom

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:05:10 -0500

Two things. 1) Isn't going to court basically them publicly admitting they broke the law? Can we arrest them? 2) I hope the building owners counter sue them for every dime they may win.

gabe

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:17:12 -0500

Thanks for being on both sides of this coin, but I think the artists have it all wrong and are actually representing a spirit that, it seems to me, is quite contrary to exactly what tagging/graffiti/street art or whatever you want it call it is all about. It's the free exchange of ideas and images - if someone goes ahead and makes money off of that exchange, well, that's the risk you take by putting your art on a building you don't own in a public location. If these artists owned the properties they painted on, that might be one thing. But to ask money from people when you have used public and private property as your canvas - usually without anyone's consent - is opportunistic at best and cynically capitalist at worst. If these artists had any true understanding of the importance of street art and its history, they would thank their stars that people show an interest in what they do instead of whitewashing their work away as was the common practice before the tagging became recognized as art in the 80s. My advice - buy a $30 canvas at Pearl, tag it and sell it.

W

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:11:15 -0500

Splasher, where are you? save us!

dan

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:06:52 -0500

here's a solution, lets just whitewash all the crap off the walls. problem solved for everyone.

rdevl

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:06:08 -0500

fascinating...that's all you can really say about this dispute. It will certainly be interesting to see how it turns out if it gets to court.