Developers have lost an appeal against $6.7 million awarded to graffiti artists whose work they destroyed to make way for luxury condos in New York.
A federal appeals court upheld the 2018 decision by a judge that the spray paintings by 21 artists were ‘wrongfully and willfully’ destroyed.
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals concluded Thursday that a judge was correct to award the damages against developers who destroyed the aerosol artwork in 2013.
The artists said in a statement they were ‘thankful and humbled by today’s ruling.’
The appeals court said the action violated the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, which protects art which has gained recognition.
The Long Island City, Queens, graffiti site known as 5Pointz was a tourist attraction that drew thousands of spectators daily and formed a backdrop to the 2013 movie, ‘Now You See Me’.
Many of the art works were temporary.
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals concluded a judge was correct to award the damages against developers who destroyed the aerosol artwork in 2013
People explore the outside of the 5 Pointz Building, a landmark in the New York graffiti scene that attracted artists from around the globe
Before and after: Graffiti at 5Pointz in New York in 2013 (bottom) before it was painted over by developers (top)
A federal appeals court upheld the 2018 decision by a judge that the spray paintings by 21 artists were ‘wrongfully and willfully’ destroyed
The historic graffiti mecca 5 Pointz is seen after being painted over by developers in 2013
‘In recent years, ‘street art,’ much of which is ‘temporary,’ has emerged as a major category of contemporary art,’ the 2nd Circuit said in an opinion written by Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker.
The decision noted that the street artist Banksy has appeared alongside former President Barack Obama and the late Apple Inc. founder Steve Jobs on Time magazine’s list of the world’s 100 most influential people.
‘A Banksy painting at 5Pointz would have possessed recognised stature, even if it were temporary,’ the appeals court said.
Marie Cecile Flageul, a curator who worked with the 21 artists who will share the award, said the money would be split among artists in the US, Australia, Japan, Brazil and Colombia.
She said the appeals ruling demonstrated how far graffiti has come from the 1970s when many artists used it to express their anger.
‘Now, it’s a validated art form which is collected, acquired and showcased in museums and galleries around the world,’ she said.
A federal appeals court upheld the 2018 decision by a judge that the spray paintings by 21 artists were ‘wrongfully and willfully’ destroyed
The 5 Pointz Building was a landmark in the New York graffiti scene that attracted artists from around the globe
She said real estate entities in New York, Paris and London now look for ways to preserve graffiti art.
Since 2002, walls at the 5Pointz site had contained more than 10,000 works of art as some of the renderings were temporary and were eventually painted over with the permission of the artists.
In 2013, developers seeking to capitalise on the rebirth of a once crime-ridden neighbourhood destroyed the artwork after banning artists from the area and refusing to let them recover work that could be removed.
After artists sued, US District Judge Frederic Block in Brooklyn concluded that the art works reflected ‘striking technical and artistic mastery and vision worthy of display in prominent museums if not on the walls of 5Pointz’.
Before and after: Graffiti at 5Pointz is seen in August 2013 (bottom) before being painted over by developers in November 2013 (top)
The judge made the award higher than it otherwise would have been after concluding the destruction of the art was wilfull because the artists were not given the three months the law allows to salvage their artwork.
He said 45 of the 49 paintings were recognized works of art ‘wrongfully and willfully destroyed’ by a remorseless landlord.
Twenty-one aerosol artists had sued the owner of a Long Island City, Queens, site known as 5Pointz under the Visual Rights Act, a 1990 federal law that protects artists’ rights even if someone else owns the physical artwork.
Their graffiti was painted over in 2013, and the buildings were torn down a year later.
Before they vanished, the graffiti artworks became a tourist attraction, drawing thousands of spectators daily and forming a backdrop to the 2013 movie, ‘Now You See Me,’ and a site for an Usher tour, the judge noted.
All the while, the crime-ridden neighborhood gradually improved and it became the ‘world’s largest collection of quality outdoor aerosol art,’ though a system set up by the artists meant some paintings were temporary while others were given permanent status, Block wrote.
A mural of The Notorious B.I.G at 5 Pointz dated June 30, 2011 in Long Island City, Queens
The judge said he would not have assessed so much in damages if the owner had awaited his permits and demolished the art 10 months later than he did
The ruling followed a three-week trial when Block said the ‘respectful, articulate and credible’ artists testified about ‘striking technical and artistic mastery and vision worthy of display in prominent museums if not on the walls of 5Pointz.’
He noted one artist came from London, another from rural West Virginia, while others were products of prestigious art schools. Some were self-taught.
He said he was impressed with the breadth of the artists’ works and how many works ‘spoke to the social issues of our times.’
Jerry Wolkoff, who owned the buildings, had conceded he allowed the spray-paint artists to use the buildings as a canvas for decades but said they always knew they would be torn down someday.
His lawyer, David Ebert, did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The artists had once hoped to buy the properties, before their value soared to over $200 million.
Block said he hoped the award would give teeth to a federal law that should have kept Wolkoff from demolishing them for at least 10 months, when he had all his permits.
Artists then could have easily rescued some paintings from siding, plywood or sheet-rock before the rollers, spray machines and buckets of white paint arrived.
‘Wolkoff has been singularly unrepentant. He was given multiple opportunities to admit the whitewashing was a mistake, show remorse, or suggest he would do things differently if he had another chance,’ Block said.
‘Wolkoff could care less. As he callously testified,’ the judge 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.
‘The mutilated works were visible by millions of people on the passing 7 train.’
Block noted there was no remorse from the owner of the warehouse buildings