New York developer who whitewashed 5Pointz graffiti—and owes artists $6.75m in damages—appeals to Supreme Court

    Street art on the 5Pointz complex in Long Island City, Queens that was later whitewashed by a developer

    After losing appeals in lower courts, G&M Realty, the company started by New York developer Jerry Wolkoff, who died last week aged 83, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court that calls a provision of the 1990 Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) unconstitutional. In its final appeal, Wolkoffs company says that the phrasing used in VARA, which protect works of art of “recognized stature” from being destroyed or modified without the artists permission, is too vague and “egregiously runs afoul” of the Fifth Amendments right to due process, as well as impinging on the rights of owners to dispose of their property.

    In a landmark decision citing the act in 2018, a New York district court awarded $6.75m to 21 street artists whose works were destroyed when Wolkoff whitewashed the exterior of his 5Pointz warehouse complex in Long Island City, Queens, in 2013. Judge Frederic Block described the whitewashing as “an act of pure pique and revenge for the nerve of the plaintiffs to sue to attempt to prevent the destruction of their art”. The ruling and the award of damages were held up this February by a three-judge panel in the Second Circuit appellate court in New York, which echoed the lower court in its decision.

    “Nothing in the record indicates that it was necessary to whitewash the artwork before beginning construction of the apartments,” Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote for the panel, finding that Wolkoff wilfully violated VARA and was liable for the maximum amount of damages for each work destroyed.

    In the earlier cases, Wolkoff argued that the graffiti art was temporary and would not be protected by VARA. G&M Realtys petition to the Supreme Court now takes aim at the act itself, saying that if it did not exist, the developer “unquestionably had the right to demolish the warehouses, and the affixed graffiti art”. Also, the petition claims that because VARAs “recognized stature” provision was not clearly defined by Congress, it violates property owners right to due process, since it does not give them “fair notice of what is prohibited”.

    The thorny concept of “recognized stature” has been up for debate almost since VARAs passage. In the Supreme Court petition, G&M Realtys lawyers, Scott Gant and Michael Rosengart of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, say they could not find the term in any general or art reference book, citing specifically the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art Terms and TRead More – Source

    [contf] [contfnew]

    the art news paper

    [contfnewc] [contfnewc]

    Related Articles


    Which City Is Art Capital of The US?

    Exploring the art scene in the United States is an exciting and...


    The cultural moments that defined 2021

     Year two of the pandemic was, in many ways, just as challenging and...


    Julia Ducournau explains the crippling love beneath her beautiful dark twisted fantasy ‘Titane’

    cnn– Julia Ducournau lights a cigarette, as if to punctuate her point....


    ‘Priceless’ 16th century globe could be the oldest ever auctioned

    cnn– A16th century globe depicting the world before Australia had even been...