5 pointz Graffiti Mecca, the Law says has to come to the end of An Era.

A collection of Graffiti street artists across New York recently took legal action against the owner of a group of buildings, known as 5Pointz considered to be the world's premiere "graffiti mecca", which hosts work from aerosol artists from around the globe. In order to stop the owners plans to demolish the buildings and redevelop the site.

5Pointz Mural by Dase Álvarez

Along with claiming that they had gained permission from the owner Wolkoff, to do the art work, they also claimed that because Wolkoff granted the permission, they held moral rights in their works and as such it was not entitled to be destroyed without their permission. 

Relying on the Visual Artists Rights Act, 1990 (VARA), that prohibits the destruction of art, the artists sought to challenge the demolitions (on the basis of the argument, that such a demolition would infringe their rights). These claims are based on certain fundamental provisions of the not so well-known piece of legislation the VARA, which acknowledges that an artist has a form of property right in his or her creation that others may not claim nor prejudicially alter. 

  

Through VARA, the United States recognises two moral rights: first, the right of “paternity” or “attribution” by which an artist may insist that her work be properly attributed to her. Second, the right of “integrity” of the work of art, which grants an artist “the right . . . to  prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of  that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation,” and to prevent any destruction of the work, provided the work is of “recognized stature.” Even in cases where the work of visual art “has been incorporated in or made a part of a building in such a way that removing the work from the building will cause the destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work” unless the artist and the owner of the building has signed a written instrument that authorises the work to be destroyed. The rights afforded by the Visual Artists Rights Act, which are, at times, adversative to the basic principles of property law, expressly provides that its protections are “subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d),”which protects a real property owner’s rights to improve, renovate, or raze their property by declining copyright protection for any “work of visual art [that] has been incorporated in or made part of a building.”

The group were successful in initially obtaining a restraining order that halted the building owners demolition preparations. However, as of this week, Judge Frederic Block of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, acknowledging the significance of the preserving the art work, dissolved the temporary restraining order that he had issued in October, concluding ‘he had to apply the law’ and that the owner Wolkoff has the right to develop the property as he chooses.

The Goss-IPgirl, deeply admires the Graffiti art work, and thinks it’s ashame to see it go. While often unsanctioned, street art allows artist to circumvent the bourgeois limitations of the prescribed art world. Which I am sure would appease the cultural philosopher Bourdieu, who argued that "Museums due to their elitist design, " ‘betray in the smallest of details their true function, namely to open up universal opportunities for the love and appreciation of arts across all social class boundaries.’ Thinks it is sad to see the art work go. However, at the same time she also acknowledges, that just because an illegal graffiti artist may have claims to artists rights to ownership of a work, in general, (and unless in writing, taking note of the VARA), these rights do not outweigh...the genuine and legitimate rights of property holders, who for the most part, will have a claim to the physical ownership of creativity of that work.