Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:14:12 -0500 (EST)
From: malgosia askanas <ma-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Big business vs artists (fwd)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 08:24:49 -0500
From: Golem <odin-AT-shadow.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list PNEWS-L <PNEWS-L-AT-SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Subject: BIG BUSINESS v. ARTISTS

######          #     #         #######         #     #          #####
#     #         ##    #         #               #  #  #         #     #
#     #         # #   #         #               #  #  #         #
######   #####  #  #  #         #####           #  #  #          #####
#               #   # #         #               #  #  #               #
#               #    ##         #               #  #  #         #     #
#               #     #         #######          ## ##           #####

[***********PNEWS CONFERENCES************]
From: ARTISTpres-AT-aol.com

For immediate release:  Big Business v. Art:
City's Business Improvement Districts
Claim Sidewalk Art Sales Offend Their
Quality of Life

On Wednesday 2/28/96 six of New York's City's most
powerful business associations filed a brief attempting
to convince a Federal Appeals Court that artists have
no First Amendment right to sell their paintings in
parks and on public streets. The amicus brief was
filed on behalf of The Fifth Avenue Association, The
Alliance for Downtown New York, The Grand Central
Partnership, The 34th Street Partnership the Madison
Avenue Business Improvement District and The SoHo
Alliance.

The business associations' brief characterizes the
artist/plaintiffs as, "...purveyors of arts and crafts..."
despite them being accomplished painters with works
in many private collections and compares sidewalk
displays of fine art generally with, "...graffiti, litter
and petty street crime...". "First Amendment
protection should not depend on whether the
merchandise can, by some stretch of the imagination,
be characterized as art or an art form," it concludes.

This exposes a developing conflict between the arts
communities commitment to free expression, and the
business communities interest in banning independent
artistic expression from public spaces. The brief
claims that art has only incidental expressive content
and that selling art, as compared to selling books, is
not protected by the First Amendment at all.

Using Jackson Pollock as an example, the brief states,
"While Pollock's right to create his art is virtually
absolute under the First Amendment, his right to
market, sell or distribute his art must be subject to
reasonable regulation for the public health and
welfare", and further states, "An artists' freedom of
expression is not compromised by regulating his
ability to merchandise his artwork." This view
directly contradicts Supreme Court and Appellate
precedents concerning visual expression and its sale,
beginning in 1952 with Joseph Burstyn Inc. v. Wilson
343 U.S. 495. "That books newspapers and magazines
are published and sold for profit does not prevent
them from being a form of expression whose liberty is
safeguarded by the First Amendment. We fail to see
why operation for profit should have any different
effect in the case of motion pictures."

Printed matter, including baseball cards, art books
and pornographic magazines may be sold on New
York City streets without a license, based on a First
Amendment licensing exemption in the N.Y.C.
Vending Ordinance. The brief takes the position that
visual art has less meaningful content, less
communicative value and therefore less constitutional
protection than the written word. Statements in the
brief such as, "The sale of printed material is
inseparably and characteristically intertwined with
informative speech [or] particular views...the sale of
artwork is not." and, "...the sale of paintings and
other artwork does not reach this high level of
expression (guaranteeing First Amendment protection)
even though the items sold may have something of the
personality of their creators", will come as a  surprise
to New York's 100,000 artists, world famous art
museums and 500 art galleries.

In their appeal motion filed on 12/29/95  [Lederman
v. City of New York 94 CIV. 7216 (MGC)], artists
claimed Federal Judge Miriam Cedarbaum's 10/24/95
ruling denying them First Amendment protection,
contradicted 50 years of Supreme Court precedents
concerning visual expression's First Amendment
status. In her controversial ruling Judge Cedarbaum
wrote, "...art is farther from the core than the written
word...plaintiffs' art does not carry either words or
the particularized social and political messages upon
which the First Amendment places special value...".

The artists' appeal motion, filed on 12/29/95, was
supported by amicus briefs filed by The Museum of
Modern Art, the Whitney Museum, the ACLU, the
NYCLU, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, The College
Arts Association, the N.Y.C. Arts Coalition, the N.Y.
Foundation for the Arts, SoHo art dealer Ron Feldman
art critics Irving Sandler and Simon Schama and
artists Clae Oldenburg, Chuck Close, Jenny Holzer,
Hans Hackke and David Hammons. David Ross, the
Director of the Whitney Museum of American Art,
stated in connection with this lawsuit, "We stand
firmly behind the idea that art is equal to other forms
of expression and is as protected as speech".

Since 1993 more than 250 fine artists (painters,
photographers, printmakers and sculptors) have been
arrested and have had their art confiscated by the
police while displaying it on New York city streets.
To date, the City has not prosecuted a single Criminal
case against a street artist. Confiscated art is
destroyed or sold at a monthly NYPD auction.
For information: contact A.R.T.I.S.T. (Artists'
Response To Illegal State Tactics) (718) 369-2111 e-
mail ARTISTpres-AT-aol.com or visit our web site at:
   http://homepage.interaccess.com/~mar/nyc.html
Photos and videos of artists being arrested and
A.R.T.I.S.T. demonstrations are available. Recent
articles on this issue include:  N.Y. Times letters to
the editor 2/23/96 and 2/28/96; N.Y. Times 1/24/96
B1 "Street Art; Free Speech Or Just Stuff" and
Christian Science Monitor 2/14/96 pg. 11, "Conflict
On the Streets: Artists v. N.Y.C."]


-AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-
             ***** PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS ******
-AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-
PNEWS CONFERENCES  provide "radical" alternative views with an
        emphasis on justice and humanitarian positions.
                       ****************
         To subscribe to PNEWS-L, send request to:
<listserv-AT-sjuvm.stjohns.edu> "SUBSCRIBE PNEWS-L <Your full name>"
   -AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-
  NOAM CHOMSKY, PARENTI, SAID, PIVEN, SKLAR [ET AL] TAPES & CDS
              available from: odin-AT-magg.net
 -AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-
Golem says: "See the "Schmucks'" AWESOME WEB site:
http://www.shadow.net/~odin
odin-AT-shadow.net
-HR-




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---