Vandalism or art? Graffiti is often categorized as vandalism instead of art; however, the “graffiti mecca” known as 5Pointz has re-define the terms “art” and “graffiti.” Located in Long Island City, Queens, 5Pointz consists of warehouses covered in the colorful works and pieces of hundreds of street artists. Over the past decade, 5Pointz has united and connected not only aerosol artists from the five boroughs but artists from all around the world.
Since August of 2013, plans had been made to build residential towers on the site of 5Pointz to provide affordable housing and with a recent order from a federal judge to advance with the demolishment of the building by the year’s end, Jerry Wolkoff, the building’s owner, had the building re-painted secretly in the night. When the sun rose Tuesday morning, the hub of urban art had been re-painted white. The amazing works of these street artists had been erased and 5Pointz had been destroyed. Considered a graffiti museum, artists and fans of 5Pointz were in an uproar; however, Wolkoff, believed that painting over the walls would be more humane than tearing down the building.
Although Wolkoff has stated that there will be plenty of room on his new building for the artists to work, many are still outraged by the destruction of the previously standing pieces. Personally, I am in agreement with these people. Having only seen photos of 5Pointz, I was planning to visit the site someday; however, now, I will never have the opportunity. I believe the better solution was to retain the artwork and renovate the building’s interior. This solution would please both parties by providing housing without destroying the art. I think many people would pay top dollar to live in a graffiti masterpiece like 5Pointz.
Hopefully, Wolkoff will remain good to his word and provide these street artists a place to legally work. Until then, I hope these artists can find new places to create their amazing pieces for the public to enjoy.
Buckley, Cara. “Night Falls, and 5Pointz, a Graffiti Mecca, Is Whited Out in Queens.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/nyregion/5pointz-a-graffiti-mecca-in-queens-is-wiped-clean-overnight.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0>.
It seems weird to me that Wolkoff says that there will be another place for graffiti artists to work as he administers the painting of the building to hide their existing work. It sounds insensitive mostly because this sounded like a pretty cool place to go see. I know that in other countries such as Italy, graffiti is seen as art and I do not quite understand why in America we don’t see it that way. We categorize ourselves as liberal and encourage freedom of expression however, this really cool form of art was just painted over. I hope that Wolkoff makes up for his decision by creating a new place for artists to work however, nothing will ever take back the fact that the other works are gone for good.
This issue is bound to spark a debate among people. When I read the original article, Hans Von Rittern’s (a tour guide) reaction stuck with me. As he mourned the whitewash, he raged, “I don’t understand. How can you erase 12 years of history? It’s cruel.” The building was obviously special not just to the artists who left their mark through their works, but also the tourist guides, tourists, and residents of the area. The fact that the works were wiped out surreptitiously makes it worse. It’s especially alarming if you see the situation in the sense that the artists’ works for the past 12 years has been washed away from the face of the Earth. There is no art and no evidence of their creative expression. All you have are plain white walls.
Then again, once has to examine the reasoning behind such an act. The intention was obviously justifiable. In an age where most New Yorkers can no longer afford reasonable housing prices, if Jerry Wolkoff is trying to ease that burden, then he is not doing something radically wrong. Of course, the fact that he has to compromise art for housing is discomforting, but which is a priority? As a businessman, he probably saw more profit in the real estate market, and thus, decided to experiment. On the other hand, his primary purpose may be to provide affordable housing. Even if his intention is right, his method of achieving his goal is not fully agreeable. However, if you are one of the people who believe that “the end justifies the mean,” then you should not have a major issue with Wolkoff’s course of action.
Regardless, I agree that Wolkoff should make up for his decision by providing a medium to allow the graffiti artists to express themselves legally. This situation reminds me of the New York City Opera, which was forced to close its doors due to fiscal problems. It saddens me to know that art is subjected to variables, but this is reality. You have to lose something to gain something else.
In a sense, I do agree with Jerry Wolkoff’s re-painting of 5Pointz. The building is his property and he has let graffiti artists work on it for over twenty years. In the eyes of people who appreciate and do graffiti, the tearing down of the building when it is painted over will cause less pain than to see it getting ripped down with the graffiti on it. However, his action seemed harsh. He could have taken pictures of all the artwork and perhaps feature them in some sort of show for memorial purposes.
Jerry Wolkoff’s decision to paint over 5Pointz is justified, but the way he went about it was not. Since it is his building, he has the right to do what he wishes with it. Since he abruptly painted over 5Pointz overnight, this didn’t allow artists or people in general to know before hand and prepare for the erasure. If he had informed people prior to his actions, then artists would be given time to prepare and record their art to another medium.
But from his perspective, it is understandable that he didn’t notify the public first. His decision to paint over 5Pointz could have changed if the public fought against it. He didn’t allow the chance for the public to influence him. I didn’t like the way he painted over 5Pointz either. Because if he was going to destroy and erase art, he should at least make the outcome aesthetically pleasant. After his work, the building looks significantly hideous.
I hope he does fulfill his promise to create a space for artists to continue their work.
It’s very disheartening to see the “graffiti mecca” has been wiped out overnight. Whether it was really illegal or not, it could have been a better idea to preserve all the graffiti and arts- not only as one of the great art centers in the city, but also to let other people around the world appreciate different messages delivered across the wall by the graffiti artists. Instead of merely looking at this as illegal and heretical, why not take the opportunity to welcome another branch of art? However, I can also understand the building owner’s mindset when he did it. After all, it is his property and ownership. I’m glad that Wolkoff is indeed open-minded about new graffiti artworks being produced on his new building. We can look forward for more, and be hopeful about the future of graffiti.
“There will be plenty of room on his new building for the artists to work” was a very careful statement by Wolkoff. He’s not exactly giving permission, but he is implying it. All the same, it doesn’t excuse the destruction of a famous and well-loved landmark. I understand why people are upset–this was an insult to graffiti culture, and to hip-hop culture as well.
As to the question of his belief that this was the more “humane” option, I’d like to invite you to take a look at the symbolism here with me. Here was a location flushed with vibrant colors and beautiful art, and then someone with a lot of money bought it and painted it over in white. It’s washing a culture over with whiteness.
But yes, let’s consider Wolkoff and his property. The building legally belongs to him, that’s true. But if an original Van Gogh painting–the only one of its kind–belonged to a man who decided he would burn the painting, would it not be considered a travesty?
While I was reading the article and then your review, I shared the same sentiment as many of the other posters. It seems a pity that years of amazing graffiti were erased overnight. I especially dislike how it was done in secret. What was a landmark and a mural of proletarian New York City life was destroyed with no recognition. To me this seems like cowardice and a lack of respect for the artists, because the people who painted 5pointz definitely earned that title.
But on the other hand this still makes me hopeful. Graffiti artists are the artists of the people, they do not hand their work in museums but all over the city for us to see. They usually want to leave us with some message or emotion when we walk by. Graffiti is painted over so often yet it is always repainted, and now these artists have a blank canvas with which they can create all new messages and works of art.
It’ll be insanely weird for me to pass by this place every morning and not think about the amazing graffiti there. I’ve seen these awesome works of art for the last four years, several times a day. I never really carefully looked at them because there was just so much to look at. I regret this a lot now, because I would have loved to appreciate all the effort that the graffiti artists put into it. I’ve always wondered how they even make all of those images throughout 5Pointz, some of the pieces are positioned in such insane places. Just reading this article makes me sad when I think about how many opportunities I had to visit this place but never did.
I still can’t believe that 5Pointz is being destroyed due to gentrification. This building has been iconic in Queens because of the unique graffiti and art that covers its walls. It was so disappointing to pass by it and see that it had been painted white on my way to class this week. But I guess it would be beneficial to build residential towers in order to provide affordable housing for residents. I liked the idea you suggested about renovating the building’s interior, rather than destroying it altogether. However, I don’t know if people would want to live in a home covered with graffiti.
Wolkoff had a right to paint over 5Pointz, simply because the building was legally his. Although the graffiti had been up for so long, it’s not surprising that artists responded with anger. But as graffiti artists, I think it’s necessary to recognize that there will be a day when their art would be erased. I believe that they continue to graffiti because they are prepared for that consequence. Just recently, the wall of 5 Bryant Park acted as a canvas for four renowned graffiti artists. And their joint mural will be up for as long as the space remains unoccupied. I think this is similarly to 5Pointz, because the artists still poured their efforts into creating art that they knew would be erased eventually.
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131107/midtown/street-artists-turn-midtown-building-into-massive-graffiti-canvas
I do also believe that Wolkoff had a right to paint over that wall. Legally, the building belongs to him. It is also going towards affordable housing, which is important. We want people to live in a clean, appealing environment, not that 5 Pointz art isn’t visually appealing, but also it does not look like a building people other than artists and tourists would want to live in. There are places all over the city to create street art, 5Pointz must not be the only one. If it is that important, than someone can offer up a building for these artists to gather. Also, I’m sure that graffiti is art, but it’s also illegal. Must have been terrible for Wolkoff to clean that all off though, haha.
Janice Fong
Traditionally, graffiti has been viewed as vandalism due to its illegality but recently, many street artists, notably Banksy, have been challenging this view. Although I have never seen it with my own eyes, It is sad to hear about the lost of New York City’s graffiti mecca, 5Pointz. There are many places such as the Wynwood Walls in Miami that proudly displays their city’s street art. 5Pointz was just like that until its recent destruction. Many artists and tourists from around the world go there to admire the street art just like how people would go to art galleries and museums to admire paintings and sculptures.
Although affordable housing may seem more important and beneficial than preserving street art, I think there has to be a possible solution where more housing can be built while the art still remains. It is just a matter of the government’s willingness to preserve the graffiti art at 5Pointz. If they were willing to do so, it would bring about a lot of tourism and appreciation. Therefore, I disagree with the federal decision to demolish the building. That is basically destroying both art and history. In my opinion, Wolkoff’s decision to repaint 5Pointz and allow for street artists to continue their work on his new building was his way of making the best of a bad situation. I hope he sticks to his words because I am looking forward to seeing some fresh graffiti art.
Despite the opposition, his decision was certainly justified because the building is his property. There is no argument about that. However, I think he should’ve shown more respect for the street artists. Instead of repainting it secretively at night, he could’ve informed the public about his decision to erase the work. This way, artists could possibly record their art and tourists could see it for one last time. Yes, he will receive criticism and opposition for it prior to repainting but what difference does it make? Either way, this will be a topic of news and debate that will most not come to a general consensus.
I find that the loss of all of this creative works of art appalling. Wolkham’s decision, although he is the building’s owner, is not justified in the sense of morality. Technically, under the law, he has every right to paint over his own building, but he is right doing so? Eliminating years of work in a single night without the consent of these artists, although it’s not needed, is just wrong. There should have been a more political and rational approach to all of this. Perhaps he could have pitched the idea, and see the responses to it? That seems a lot better than erasing it all.
I think it would have been difficult to renovate the interior without disrupting the exterior walls. I say this because there was an accident involving a collapsed concrete fire escape which severely injured an artist and caused the vacate notices. Regardless, I don’t think Wolkoff should take all the blame. He has legal rights to the building and he provided artists with a place to work freely and legally. But tearing down an iconic location filled with art and culture doesn’t feel right.