Jump to content

Hundreds Rally To Save 5 Pointz From Wrecking Ball (photos included)

Turbo19

By Turbo19,
in Off Topic Lounge

Recommended Posts

Turbo19

Turbo19

Posted
Posted

Hundreds of art fans crowded into the loading dock area of Long Island City's 5 Pointz yesterday to show their support for the internationally renowned graffiti gallery. The warehouse, owned by developers Jerry and David Wolkoff, is scheduled for demolition before the end of the year, but supporters of the art space tried to remain optimistic as they also said their goodbyes.

5 Pointz curator Jonathan Cohen, aka Meres One, had sought a court injunction against the destruction of the building, and the subsequent development of two gleaming new condos in its place, but last week Judge Frederic Block ruled that he could he find no legal reason to stop the Wolkoffs from bringing desperately needed luxury housing to that part of Queens doing whatever the hell they want with their property.

Much of the two-hour Save 5 Pointz Rally felt more like a "final, fond farewell" than an angry political demonstration: A million photo-ops and selfies; old-school hip hop blasting in the courtyard, courtesy DJ Formula One; a scattering of unnecessary NYPD officers; and dozens of reminiscences from the stage by graffiti writers, teachers, students, and local art fans of what 5 Pointz has meant for them personally as well as to the community as a whole.

 

Read More: Source

 

(photos in link)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turbo19

Turbo19

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I literally do not care what happens there.

And why is that? We sure as hell don't need more condos in the area, which will just out price everyone else.

 

At any rate not everyone shows resentment for urban art, which as shown time and time again has brought out a great sense of community through many forms, 5 Pointz is more than just a legal canvas of sorts, it's a community within a community, a community built on an affinity for a form of expression the mainstream shuns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
realizm

realizm

Posted
Posted

Give that graffiti art in its history has its controversies (i.e. subway vandalism) that I can understand some are concerned over, I will say that graffiti art is a form of urban art. It's a reflection of historic New Yorker urban subculture. It is now a form of artistic expression that is practiced around the world from here to Britain, Brazil, Germany and Japan.

 

Therefore the art displayed on this property needs to be preserved, because the visual hip hop movement come out of New York and changed the direction of artistic expression and modern media graphic design as well, in particular. It's fitting that 5 Pointz remains as is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Threxx

Threxx

Posted
Posted

Even with these laws claiming that there has to be affordable housing in condos, the city is over saturated with the damn things and they aren't even filling up that fast. They can take their development elsewhere, it's a good output for human art, and it's better than them doing it on private property.

 

 

I literally do not care what happens there.

 

So why did you comment on this thread? Sort of defeats that fact...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Concourse

Grand Concourse

Posted
Posted

Well if the artists wants to preserve the place so bad, then they should raise the money to buy back the property. It's a canvass only because the owners let them do whatever to the building. That said, if/when it is torn down, I hope the taggers don't start tagging up the surrounding area because they don't have a place to spray. I stand by my stance on graffiti being vandalism when the property owner does not or did not give permission to the tagger to spray his/her property. I don't care how nice it looks, it is vandalism and only encourages more people to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fresh Pond

Fresh Pond

Posted
Posted

Hundreds of art fans crowded into the loading dock area of Long Island City's 5 Pointz yesterday to show their support for the internationally renowned graffiti gallery. The warehouse, owned by developers Jerry and David Wolkoff, is scheduled for demolition before the end of the year, but supporters of the art space tried to remain optimistic as they also said their goodbyes.

 

5 Pointz curator Jonathan Cohen, aka Meres One, had sought a court injunction against the destruction of the building, and the subsequent development of two gleaming new condos in its place, but last week Judge Frederic Block ruled that he could he find no legal reason to stop the Wolkoffs from bringing desperately needed luxury housing to that part of Queens doing whatever the hell they want with their property.

 

Much of the two-hour Save 5 Pointz Rally felt more like a "final, fond farewell" than an angry political demonstration: A million photo-ops and selfies; old-school hip hop blasting in the courtyard, courtesy DJ Formula One; a scattering of unnecessary NYPD officers; and dozens of reminiscences from the stage by graffiti writers, teachers, students, and local art fans of what 5 Pointz has meant for them personally as well as to the community as a whole.

 

Read More: Source

 

(photos in link)

 

They just built luxury condos and whatnot right by the waterfront, what the hell they talking about. 5Pointz is (or rather was) one of the last untouched places that gave the city its individuality. You see what they did to Downtown Brooklyn already...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turbo19

Turbo19

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well if the artists wants to preserve the place so bad, then they should raise the money to buy back the property. It's a canvass only because the owners let them do whatever to the building. That said, if/when it is torn down, I hope the taggers don't start tagging up the surrounding area because they don't have a place to spray. I stand by my stance on graffiti being vandalism when the property owner does not or did not give permission to the tagger to spray his/her property. I don't care how nice it looks, it is vandalism and only encourages more people to do the same.

I'd beg to differ. Artists mainly gathered and sprayed at 5 Pointz because they didn't want to participate in the act of vandalism. In addition I'm sure these fine artists wouldn't waste their efforts spraying elsewhere where it's bound to be removed. I doubt they'd all go in mass tagging wherever whenever.

 

'Twas painted over last night. I guess that's that.

You're a horrible, miserable person. Go find something worth your time.

 

And the city continues the process of whitewashing itself.

What a fine way to close the Bloomberg Administration.

 

I'm actually outraged by this. What utter disrespect by the courts and the Wolkoffsin firm not recognizing this location as a urban art landmark! Disgusted, angry and disappointed are not the words to describe my feelings at this moment.

Absolutely, I'm at a loss for words. Say what you like but I shed a tear at the sight of the literal white washing of the canvases. After decades of Wolkhoff leasing the space he sells of the damn place to another firm and in the process metaphorically gives artists (which leased the shithole when no one else wanted it) the middle finger. Likewise f**k you Wolkhoff. F**k you and your damn greed that will ultimately bring more demise to the neighborhood than 5 Pointz ever did or ever could.

 

They just built luxury condos and whatnot right by the waterfront, what the hell they talking about. 5Pointz is (or rather was) one of the last untouched places that gave the city its individuality. You see what they did to Downtown Brooklyn already...

They're full of bullshit. All of them. The investors of today are making profit of of whatever they can, damning everyone else involved.

 

With all this said, I'm off to mourn one of the greatest cultural assets that the fine citizens of this city have ever produced. My only regret is I didn't visit more than once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Concourse

Grand Concourse

Posted
Posted

"You're a horrible, miserable person. Go find something worth your time."

 

That was uncalled for. He didn't say it like 'haha', he just made an observation. 

=

Well that's nice of them to use the place to do their art legally, but it wasn't their property, it's someone else's. Now that certain someone decided to let a condo be built on it. So perhaps the 'artists' should raise funds to buy some derelict building and use that as their new canvass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHV9218

MHV9218

Posted
Posted

If anything, this proves the developer is total f**king moron. Obviously, I'm as annoyed as anybody by the literal whitewashing of the building and the city. But he's a developer--these are the greediest bastards around, and he just got rid of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of his own money. He owned ALL of that art and he could have either taken off the walls and sold it for a huge amount or kept the exterior and made some chic residential thing inside, and he chose to destroy all of the art. If anything, he just took a huge pile of money and set it on fire while also poking out the eye of the NYC street art community. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tokkemon

Tokkemon

Posted
Posted

Its not art until some rich artsy-fartsy type buys it. And no one was buying it. The only people who care are the people who hang out there and/or have an emotional connection to the neighborhood. Will it really matter at the end of the day? Nah. The artists (and I use that term loosely) will find somewhere else to cover in their paint. Lets just hope its not the subways again. 


If anything, this proves the developer is total f**king moron. Obviously, I'm as annoyed as anybody by the literal whitewashing of the building and the city. But he's a developer--these are the greediest bastards around, and he just got rid of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of his own money. He owned ALL of that art and he could have either taken off the walls and sold it for a huge amount or kept the exterior and made some chic residential thing inside, and he chose to destroy all of the art. If anything, he just took a huge pile of money and set it on fire while also poking out the eye of the NYC street art community. 

 

The thing was a crumbling warehouse. The cost of "restoring" it or bringing it back to life would cost far more than any gains he might get from spray paint on a wall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turbo19

Turbo19

Posted
  • Author
Posted

"You're a horrible, miserable person. Go find something worth your time."

 

That was uncalled for. He didn't say it like 'haha', he just made an observation.

=

Well that's nice of them to use the place to do their art legally, but it wasn't their property, it's someone else's. Now that certain someone decided to let a condo be built on it. So perhaps the 'artists' should raise funds to buy some derelict building and use that as their new canvass.

I ask you this, how do you interpret the following chain of responses?

 

I literally do not care what happens there.

&

 

'Twas painted over last night. I guess that's that.

 

 

 

That is sad. I never got the time to go explore the area myself. Wow.

Damn shame it is.

 

If anything, this proves the developer is total f**king moron. Obviously, I'm as annoyed as anybody by the literal whitewashing of the building and the city. But he's a developer--these are the greediest bastards around, and he just got rid of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of his own money. He owned ALL of that art and he could have either taken off the walls and sold it for a huge amount or kept the exterior and made some chic residential thing inside, and he chose to destroy all of the art. If anything, he just took a huge pile of money and set it on fire while also poking out the eye of the NYC street art community.

That's what is most anger inducing. He did this all out of spite to the community, and for what? Just to piss everyone off? As I said f**k Wolkhoff for acting in such manner.

 

Its not art until some rich artsy-fartsy type buys it. And no one was buying it. The only people who care are the people who hang out there and/or have an emotional connection to the neighborhood. Will it really matter at the end of the day? Nah. The artists (and I use that term loosely) will find somewhere else to cover in their paint. Lets just hope its not the subways again. 

 

 

The thing was a crumbling warehouse. The cost of "restoring" it or bringing it back to life would cost far more than any gains he might get from spray paint on a wall. 

And it's safe to summarize this is out of your span of interest. But hey, keep it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
realizm

realizm

Posted
Posted

Oh hell, its just graffiti... life goes on. (yawn) Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

 

Not so fast. It is a form of art. Look at the pic more closely. It is a form of abstract art that evolved over a period of 40 years. It influenced hip hop art around the world in all continents. We (again) have artists from Pan-Asia, South America, Africa, Greater North America, Europe and Eurasia, all the way to Moscow ans Seoul, Korea. You are entitled to your opinion but I am sure millions beg to differ about this landmark which it is whether the courts see it so or not. They dont have the final word when it comes to human visual expression.

 

In 2006 many railroad perservation advocates stopped a ruling in court that would have prohibited subway photography. How would you feel if the case was won in behalf of the MTA and we cannot provide photography to express our art of railfanning photography, another movement similar to the classical graffiti movement?

 

"Oh hell", it's just photos of trains? Think about it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHV9218

MHV9218

Posted
Posted

He did it to end the issue decisively. Look at his actual quotes about it. It had nothing to do with malice on the developers part. It was something that had to be done to get the process moving forward. 

 

Well, no, that's what we call Bullshit. The Landmarks commission was sitting lazily on its ass; there was no risk for him. He painted that building white out of spite, but like I said, joke's on him for losing his own money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept