Answers to the 11 questions most often asked about why artists are arrested on New York City streets.
(c) Robert Lederman 1995 , (Photos: Ann Sandhorst ).
Robert Lederman being arrested on 5th Avenue in New York City on Jun 27, 1994. Click on it to see a larger image.
1.Why and when did the group A.R.T.I.S.T. form? In the fall of 1993 police began systematically arresting artists who displayed or sold their own original art (paintings, limited edition prints, photographs and sculptures) on the streets of New York City. Their artwork was confiscated, damaged and often destroyed. More than 200 such arrests and confiscations have taken place since then. The artists, realizing that something had to be done to defend their constitutional rights, formed A.R.T.I.S.T.
2. Why are artists being arrested? Under the present administration's interpretation of the New York City vending ordinance (there is no mention of art or artists in the ordinance itself), displaying or selling art without a license is illegal and is punishable by arrest, confiscation, forfeiture of art, fines and imprisonment. Artists are charged with AC 20-453, unlicensed general vending. Ironically, no vending licenses are available to artists. For many years, the Department of Consumer Affairs has told artists who applied for a license that, "...based on the First Amendment, they do not require a license to sell their own art." If an artist decides to apply for a license anyway, their chances of getting one are exceedingly slim. According to Richard Schrader, one-time Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Affairs, "...there is a waiting list to get a license (as much as five years)...in some years not one license became available...I know of no artist who has succeeded in obtaining a vending license..." Only military veterans can apply for a license and get one on demand. While the vending ordinance is used to authorize the arrests of artists, that same ordinance specifically exempts First Amendment protected expression (such as book selling) from the requirement of a license. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in the case of Shuttlesworth Vs. City of Birmingham. (1969) wrote... "...that a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, is unconstitutional...And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such...a law may ignore it, and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license". Behind the arrests are a number of powerful resident, landlord and business protection groups that feel ownership of property gives one ownership of the entire public sidewalk. Such groups as the Soho Alliance, which represents real estate interests in SoHo and the Fifth Avenue Association which represents among others, Donald Trump, Rockefeller Center, Tiffany's, Gucci's, Sak's and St Patrick's Cathedral are adamant opponents of artist displays on the public sidewalks. The police department has routinely pointed to these organizations, and to art dealers and art museums, as the motive force behind the crackdown on artists in New York City. Within the art world itself, the motivation for the arrests is protection of a cultural monopoly. The "gallery/museum system" depends on artists and collectors being kept as distant from each other as possible. If artists can directly access the public without the approval or control of art dealers, curators, museum directors and critics, it might undermine the false aesthetic and economic structure of this "exclusive" system. The public could then make its own judgements about what kind of art to appreciate or collect rather than being manipulated by "art experts" who are themselves the sole beneficiaries of this system. The members of A.R.T.I.S.T. believe that, while art dealers have every right to operate their businesses as they see fit, they or their lobbyists in the city government do not have the right to make alternative means of free expression illegal. Many members of A.R.T.I.S.T. display and sell their art on the street as a form of protest against this cultural monopoly.
3. What happens to the artist when they are arrested and what happens to his or her art? Artists are generally handcuffed and brought to a local precinct for booking and fingerprinting. They are either given a D.A.T. (desk appearance ticket) for a later arraignment before a judge, or an E.C.B. (Environmental Control Board) summons. Their artwork is confiscated, bundled into plastic garbage bags and held at a police warehouse until it is either destroyed or sold at the monthly police auction. Despite the fact that the city has declined to actually prosecute a single case against any of the more than 200 artists arrested, very few artists have been able to get their art returned. The charges are routinely dismissed by the D.A., often against the artist or their lawyer's protests. This deliberate strategy of arresting artists, seizing their property and then denying them due process so as to prevent their challenging the legality of the procedure in a higher court, has as its goal the complete elimination of artists from the public forum of the city streets.
4. Why do you believe art is protected speech? The First Amendment has been interpreted in a long series of State and Supreme Court rulings to include protection of many expressive and symbolic activities including artwork, demonstrations, hairstyles, flag burning, topless dancing, movies, advertising and religious ceremonies. Speech is interpreted to mean anything that exists for the purpose of communicating ideas, be they religious, political or artistic. Art, as expression, is the closest thing to a universal language we humans have. In today's world of visual interface computer programs, comic books, photo journalism and television, visual images are once again becoming the dominant form of communication. When our government becomes involved in restricting an artist's right to display, distribute or sell their art in a public forum such as the street they are clearly violating the intention of the First Amendment.
5. Why doesn't the city just make one special place or lot where artists can sell their work? Why do you have to sell it on the street? We consider the idea of "one special place", which some politicians have proposed as a solution, to be a form of "ghettoization" that is unnecessary and unconstitutional. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." These privileges include a right to use public lands. "Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public, and time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication... must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied." Supreme Court Justice Roberts. Members of A.R.T.I.S.T. believe that displays of art on the public street are as valuable a resource to society as they are to artists. Such displays encourage public contemplation and discussion of ideas and encourage young people to cultivate their own talents as well as giving artists a forum to express themselves. Furthermore, they promote rather than inhibit economic activity for nearby businesses and could be useful in encouraging pedestrian as compared to vehicular traffic. Crime and illegal activities are known to thrive on deserted streets while the same streets are made safer by being well-populated. Artist displays can help revitalize and civilize our urban centers if they are viewed as a resource rather than a problem. Proposing to restrict art displays to one or two locations is an idea that reveals bad intentions even as it attempts to appear well motivated.
6. You are selling your art. Free speech is about ideas, not selling, isn't it? Artists express their opinions by creating, displaying and selling their art. Freedom of speech includes the right to distribute one's opinions, not merely to have them. If newspapers were allowed to be published, but not sold, we'd have few if any newspapers. Likewise, if artists are not allowed to display and sell their art they cannot afford to distribute their opinions and they therefore have no freedom of speech. If one examines New York's vending ordinance itself, one will find that other First Amendment protected expressions, such as books, are specifically permitted to be sold without a license. The courts won't allow the city to make it illegal for vendors (who usually didn't write the books they sell) to vend books on the public sidewalk. To prevent artists from selling their own original creations is a clear violation of the First Amendment, (freedom of speech) and the Fourteenth Amendment as well, (Equal Protection).
7. Aren't you unfairly competing with stores and art galleries? It is a reversal of the facts to argue that artists compete with galleries. Historically, artists sold their own works from their studios or on the street long before there were any art dealers, galleries or art museums. Artists are hardly competing with food, clothing or shoe stores either. In fact, when artists set up in an area of the city, business usually increases at all other kinds of stores and businesses, including art galleries, due to an increase in pedestrian traffic.
8. Do you think artists should be able to set up displays anywhere they like? Absolutely not. We recognize that property owners have a legal right to not want artist displays on their property. This issue is about public, not private, property. The 6 ft. section of sidewalk adjoining a building belongs to the landlord or tenant of that building. The section of sidewalk beyond that property line belongs to the public. This is the exact place where First Amendment rights are most protected. The members of A.R.T.I.S.T. voluntarily follow a code of professional behavior that includes respect for the rights of property owners and business people and a recognition that pedestrians have a right to a walk on a sidewalk that is not excessively crowded or obstructed. We want to see a balanced and reasonable use of the public sidewalk for artist displays.
9. What is the group doing to stop the arrests? Our activities have focused on three areas: protesting the confiscations and arrests; informing and educating the public and the media to what is happening; bringing the issue before the scrutiny of the court system at whatever level is necessary for justice to be achieved. Our numerous demonstrations and public protests have led to a great deal of media attention, which we believe is part of bringing the facts of these illegal arrests and confiscations before the public. We also distribute literature, speak at community board meetings and help artists who are arrested to navigate the legal process. In October of 1994, after the District Attorney's Office successfully prevented any of the artist arrests from coming to trial in Criminal Court, five members of A.R.T.I.S.T. filed a Federal lawsuit against the city charging the violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The artists are represented by the firm of Dewey Ballantine and Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts. The suit is now in the process of being adjudicated.
10. If the city makes it legal for artists to sell their own art, won't the streets be flooded with "junk art", "fake" artists, cheap craft items and tee-shirts? The New York State Constitution's section on Cultural Affairs has a definition of "fine art" and "artist" that we find adequate to define "fine art" and "artist" in this context. It reads: Title C article 11: "1."Artist" means the creator of a work of fine art... 9. "Fine art" means a painting, sculpture, drawing or work of graphic art..." As a group we make no attempts to judge the artistic merits of other artists' works. As long as they made it themselves and it fits the broad definition in the state constitution, we feel it should be permitted. We also in no way question that other types of artistic creation including music, crafts, hand-made clothing, and jewelry are works of artistic merit. The Supreme Court considers "Fine Art" to be that which has as its main purpose the communication of an idea or ideas rather than a decorative or functional purpose. It is in this capacity of communication that art is "protected speech" and must not be unreasonably restricted.
11. How can I help? We need contributions for printing costs and legal expenses, and we'd appreciate you joining our next demonstration. The best way to help is to sign our petition and write or call New York City's elected representatives. Let them know you object to the arresting of artists and that you want it to stop. If you are a visitor to New York, be assured that your displeasure with the city's practice of arresting artists does matter to those in high office. A phone call or letter to the politicians listed here would be very effective. Lastly, if you like to see artists on the street, tell them so. It will make their day!
To join A.R.T.I.S.T. receive more information or make a donation call: Robert Lederman, president of A.R.T.I.S.T. at (718) 369-2111 or write him at: 255 13 St. Brooklyn N.Y. 11215
Key numbers and addresses to contact:
***City Council Member for Soho, Kathryn Freed #51 Chambers St. Rm. #429 N.Y. N.Y. 10007 (212) 788-7722 (fax) 788-7728
***City Council Member Karen Koslowitz 118-21 Queens Blvd. Room 206 Forest Hills, N.Y. 11375 (718) 544-3212 fax/ (718) 261-5022
*Manhattan Borough President, Ruth Messinger Municipal Building New York, N.Y. 10007 (212) 669-4900
*Mayor Giuliani (212) 788-7585 (to leave a message) or write to: Honorable Rudolph Giuliani Mayor, City of New York, City Hall New York, N.Y. 10007
*City Council Speaker, Peter Vallone City Hall N.Y.N.Y. 10007
*Commissioner of Department of Consumer Affairs, Fred Cerrullo 42 Broadway N.Y.N.Y. 10004
*New York Times, Editor 229 W. 43 St. N.Y.N.Y 10036
*The Village Voice, Editor 36 Cooper Sq. N.Y.N.Y. 10003
* New York Post, Editor 210 South St. N.Y.N.Y. 10002
*The Daily News, Editor 220 E. 42 St. N.Y. N.Y. 10017
(Back to OPENAIR MARKET NET) -- The World Wide Guide to Outdoor Markets