I had this article referenced on my graffiti news blog, and had discussed it a few weeks ago but thought I'd expand on it some more.
CBC News had the following online on Nov 5/08, along with a video:
Business owner fights city over removal of spray paint. Restaurateur says it's art, but inspectors deemed it graffiti.
I'll quote part of tthe item, in case the link gets archived by CBC:
A downtown Ottawa business owner says the City of Ottawa removed spray-painted art from the outside of his restaurant and then sent him a bill for graffiti removal.
Luc Lapointe, owner of Hot Peppers Thai restaurant at Somerset and Lyon streets, said Wednesday that he wants the city to put the art back on the building and he will take legal action against the city if it doesn't drop an $800 fine that was added to his tax bill for not paying for graffiti cleanup.
The large, white, spray-painted bubble letters were on the wall when he bought the building three years ago, he said. He never removed them as he thought they were artistic and inoffensive.
"Our restaurant, we try to be expressive and be younger," he said.
But the spray paint was gone in July when he returned from a speaking tour in Mexico. A month later, he received a bill from the city. Lapointe said he's upset that no one at the city talked to him before removing the spray paint.
"At least we could have had the discussion — is this art? Is this graffiti?" he said. "For them to come and remove this from my building without my permission, without even taking the time to call me — I'm upset. I think it's unfair."
I added the following to the several comments that were already there:
Ottawa's Graffiti Management bylaw defines graffiti as “one or more letters, symbols, etchings, figures, inscriptions, stains howsoever made or otherwise affixed to a property or other markings that disfigure or deface a property" . Same wording as many other cities use.
So the decision the bylaws officer is making is not whether it is art or not, but whether it disfigures or defaces the property.
What if the artists had done a blend of graffiti bubble letters and cartoon characters. What if it was just little cartoon food characters, in keeping with the restaurant theme?
At what point is it decided by the bylaw officer these markings do NOT disfigure or deface? What if another officer has a different opinion, do they stand there and do "paper, rock, scissors" to decide who is right?
Our city's definition of graffiti is a very subjective decision for a bylaws officer. Since bylaws are rules a community makes to regulate how they live together, then why not involve the community more to decide on the standards. I realize not all appreciate graffiti style lettering on it's own as 'art" - I have similar problems with appreciating some of the expensive pieces hung in our national art gallery. There is room for education about graffiti, and the artists. Maybe both "sides" need to compromise initially, with the young artists doing murals that combine graffiti lettering and other art elements. There might even be different ideas as to what "fits" in particular neighbourhoods, or at least some agreement on how vigourously to enforce - or not enforce - a particular standard.
There can be exceptions made under the current Ottawa structure, if it's an Art Mural - but - who decides? A bylaw officer? The local councillor? In Toronto, if a subjective judgement on "art" has to be appealed, it goes to a Community Council for this. Unfortunately it's not really a council of community members, representing the local standards, it's just a grouping of councillors from a particular area, who are usually mostly concerned with retaining votes.
One site I found, from 1996, suggests a better approach, to focus on graffiti being unauthorized:
Graffiti means any unauthorized inscription, word, figure, painting or other defacement that is written, marked, etched, scratched, sprayed, drawn, painted, or engraved on or otherwise affixed to any surface of public or private property by any graffiti implement, to the extent that the graffiti was not authorized in advance by the owner or occupant of the property, or, despite advance authorization, is otherwise deemed a public nuisance by the City Council.
The restaurant owner that was targeted here is considering asking the Ontario Supreme Court to quash the bylaw - I'll add info as I can.
Comments