Chalk up one more for NY vs Artists: De La Vega

http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2004/06/12/free_de_la_vega.php

NYT: Street Muralist May Soon Be Looking at Jailhouse Walls
By IAN URBINA
Published: June 12, 2004

The lawyer for James De La Vega, a well-known muralist from East Harlem
who was convicted on misdemeanor graffiti charges this week, said
yesterday that his client deserved community service, not jail time,
and that he planned to appeal.

"This verdict was entirely unjustified," said the lawyer, Daniel J.
Ollen. "We definitely think this case deserves a second look."

Mr. De La Vega, 32, who was arrested on July 17, 2003, while painting
without permission on the side of a Bronx warehouse near Willis Avenue
and Bruckner Boulevard, was found guilty on Thursday of attempted
criminal mischief, attempted making graffiti and possessing graffiti
instruments. He is to be sentenced in Bronx Criminal Court on July 29
and faces up to 90 days in jail.

During his two-day trial, about 25 supporters sat in the back of the
courtroom, some of the them wearing "Free De La Vega" T-shirts. On the
second day of the trial, a court officer asked them to turn the shirts
inside out.

During the trial, Mr. Ollen called his client "an artist, a teacher and
a neighborhood icon" who was intending to improve the warehouse, not
damage it. In a telephone interview yesterday, Mr. Ollen said Mr. De La
Vega's "sole purpose in life is to make things prettier and more
visually thought-provoking, not to lessen their value."

But an assistant district attorney, Karen E. Antoine, argued during the
trial that intent was less important than the fact that Mr. De La Vega
did not have permission to paint on the side of the building.

Several months before the trial, the Bronx district attorney's office
offered Mr. De La Vega a plea bargain involving a year of probation and
no jail time in exchange for a guilty plea, Mr. Ollen said. But Mr. De
La Vega refused, partly on principle and partly because he expected to
win if the case went to a jury, Mr. Ollen added.

On the first day of the trial, the district attorney's office reduced
the charges to Class B misdemeanors that removed the possibility of a
jury trial. "We thought this was a really underhanded tactic," Mr.
Ollen said.

In a statement after the trial, the district attorney's office said:
"It's a simple proposition. You need an owner's permission to paint on
his or her property. The quality of the artwork does not change that
fact."

Mr. De La Vega, who received a Bachelor of Fine Arts from Cornell in
1994, is well known in East Harlem where his chalk drawings have
appeared on sidewalks throughout the neighborhood.

Portraying feelings of entrapment and unvanquished love, Mr. De La Vega
usually drew images of fish staring longingly at each other from
separate bowls. Mr. De La Vega also scrawled various aphorisms on trash
cans and buildings around the city: "Beauty magazines make my
girlfriend feel ugly," was penned on the sides of fitness clubs on the
Lower East Side. And "The best remedy for a cheap person is to have him
pay for everything," was written on the walls of banks and expensive
restaurants near Wall Street.

Comments

, Jason Van Anden

I am always delighted to encounter De La Vega's work by chance. I am not sure that my aesthetic experience is justified when he delivers this by altering someone else's property without their permission. Is it the law that is the problem? Is this a Freedom of Expression issue? Should we ammend the constitution to include Freedom of Graffitti?

Why is an artist not also a criminal when he is caught breaking the law in the process of making art? How should the system distinguish a criminal act from an artistic one? I am not trying to be provocative here, I am genuinely interested in what the community thinks.

J

, Jason Van Anden

I would find it pretty disturbing if he was sentenced to 90 days in
prison.

Do you think that he is being treated differently because he is an
artist?

J


On Jun 14, 2004, at 9:40 AM, liza sabater wrote:

> Why should he serve 90 days of prison instead of paying a fine?
>
>
>
> On Monday, Jun 14, 2004, at 08:37 America/New_York, Jason Van Anden
> wrote:
>
>> I am always delighted to encounter De La Vega's work by chance. I am
>> not sure that my aesthetic experience is justified when he delivers
>> this by altering someone else's property without their permission.
>> Is it the law that is the problem? Is this a Freedom of Expression
>> issue? Should we ammend the constitution to include Freedom of
>> Graffitti?
>>
>> Why is an artist not also a criminal when he is caught breaking the
>> law in the process of making art? How should the system distinguish
>> a criminal act from an artistic one? I am not trying to be
>> provocative here, I am genuinely interested in what the community
>> thinks.
>>
>> J
>
>