**Warning... this video is 9 min long, and to be intriguing needs the viewer to be at least somewhat interested in the artists vs. the parks department battle of keeping the public parks freely open to artists.

This is a video of an artist (Jessica) being asked to stop selling her art work (Peace Tie-Dyes) or receive a criminal court summons for unlawful vending and after which she would most likely risk confiscation of her work.

According to the officer, the way the law is written is that if the item for sale is not printed matter (which does include art on canvas and other various forms)...the item must convey a political statement and the buyer must be purchasing it for the purpose of conveying that political statement. How this could possibly be determined is the funny part to me. But I suppose in court it would go to, what expectation would an average person have. I assume according to the officer's interpretation an I heart NY shirt would not convey a direct political statement, but perhaps an I hate the Parks Department For Kicking Artists Out of Union Square would. To the officer, "wanting peace" is a concept that can be directly measured in the size of the logo on the front of the shirt. Jessica's and Common Sense's argument was that her text message of "Peace" on the back by the neck line that was part of the dying process and the tie-dying concept itself was a "cohesive" representation of peace.

The video is a bit long, my questions are a bit leading from being very close to the citation, and it was filmed from the perspective that I really didn't want anyone 100% aware I was filming to alter their responses, when in reality they probably knew anyway...so sorry for the horrible cinematography...if you can get by all that, for me it was about the dialog, and the absurdity of public officials determining art and what is allowed under the law. Though it does seem to mimic the whole gallery process, so perhaps it's just how the world works :(

If you are interested in more info on this artist vs. the park's dept situation please see this post: http://www.noshiz.com/index.php?philo_ID=272

sort above page content by:  date rating comments

reverse

Comments:

Shoot the Shiz (add a comment): 

Name:
Comment:
	Security Question: <- Who is this?: