Ah, art wars. I do think it gives a really interesting context on the existing sculpture, especially from something not traditionally so subversive as knitting/crochet. But whether spray paint, gum or yarn, it is not there at the owner’s request and so it is defacement. Knittaplease should take it down, since it has been requested of them

My worry is that if they don’t remove it themselves Jim Sharp may decide to just cover it in silver paint.

I’m taking both sides on this one.

On the one hand, I agree that this is a benign and potent contribution, and not defacement per se. I see it more as a Christoesque commentary which is as clever as the piece itself. I think Gertrude Stein would have approved, I’d love to know what the artist thinks. Since it is the T that makes the piece so clever in the first place, T cozy is perfect!

On the other hand, this is public art, it belongs to all of us. We can’t allow it to be defaced or destroyed. The city has a right and a duty to protect what belongs to everyone, and no one has the right to usurp that public right. However, when people use the public sidewalk outside of the Freight to play acoustic music before a show, I don’t think we say they are abusing the public space, they are contributing to it.

Having said that, I hope it stays up. Not that it really matters, the art has already happened, it was clearly meant to be temporary. Sometimes ephemeral art is the best art, just ask Joyce Cary or Gully Jimson. I’m just glad Ms. Taylor shared this vision with the rest of us.

PS To Johann,

The sign on the knitting says “Knittas Please.” Get it?

As for asking the people to put it up to take it down, and whether the yarn store might be responsible, you may want to read in between the lines (or go directly to the embedded urls). It could be that the city has asked those responsible to take it down.

If you click on the link in the article above covert night-time “yarn bombing” operation and then click the links in that article to The “perpetrators”, and remain anonymous, you’ll see why it’s so important that the perpetrators remain anonymous. (shhhhhhh). Sometimes the wonderful humor in these articles gets buried (but not that deeply).

Good question about what Federal law is being broken, but the question about whether having the police remove it (in their copious free time) would make them accomplices to “the crime” is just plain silly.

Go yarn taggers! We will not be stopped from putting smiles on faces!

Your mom is so Berkeley she thought YBOs were an offshoot of the SLA :-)

Was that a piece of art that was purchased with tax payer
dollars? I really really detest “grant writer artists” who do
only get paid with tax dollars. True art comes from the soul.
That’s why knitted socks are true art. :)

Cliff, does the City of Berkeley hold copyright in that work? If not… they’ve apparently no cause of action under the law you cite.

And, if the City does hold copyright, I’m not so sure that “intententional distortion” or “modification” truly applies. That’s ultimately an aesthetic argument given the transient nature of a bunch of yarn and the varying understandings of what the art is “about”.

Re: the artist’s opinion

From the Chronicle via Berkeleyside’s Berkeley Wire:

“Meanwhile, one of the two artists who created “Herethere” said he applauds the knitter’s civic disobedience and thinks the city should leave the cozy alone.

“They have started a dialogue where possibly only a monologue had existed before,” artist Steve Gillman wrote in an e-mail. “I think it is unfortunate that the city is taking such a rigid stance on this. After all, nothing permanent is going on here. A most gentle and beautiful protest, in my opinion.”

My apologies to the artist, Steve Gillman, I didn’t realize he had made a public statement. I don’t have so much time on my hands that I catch everything, even when there is a link on Berkeleyside.

What fun it will be for him to be able to tell the city to lay off the knittas! This is such a fun story, I hope that it gets wider coverage when and if Mr. Gillman puts a stop to further enforcement. This is the kind of story that gets picked up nationally ….

Berto,

Assuming that she is relying on VARA, her statement would appear to be … incorrect.

As I read the law, I don’t see anything about the City of Berkeley or Mary Ann Merker “granting” any waiver, it’s Steve Gillman who grants the waiver to the anonymous individuals who knitted the cozy. Once he has granted that waiver, the right of the city to use the provisions in VARA to force the removal of the cozy are … terminated.

That doesn’t meant that the City or Mary Ann Merker might be relying on some other part of the Federal Code (but I doubt it), or that there may not be some California Statute or BMC that they might try to stretch to fit (hard to believe they can find something that fits it to a T, though).

I also can’t believe that in all the coverage on this, no one has cited the law she is alleging is being broken. I’m just amazed that we let people get away with saying “a violation of Federal Law” without immediately demanding to know exactly what law they are referring to. I finally read the Chronicle article, but not all the comments, so maybe someone covered this. If the City is relying on VARA, we could have easily seen that the artist has the right to grant a waiver.

I see this case unraveling before the T cozy does, but only if Steve Gillman waives his right under VARA to “prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right.”

He would have to “expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified.” Remember, it doesn’t matter who owns the work (we do, not the City of Berkeley, sometimes we forget these subtle distinctions), these rights are specific to the right to modify the work, in this case, with a tea cozy.

It will be interesting to see if the Mr. Gillman or the anonymous knitters pursue this.