Dumbo installation controversy
The De-Fence Project is a site-specific display that is integrated into a 300ft long wooden fence running atop a sidewalk bridge of the Empire Stores building in the Empire-Fulton State Park in Dumbo, Brooklyn. The mural is composed of 60 plywood panels attached above and below the fence utilizing the existing wooden framework. Evolving from…
The De-Fence Project is a site-specific display that is integrated into a 300ft long wooden fence running atop a sidewalk bridge of the Empire Stores building in the Empire-Fulton State Park in Dumbo, Brooklyn. The mural is composed of 60 plywood panels attached above and below the fence utilizing the existing wooden framework. Evolving from left to right, the pattern features a variety of natural shapes, such as jellyfish, leaves, and birds.
This project is a great example of how the unsightly can easily be made more beautiful and interesting. Donated entirely by Exhibitology Inc., a Brooklyn based design and fabrication company, it is now threatened by the hand of our state government that often forgets the everyday people it represents. But the De-Fence Project has won the hearts of Dumbo residents and the support of local business owners, such as St. Ann’s Warehouse. Many business owners have praised the project, and feel that in a challenging economy, bringing interest and creativity to our area can only help welcome potential customers. They want it to stay, especially because they will be living with this construction fence for a long time. Due to the building’s deterioration, the sidewalk bridge was erected to protect pedestrians on the sidewalk below; it is slated to be in place for the next seven years, or until repair funding is realized.
The De-Fence Project was erected to coincide with BKLYN designs, a showcase for young Brooklyn-based designers. Due to time constraints, Exhibitology was not able to secure permission in time to for the May 7th install and thus The State’s position is that anything that they can’t control is not allowed. Regional director of New York State Parks, Rachel Gordon has officially deemed the installation “vandalism†and has threatened to pursue the matter further stating that if the installation is not removed by Exhibitology Inc. promptly, and the sidewalk bridge returned to its original bleak condition, they will destroy it.
Absolutely agree, vinca.
Take another look at the photo accompanying the original post. If the issue is really “vandalism”, the Parks Dept. should be onsite daily scrubbing (“destroying”) the tags on the brickwork under the sidewalk bridge. I’d be curious to hear what efforts Exhibitology made, and what obstacles they encountered, in an effort to obtain permits and work in conjunction with Rachel Gordon. I’d be interested in hearing—if Parks and/or the scaffolding company are primarily worried about insurance—what efforts have been made to address and allay those concerns?
I’m a consistent advocate in this forum of obtaining permits from DOB when homeowners make building repairs and alterations. Not so true for some critics above, who often suggest ways to skirt those permits. I’m also old enough to have experienced the “vandalizing” of the Broadway-Lafayette station by Keith Haring’s early chalk drawings; to have seen the Phun Phactory/5 Pointz in LIC welcome the use of an entire building facade as a public canvas for “aerosol artists”; and more to the point, to remember the 1970s and 80s, when NYC agencies had a POLICY of installing plywood painted to look like “real” windows—featuring silhouettes of people and potted plants—as replacements for thousands of broken windows in abandoned properties. If I’m reading the original post correctly, funding for repairs to these buildings is not yet even in place…only scaffolding. Surely some meeting of the minds, hearts, aesthetics can be reached, implemented and enjoyed while these buildings wait for preservation.
I love the work and having been involved in a huge project that the parks Dept. dragged their feet on- without good reason- I can’t see why people just don’t exercise a little common sense. Seems to me the Department has a lot more to worry about than making an issue of this mural. It’s a great art piece, it adds to the site, it is in support of the arts- Ms. gordon should just help them out with the paperwork and leave it up instead of getting involved in a power trip of push me-pull you.
I was eating at a restaurant opposite this scaffolding yesterday, when 3 uniformed men defaced the part that ways “www.de-fencePROJECT.com” with a spanner. (2 watching, 1 with spanner).
I thought it was industrial espionage, but now I know why.
NorthHeights hit it on the head. If you want to pretend top be a reputable art organization you need to play by the rules. This is NYC, we have permits for everything and when your city is operating at a deficit you don’t try and skirt any kind of bureaucracy. I think it is a terrific piece and a clever idea, but it should be torn down and they should be fined. Next time they want to do something like this they need to get approval and have it installed by professionals. Safety is an issue here. Those sheds are erected for a reason and tampering with them without an understanding of how they work can lead to bad stuff. Potted plants on your fire escape may look nice toom but they don’t belong there.
The original post says: “Due to time constraints, Exhibitology was not able to secure permission in time to for the May 7th install…”
So the basic story is, they really really wanted to put up the installation to impress their design show friends, but the pesky state didn’t give them permission in time, so they went ahead and did it anyway?
I like the art, but sorry, artists aren’t above the law. Next time, how about I go build some art on your property, and then let’s discuss, is it me or you who gets to consider all of the pros and cons of keeping it there?
After reading the first post thoroughly, it is very clear that Exhibitology Inc. created the mural. I searched for and browsed their website (www.exhibitologyinc.com) and discovered that these guys are obviously professional builders. With that in mind, the issue of safety becomes moot. Still not convinced? A simple inspection would determine easily if the thing is safe or not. Since when does permission equal safety, anyway?
The real issue is the sweeping and misguided categorization by the Parks Dept. of the mural as vandalism. The word carries with it a certain connotation of willful destruction — a blight, if you will. As far as I can tell (I also saw the mural this weekend), the scaffolding has not been altered in any way that could be considered destruction.
Then there’s the reaction of the people that live and work in the neighborhood! The handful of spectators that I chatted with celebrated it as a relief from the eyesore that the scaffolding was in it’s state mandated form.
NYS claims to want to foster an artistic community and economy in Brooklyn, and then they take pains to destroy it?
I’m confused. Did Exhibitology put up the installation, or did the scaffold company? Who skirted the law here?
And I’ll be the curmudgeonly dissenter and agree with Ms. Gordon – not that it’s ‘vandalism’, but that it is unauthorized, uninspected and therefore should not be erected. If the Office of Parks is sued if a piece of this falls and injures someone, of course they have the right to have it removed. If the scaffold company is the one on the hook for an injury, they should have told the Office of Parks what this thing looked like.
Even if it’s art and an improvement, there are still safety issues involved. The responsibility to get a permit remains whether it’s a regular or an ‘arty’ sidewalk bridge.
having recently signed a contract for a sidewalk bridge and full scaffolding I can say that there are ample reasons to blame the scaffold company or the insurance carrier for the scaffold/bridge for forcing the removal of the art work. You’re not even allowed on the bridge/scaffold without taking some course for a day. I can’t imagine why Rachel Gordon felt obligated to put her neck on the line. I’m curious to know if Exhibitology tried to get permission first. Without a doubt it would of been denied.