BOMB THE CITY

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr., are now chasing graffiti artists from the streets into painter's unions and art schools. Their efforts are not completely unlike the new War On Terror in the Middle East where every smiling face hides a potential "person of interest." It's hard to target the real enemy because they mostly all look like regular citizens.

Now a decisive win has fallen on the side of the graffiti artists. This past Monday the US District Court granted a temporary injunction against Bloomberg and Vallone's new, wide-sweeping anti-graffiti legislation on the grounds that it was judged to be an infringement of First Amendment rights. The Bloomberg-backed measure outlawed the possession of spray paint and broad-tipped markers by youth aged 18, 19 and 20. In the words of Judge George B. Daniels, the proposed restrictions on 18-20 year olds were "not reasonable" because they injured too many legitimate artists in the process. As of Thursday, May 4, at 5 p.m., the law can no longer be legally enforced by the New York Police Department.

Marc Ecko, who attended the hearing on Monday and was instrumental in putting a lawsuit together against the anti-graffiti measures, said, "It's nice to see the system working and that legislation can't be sloppy."

This current fight started when Ecko decided to sue the City of New York a second time for First Amendment violations related to graffiti art (his first crusade began in 2005). This time he pulled together seven artists under the age of 21 to sue the City of New York, Mayor Bloomberg and Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr., for the right to buy and carry what one plaintiff termed as "art supplies." The graffiti artists claimed that their First Amendment and civil rights were being violated due to changes in the New York City Administrative Code 10-117, namely, raising the age limit for buying spray paint and broad-tipped indelible markers from 18 to 21 and making public possession of these materials illegal for persons under 21 years of age.

As a result, 20-year-old art student Lindsey ("Linzie") Vincenty, who attends the School for Visual Arts and claims to have never engaged in illegal graffiti art, can't buy paint supplies for school. Furthermore, even if she gets someone to buy paint for her, she can't legally carry it on the subway to and from classes. Nevertheless, the City maintains that she is free to use spray paint and broad-tipped markers to create her (legal) graffiti art.

In the words of Judge George B. Daniels, "That's like telling me I can eat an apple, but I can't buy an apple, no one can sell me an apple and I can't bring it to work for lunch."

The artists' lawyer is Daniel Perez who also, not coincidentally, acts as legal counsel for Marc Ecko, a New York City fashion designer, video game creator and himself a former graffiti artist. Ecko sued the City in 2005 and won the right to conduct an outdoor graffiti art show in Chelsea in August of that year.

According to Perez, this latest suit was spearheaded by Ecko from the very start to make a point. Perez went on to assert that the fight in New York City is part of a national campaign being launched by Ecko to combat the proliferation of anti-graffiti laws that limit freedom of expression.

The problem with this fight is that both sides are engaging in a sophisticated obfuscation of the issue framed with lofty ideals but rooted in simple class struggle-and possibly commerce. Bloomberg and Vallone aren't just fighting illegal vandalism. They are essentially trying to stamp out an entire art form and subculture. But despite the increase in arrests, their efforts are failing. Bloomberg and Vallone are looking for criminals in every corner of the city, but the enemy they are inadvertently targeting is an entire generation of creative youth-not just a few outlaw graffiti crews.

Of course, Ecko and friends are being cagey as well. The defendants chosen in the First Amendment case were seemingly hand-picked for their squeaky clean backgrounds. Not a word was mentioned in defense of illegal graffiti art, despite the fact that everyone admitted to both admiring and being positively influenced by it. At the hearings, Ecko's lawyers wore graffiti art neckties designed by one of the plaintiffs. And yet, it's a complete fallacy for Ecko and his team to assert that there is no connection between street graffiti and graffiti artists who operate legally, whether they are in art school or creating murals for extra cash. At best, these artists are inspired by illegal graffiti. At worst they are moonlighting as street artists themselves. One illegal graffiti artist called "Zen" put it this way: "It's like you have a day job and a night job?"

Considering the changing tides of the pop culture-obsessed art world, some of these kids may grow up to be multi-million dollar graffiti art moguls like Ecko himself. And after all the legal dust has settled, that appears to be the real issue-money. Graffiti art has become big business. As graffiti art-legal and illegal-becomes increasingly legitimized, there will be a proliferation of artists who see it as a way out of poverty and obscurity. And that's something Ecko and his legal team aren't talking about.

Even now, many young graffiti artists see illegal graffiti as the beginning of a career. In that respect, Marc Ecko is their poster child. When I asked Zen where he saw his art going, he says, "I'd like to do murals [for money]?you can find a thousand ways to make money with graffiti, you just have to hustle it."

Of course, illegal graffiti isn't purely a capitalistic venture. A lot of it is rooted in a New York tradition decades old that harkens back to the golden age of the art form crystallized in the 1983 Tony Silver film Style Wars. Still, for others the act of graffiti is indeed a blatant act of vandalism. But for most the question as to who really steers the graffiti ship-artists or vandals-is a never-ending topic of debate.

When asked why he risks fines and jail time to continue his illegal graffiti bombing missions, Zen says, "To me, it's like an adrenaline rush. I do graffiti instead of drugs. Some people do X or whatever, but I do graffiti." A little while later, he adds, "There are worse things than writing on walls. What would you rather have your kids do?"

On his slick corporate website, Marc Ecko has a video download showing him tagging what appears to be Air Force One (the President's personal airplane) with the words "Still Free." Another download, entitled "Why I Tagged Air Force One," consists of Ecko making an impassioned plea for freedom of speech while talking about the importance of graffiti art as an inspiration to young artists.

What has made Marc Ecko's impassioned stance the subject of skepticism for many is his latest venture-a for-profit graffiti video game. Ecko's new video game, produced by Atari and entitled "Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure" revolves around a main character, Trane, who runs and climbs around a quasi-futuristic city, New Radius, avoiding fascistic cops and rival gangs to tag buildings and streets on his way to becoming a respected graf artist. Somehow, very little of this venture is directly mentioned when Ecko is railing against Bloomberg and the law.

Hearing Ecko talk, it's hard to write him off. Ecko really seems to care about freedom of speech, young artists and graffiti art as a historical and cultural phenomenon. But this doesn't change the facts. There is no doubt that both illegal and legal graffiti art are making Ecko a lot of money. Thus, Ecko's role in this entire series of events remains a touchy issue that threatens the credibility of the lawsuit and the artists supporting it. This battle isn't just about legal artistic expression, it's about the street art from which it is derived?and, of course, it's about money.