Photo courtesy of www.nycgovparks.org

By Paul Bisceglio

The Union Square Partnership and New York City Department of Parks & Recreation has introduced a new sculpture in Union Square Park.

“Microscopic Landscape” is a 24 foot, 7,500 pound installation by Malcolm D. MacDougall III, a 22-year-old graduate of SUNY Purchase College’s School of Art and Design who currently works in a Dobbs Ferry studio on the banks of the Hudson River. The sculpture is his first exhibition in New York.

The city’s Rec Department stated that the sculpture and the park share a “natural dialogue”:

“Microscopic Landscape finds its inspiration in the multi-faceted structures and activities seen on the molecular level. The sculpture . . . is a static object that maintains the constant anticipation of movement, just as the grounds of Union Square provide the framework for the energetic flow of people and commerce.”

The sculpture can be found on the plaza of Union Square’s Triangle Park on Broadway and Park Avenue South between 14th and 15th Streets, now through January 2013.

The Department of Parks and Recreation is to be commended for proposing to restrict the number of “expressive matter” vendors in parts of Central Park and all of Union Square Park, Battery Park and the High Line Park. The numbers of vendors in these locations has skyrocketed to the point where the physical and visual clutter of their kitschy souvenirs and often derivative and copycat wares are a serious detriment to the use of these parks for passive enjoyment and as a restive retreat from the hustle and bustle of the city around us.

Much has been made of the vendors rights under the First Amendment. I heard those same arguments made by those that defended graffiti on our subways in the 70′s and 80′s. Clearly the city has the authority to regulate expression when that expression defaces and degrades our public property. I think few would argue for a return to the days of free expression on the walls of our subway cars. The city has the same authority and obligation to maintain our parks free from the clutter of an unregulated number of vendor tables. Besides, “expressive matter” vendors are not being forced out of these parks completely; rather the regulations achieve a better balance between the rights of the few and the rights of the many by limiting their number.

Opponents of these regulations also raise the specter of a Parks Department that wants to force vendors away from these locations so that they can be auctioned off to concessionaires. Yet I have not heard a shred of evidence to suggest that the city has any plans to do this. Could it be that the city is simply trying to fulfill its duty to its citizens by reclaiming our public park land for public use?

When I visit Union Square Park I expect to be able to enjoy a relaxing experience, sitting on a park bench enjoying the plantings and monuments. Instead I have to run a gauntlet of commercial detritus that rings a good portion of the southern half of the park on a daily basis, forcing me to stay within a narrow path instead of allowing me to cross the plaza at a point of my choosing or enter the subway at my leisure. Anyone who wishes to visit a flea market or crafts fair has plenty of opportunities to do so in a wide variety of venues that don’t impinge on my rights to enjoy some peace and quiet in our parks. Should I be forced to squeeze my way between vendor tables to get to the seating near the Gandhi statue in the southwest corner of the park?  Bombarded by all this visual clutter how can I even begin to contemplate the simple life that Gandhi espoused? As I sit on the grand stairs outside the Metropolitan Museum about to see or having just seen the great works of art within, should I be forced to confront a sea of souvenir tables all around me?

It’s not just me. The interests of millions of tax paying citizens and their constitutional rights to enjoy our city’s parks for what they were intended to be, tranquil oases in the midst of the busy city, cannot be allowed to take a back seat to the commercial interests of a relatively minuscule number of “expressive matter” vendors.

Brad Taylor is a Morningside Heights resident.

Ed Bobrow
Photographer

To the Editor:
The problem is not the artists, it’s the people who are selling illegally reproduced materials. I’ve lived at Columbus Circle for 25 years and there are precious few actual artists there. Most of the sellers all around the park are hawking the same illegally reproduced, copyright infringed, cheaply photocopied reproductions of magazine covers, 9/11 paintings, greeting cards, movie posters, film stills and other mass produced materials that are being ripped off from the original designers and artists. The problem with Robert Lederman and his group is that they do not fight for bona fide artists. The city needs to take a stand and monitor who is selling what and hold the copyright infringers accountable. If that isn’t done, this issue will never be settled.

Sam Katz
Manhattan

To the Editor:
ARTIST advocates for artists who are protected by the First Amendment. Under New York City law, that protection extends to anyone selling art, not just artists. Therefore, art vendors are as protected as artists, the same way book vendors who did not write the books they sell are as protected as authors. ARTIST does not defend those who sell copyright-infringed art. The NYPD could do such enforcement if it chose to. ARTIST is not a police organization and we do not engage in vending enforcement. We do recommend that anyone whose art was infringed document the selling of it and sue, as a number of artists have successfully done. It is a shame that someone like Ms. Katz who knows better would spread such utter nonsense rather than help fight for artists’ rights.

Robert Lederman
President, ARTIST

Letters have been edited for clarity, style and brevity.

In crowded vending hotspots in Manhattan, including Columbus Circle and Central Park South, the Parks Department wants art vendors to set up shop only in designated areas.

Under the new regulations, vendors who sell what the department calls “expressive matter”—any kind of visual art, newspapers, books or writing—would only be permitted to do so in a predetermined place denoted with a numbered department decal. The artist who claims the spot first gets to set up shop.

Artist and vendor J. Alison Powell sells her paintings at Columbus Circle. Photos by Andrew Schwartz

On Columbus Circle, there would be spots for four vendors—two near Central Park West and two near Central Park South. Five vendors would be allowed to set up shop along Central Park South. Other parks affected by the regulation include Union Square Park, the High Line in Chelsea, Battery Park and most of Fifth Avenue near Central Park. In other, less crowded areas of Central Park, vendors can sell art under regular guidelines.

Since the Giuliani administration, artists have fought for the right to vend where they want, as long they follow rules that include keeping walkways and sidewalks clear, and having a properly sized table. Naturally, this group is again pushing back against the proposed regulations.

“We won’t be leaving the park this time. I got lawyers lined up working on this lawsuit,” said Robert Lederman, president of ARTIST, an advocacy group. “It’s not going to get the artists out of the park.”

Lederman, who has been arrested dozens of times for protesting regulations, successfully sued Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in 2001 on First Amendment grounds, ending a rule that required artists to get permits.

“What I’m saying here is that Mike Bloomberg and [Parks Commissioner] Adrian Benepe, they either have to stop pretending to be art patrons or stop trying to trash street artists’ First Amendment rights,” Lederman said.

The department and Central Park Conservancy, however, argue that artists are crowding out parkgoers, blocking benches and entrances, and obstructing views.

“Over the last few years, the number [of art vendors] has increased dramatically,” said Doug Blonsky, the conservancy’s president. “The areas they concentrate at have been getting unbelievable congestion.”

Blonsky said that pedestrians have complained—though the department did not provide any details about how many complaints it has received—about park crowding, and that the proposed rule will clear up space.

“It’s not about getting rid of them, but creating a reasonable number,” he said.

Later this month, the department will take public comments and hold meetings to get community feedback before moving forward with the proposal.

J. Alison Powell, a painter whose main source of income is selling her art, was one of the few vendors at Columbus Circle on a bustling, sunny Friday afternoon. Powell, who stationed her table near the curb, worried that a scant number of spots could force her out of well-trafficked tourist areas.

“It definitely would take away from myself and two children,” said Powell, a widow and single mother. “It’s hard enough as it is.”

Instead of limiting space, Powell believes artists should have a large swath of space to sell their work, which adds to the city’s allure.

“It’s what makes New York attractive to people. It draws people to the stores,” she said.

Other artist vendors argue that if the department were truly concerned with park crowding, officials would enforce existing laws designed to keep entrances, benches, statues and trees clear of art.

One such artist is Mitchell Balmuth, a political button vendor stationed near the Metropolitan Museum of Art who was a plaintiff in Lederman’s 2001 lawsuit against the city. He believes that the fewer “expressive matter” vendors, the more space the department will have for concessions with lucrative contracts, such as holiday markets.

“We are competition for their concessions,” said Balmuth, who said he will risk arrest before obeying the new rules.

Brewer wrote the Parks Department Nov. 19 to request funding for an additional city parks worker to keep the park clean between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m.

“The park is filthy, and the trash is particularly apparent in the morning rush hour when people go to the subway,” Brewer wrote to the department’s borough commissioner, William Castro.

“We get constant complaints about the park, especially when the weather gets warm,” Brewer said. “I’ve been down there in the morning and the trash receptacles are overflowing. People leave their lunch on the benches, their cigarettes, there’s a gum problem. Somebody needs to be attached to [the park], and tell people, ‘Hey, you can’t put your lunch there.’”

Castro responded Dec. 11, pointing out the park was cleaned “at least once most days and twice daily on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.” However, the letter went on, “I agree with you that it would be very helpful to have a worker assigned to start cleaning the park before the morning rush hour.”

Now, Verdi Square may look a bit cleaner.

In a letter to Benepe, the legislators called the park a needed amenity for West Siders.

“We view the timely completion of the park as a longstanding promise to our constituents,” read the letter signed by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, State Sen. Tom Duane, Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal and Council Member Gale Brewer.

In the original plan for Riverside South, the park plans in Phase 5, which covers an area between West 68th and 66th streets, did not include moving part of the highway underground.

The letter agued that constructing the park now—before receiving adequate public funding to build the underground cavity—would not impede relocating the expressway in the future.

The parks department is currently reviewing the letter.

“We look forward to continuing to work with these elected officials to fully achieve the vision for Riverside Park South,” said the department in a statement. “All parties have the goal of a waterfront park for the 21st century that is not under an elevated highway.”