Nov 242010
 

The Militant Pedestrian and Captain Commanokers spied this new piece of art on N. Limestone near Fifth. They loved it and are here (probably illegally) reproducing it. We’d love to know who did it and its official title. Email noceditors@yahoo.com or post the Truth on noclexington.com.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis

  18 Responses to “North Limestone art”

  1. Mystery solved! This came in an email from the artist:

    Hi there, a friend on facebook told me you guys might be looking for my info in regards to the guitar tree mural I painted for BrokenFork, a company that just bought the duplex at 509 N. lime across from Duncan Park. She said it might be appearing in your paper..sounds exciting….I only ask that you include my information if you wish to use any images of it, such as my name, Niah Soult, and my website http://www.colormywalls.com. If you have any other questions, feel free to send them my way!

    Thanks so much and have a Happy Thanksgiving!

  2. THE TRUTH: is that you blatantly disrespected the artist and the art work through illegal reproduction. Why not just wait til you get all the facts and the necessary permission before printing this image?! You demand others to see your journalism as copyrighted material, how could you not value an artist’s work as their creative property? The fact is you do know and were aware that it wasn’t right, but you did it anyway. WHY?! Seriously? Are you that lazy and ignorant that you can’t just ask? Isn’t journalism about field research, collecting facts and reporting accurately? C’mon, its not like you would have had to traveled the earth to find out any info on the work! You could have had one of the photographers acknowledged in the caption go knock on the door of the building the mural is painted on! But NO! Instead you just run and say…Hey Facts! Hey Truth! Reveal yourself, cause we aren’t going to make any effort in looking for you! Its a disgrace to your profession, to your paper, to your writers, to the EDITOR, and to the community, the real NOC. I bet you would have collected all the facts and permission if this piece were hangin in some gallery! What’s that say about how you view our neighborhood?! Oh, the fact that its outside, and not being held in some sacredly protected place, its just some hood art, someone who probably doesn’t read our “progressive magazine”. We won’t get in any trouble. This is what your actions reflect.

    The Truth: You can chalk this up to some outraged ego of an artist getting the better of her. Sure, starving artists rely heavily on name recognition. But If I were only seeking name recognition, don’t you think my signature would be visibly obvious? I intentionally hide my signature, for I want my work to be recognized through a consistent style of my own. What pisses me off so much is how I am finding out about it. I feel VIOLATED. ANd nothing makes me more angry. It’s not like you were unaware, either. YOU KNOW BETTER. THIS IS PART OF JOURNALISM 101: ETHICS for crying out loud. Not only did you abandon your professional obligation, but you so cunningly delegate your job responsibilities of telling the truth to the artist of this work! Shameful.

    I can’t believe you chose not to research the source of this image. I can’t believe you chose to publish this image without seeking, or receiving permission. I can’t believe you chose to not recognize the artist alongside the photographers you named in the caption. I can’t believe you admitted in print to knowing your actions were illegal. I honestly can’t believe you run a paper, period.

    THE TRUTH IS

  3. Niah,

    Surely you are not naive enough to believe that public art cannot be photographed and reproduced without permission? There is no requirement for identifying who the artist is and Danny actually made an act of good faith by asking for info about the artist was so they could credit you. This whining commentary only makes you look bad … is this how you want to represent yourself to the world?

    • Dear Michael,

      Since the editor of NOC has threatened to use any comments left on his blog as a self-composed letter to the editor, I’d like to have your email address to reassure that the statement or response I make will not be published against my will.
      I clicked on your name and it sent me to another blog but the name of the author did not match yours. Are you Thivai Arbhor?
      I was assuming that the questions in your comment are in fact being asked for the purpose of eliciting actual answers from me. But if in fact you were asking questions to serve more as a statement of your opinions, then please do not feel obliged to provide me with your email address.

  4. Niah,

    I wouldn’t want you to have justify your organized attacks on NOC in a public forum 😉

    Your ignorance of a photographer’s rights, media practices (esp. non-profit, citizen media), civil rights and purpose of public art, is astounding.

    Your marshaling of your cohorts to attack North of Center on FB is sickening.

    “What I discovered is that a lot of people have ideas — often very clear ones — of what is legal and what isn’t, based on anything from common sense to wishful thinking to “I always heard…” Trouble is, they aren’t always right.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

    his has some general guidelines about publishing at the bottom
    Basically, if it’s visible from a public space (i.e. you can see it with the naked eye while from… a public space, and it’s not someone/something with a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” you can take photos of it
    And if it’s for non-commercial (including news) purposes you can publish it

    If it’s a mural on the side of a building it’s obviously public.

    Just so we are clear here… Danny doesn’t charge anything for the paper and has never made a profit.

    This is ridiculous. No one took advantage of Niah and/or her art. I would advise you to develop an understanding of Photographer rights and the role/purpose of public art. This is all hypocritical on Niah’s part as she never signed the work and she (and her cohorts) slandered Danny’s good faith effort to publicize a piece of community art and to identify the artist.

    This is an essential civil right of documenting public places and public events, that is threatened by our police state, interesting to see local artists trying to intimidate their public, non-profit media in the same way http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

    Photography Is Not a Crime http://boingboing.net/2010/09/30/the-photographers-ri.html

    Do restrictions on commercial photography affect photos I take for a blog or newspaper article?

    In most cases they don’t. The law varies, but in most cases restrictions on commercial photography only apply when photos are used for advertising or promotional purposes. This also relates to photos used for book and magazine covers (as these photos promote the book or magazine), but photos used for editorial purposes in magazines, newspapers or the internet are not considered commercial.

    In other words you shouldn’t be required to get a permit to take a few photos to put on your blog.

    By the way, I am Michael Benton, but I’m sure Thivai will be interested in mapping this all out for Dialogic readers.

  5. Niah,

    You suggest that the act of publishing comments from this website or facebook page in our print paper is somehow testament to an act against your will.

    You are free to hold that position, but for other readers, I would point out that what Niah describes is standard practice at just about any other print publication–journalism or otherwise–that I can think of. In other words, this is a pretty mainstream idea. You can listen to an artist who has already completely mischaracterized IP photography laws in leveling accusations against this paper, or you can check out the Herald Leader or Rolling Stone or any other print-focused publication that appears online.

    For Niah, I would say that I can assure you that when completed my remarks will, like yours, appear on this webpage and in print format. You may not be happy with the fact that our paper moves slower than you would like, and that I am uninterested in continuing this debate via livestream clips on Facebook, and that I disagree with your assumptions about our actions and the very nature of public art, but you’re gonna have to live with it. This is not your paper; we are doing nothing illegal; in fact, we are doing nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to providing reader feedback. You do not set the terms in this forum.

    However much you may disagree with our attribution, I hope you can see that when we published an image of your mural (with 2 references to “love” in it), we did not alter in any way the lines of your mural’s composition. You’ll not alter the lines of our freely donated bi-monthly public act, though you may contribute to and comment on it all you like.

  6. Niah you need to come into reality, grow some, buck up, develop your stiff upper lip, be a man etc and stop the navel gazing. You should be thanking NOC not writing them a ticket.

  7. BTW as far as the unique style?? it looks like a John Lackey or a Bruno Bareto.

    • Shea,
      I’m unfamiliar with Bruno’s work, however am flattered by the comparison to one of my favorite artists and people of all time. Though I must say those of us who are quite fond of Lackey’s work and are well acquainted with his signature style would highlight the vast differences of Lackey’s form, line work, detail, subject and color combinations. Perhaps these fundamental characteristics of an artistic style may not be as valued to those not pursuing artistic interests. I can see where you’re coming from though, for both Johnny and I have painted a tree before.

  8. Shea,

    Maybe you are unaware, but Niah’s artwork is all over Lexington. Including, but not limited to, Mellow Mushroom, Cosmic Charlie’s and the Legacy Trail. Her art is recognizable to the people who have taken time to look over her body of work. The John Lackey comparison hardly makes sense as he mostly does posters for events/bands. Her only goal was to make sure that the readers of NoC knew she was the artist, so if they did enjoy the piece she could garner a larger audience and perhaps sell some of her work to those interested. Don’t knock an artist for wanting her information to be included. How can you thank a paper for showing your work when they leave your name out of it?

  9. I can’t speak for Shea, but this paper has said that they loved Niah’s artwork–twice, in the span of 5 sentences, in print. FYI: I’m pretty sure John Lackey does murals and paintings, along with posters, not to mention etchings.

    Regarding your final question on possible responses: This might be an alternate path that has some pretty direct connections, no? (Scroll down, and also note Blake’s response.)

    http://thelexingtonstreetsweeper.blogspot.com/2010/07/street-scenes-as-we-get-closer-to-weg.html

    Surprisingly, here’s what that discussion led to a month later:

    http://thelexingtonstreetsweeper.blogspot.com/2010/08/eco-art-in-lexington.html

  10. I will no longer publish comments on this post. If anyone would like to continue this increasingly juvenile conversation, feel free to do so in another venue.

    Ms. Sault, most artists appreciate free publicity. Instead, you imply with your use of the term “hood art” that what you claim is illegal reproduction of your piece was somehow racially motivated, and that implication is something I will not abide.

    Rest assured that neither your name nor your work will appear in the pages of NoC again.

  11. […] everyone as the founders of LAL, have educated people with urban wildlife murals, have changed the facades of apartments with paintings, and have, most recently, used graffiti to put NoLi on the international art […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.